• Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot underWP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here?~Swarm~^{sting}11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

helloSwarm!, about the problem on my talk,MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing|postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab onChrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me inWP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware ofWP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producingerrors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly.192.76.8.70 (talk)11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who areactually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though.ProcrastinatingReader (talk)11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, asMB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above,|Postal_code= or|iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong.~Swarm~^{sting}11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.

In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting[1]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"

In this edit[2] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.

In this edit[3] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.

You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters[4][5][6]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:

|pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2

|pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2

Rather than being deleted.

I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous.192.76.8.70 (talk)11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.

On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (seeWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like[7], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, likethis, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval).ProcrastinatingReader (talk)11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the|pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell perCategory:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.

In this edit[8] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?

You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter.192.76.8.70 (talk)12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit[9]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error?192.76.8.70 (talk)12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes|pin_code= was mistaken to be a|postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.

I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn'tspecifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it'sgenerally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible.192.76.8.70 (talk)12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?

" i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think?Begoon13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about|longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have read the documentation atTemplate:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them.192.76.8.70 (talk)13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said,"if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewedmost of them,except those you missed. Can you elaborate?Begoon13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result.Begoon13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, andwill comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top ofWP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create aWP:BOT account. —Rhododendrites^talk \\13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you.Begoon13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue.Begoon13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion!-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:

"So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"

I'm particularly interested in"whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result.Begoon14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon 1.stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.

2.take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though...Begoon14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ijust fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption.Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully.-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?

You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance.Begoon15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk)15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? —Rhododendrites^talk \\17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances.Nil Einne (talk)18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. :/ Looks like the message didn't sink in. —Rhododendrites^talk \\21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly viaCategory:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25.Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why shall trolling usernames, only intended to disrupt collaborative editing, be allowed to stand?TrangaBellam (talk)22:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass revert seems appropriate. There are scripts that do the bulk of them in a few clicks (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback).ProcrastinatingReader (talk)01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm jaded but the user name, signature and edit summaries smelltroll to me. Coupled with the inability to read the mood here and the arbitrary nature of the edits (some improve things and some don't), I would be inclined to block indefinitely, particularly if problems continue.Johnuniq (talk)04:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  2,000 edits, most of them helpful, without attracting attention until the 1,900th edit, doesn't smell like a troll to me. It seems more like a CIR problem to me. I don't think it changes the outcome; a longer block is probably appropriate if the editor fails to comprehend the problem. –Jonesey95 (talk)05:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d recommend a conversion to indef for CIR indistinguishable from trolling, pending only a loggedWP:CONDUNBLOCK.~Swarm~^{sting}17:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, troll or incompetent, either way, the username just screams "I'm not here to make your lives any easier".SN5412918:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:UNCONF. Basically, a “confusing” username (excessive length is cited as an example) is strongly discouraged but not outright prohibited by the policy. However, such a username should be viewed through the lens of its edits, and it can be viewed as an aggravating factor, including when issuing blocks. That’s the policy guidance as far as the username goes. Regarding the user, if there are no objections I am not going to let the block expire and will be converting it to an indef until a conditional unblock can be negotiated. Regarding the edits, if there are no objections to a mass rollback I can do that as well.~Swarm~^{sting}01:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  ThanksSwarm, makes sense.SN5412914:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  For icing on the cake, seeUser:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo.Johnuniq (talk)09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  And they stole the name I was going to use if/when I rename my account! I wonder if User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo2 is free... But on a serious note, at thepending changes reviewer page, they tried to "up" their account, after making the required minimum edits to get that far. Past experience suggests they're not a new editor and/or up to no good.Lugnuts^{Fire Walk with Me}14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The one week block will expire tomorrow, so it would be good if someone evaluated consensus in this discussion concerning the site ban.--Ymblanter (talk)07:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  He's gonna vandalize again!!!!!!!!Cranloa12n /talk /contribs /15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just browsing through ANI and saw this report. It seemed like there was a request here to mass revert this editor many edits but when I checked, this hadn't been done. Is this an action that folks are advocating? Mass revert is most effective to do soon after the edits have been made...in my experience, when another edit has been made to the page in question, the edit can no longer be reverted. It has to be the most current, latest edit to the page. I'm sure if my understanding isn't correct, someone will tell me.Liz^Read!Talk!04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment & Declaration: Thank you very much beforehand for everyone who attend this discussion. These are some of my statements that i made per my talk page since i was blocked. There are 4 points on this to conclude.

1. It has been a week since @Swarm, @Begoon, @192.76.8.70, @Rhododendrites, @Ymblanter and @Jonesey95 mentioned me on ANI, and on those times, i have made a significant changes in my approach since i'am blocked, but first of all, i'm sorry for what i did, i should have stop editing the template while the ANI discussion is going that night, if only i show restraint on the editing and listen to others, it wont became a bigger issue like this. As @192.76.8.70 said;"what is fixing if it came out even worse?". and i re-thinked about their saying that night, and then i realized for what i did was wrong. i will not do it again in the near future.

2. My commitment now is clear that i will stop editing on the template format, and will just doing some minor maintenance instead on other articles, ie. adding citations, adding contents per WP:RS. etc, and going back to my non-disruptive pattern prior to 25 march 2022. and i will stay away from the Template Settlements, my intent is that;i wont repeat the same mistake that i did as per my commitment above. And as a reassurance note; notably i'm active on editing such things as minor improvements on other pages before i mede this big erros after 25 march 2022. And as a track record you can check my edits starting from this date (14:39, 25 March 2022) to the even older ones to the bottom. And you can see the diffrences between my editing pattern on those times compared to the times where i edited the settlements template. however this did not justify my recent editing actions which is an obvious mistake and problematic.

3. The statements that i made above is my commitment, and it did teaches me something, As of this times, i already recognizes my mistake. for example, as shown onthis revision, it's very obvious that it is my mistake, because i thought those parameters is not usable and is not a valid parameter, but turned up it is a valid parameter and i blindly deleted it just because there is a gibberish vandalism in it, and i blindly do this repeatedly in many settlement articles. and as@192.76.8.70 andJonesey95 said; i could've fixed it into more proper format and/or convert it into a modern format because some of them used the old format, and also it is better that if i read the documentation template first before making any edits. and as my statement above, i will refrain, to even stop and persistently not do so again. and most importantlyI will never do any form of rapid editing again as perWP:MEATBOT since it isineffective,inaccurate and willreduce an article quality. so because of this; i will slow down & put as much attention as possible to an article when editing them in the near future. and also regarding on the mass revert, please do so if possible.

4. per points i said above, i accept an administrative actions pointed towards me, because the mistake i did was very obvious. but i hope an indef block is not neccessary, since i will stop this type of editing and will act conscientiously according to wikipedia policy. And thank you for your valued directives given to me that night, i say this is what makes the encyclopaedia a better place. atleast there are people that are willing to help me reach a better productive measure towards editing. Thank you-Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango (talk)16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize for the delay, I am traveling and on mobile. Without objection, I have converted the user’s temporary block to indefinite pending a CONDUNBLOCK. I am also initiating a mass rollback, again, without objection. In my opinion the standardized unblock negotiation process can handle this from here, and this thread can be closed. I appreciate everyone’s feedback.~Swarm~^{sting}22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  The mass rollback has been actioned, and to address Liz’s concern, in spite of the delay, I consider it to have been successful, with over 1,500 edits rolled back, most of them probably never vetted. Sadly this means there are still many changes that were not rolled back, however the majority of them were.~Swarm~^{sting}22:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have the full context and don't know whether you've done more harm than good, but that may not have been a good idea. Before clicking the link in your edit summary that led here, I reverted two of your rollbacks,[10] and[11], atMaso Sahar andKatrathal, because I saw that they consisted of (re-)adding fake parameters to infoboxes. I stopped short when I realized it was a long-established editor (you) making those edits and was wondering whether your account had been hacked.Largoplazo (talk)22:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are 100% going to be good edits that get reverted, that is a full guarantee. The assumption here is that it’s impractical to resolve this user’s errors any other way than a full mass revert, and that such a mass revert would be more of a net positive in the grand scheme of things. Any errors that are noticed should be re-reverted or fixed down the line, and that is an eventualist trust that is placed in the community. However it is in the best interest of the project to run this script. Regardless, I could have done this immediately, and I brought it here for feedback instead, and the feedback was quite clear. It is done now after ample time has been given for feedback, and it cannot be undone. I thank you for fixing some of the mistakes but you should not be wondering if my account has been hacked when I included a diff to this explanation that it is a mass rollback, in the context of the lengthy discussion and evidence above.~Swarm~^{sting}23:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that there are bound to be good edits caught up in a mass rollback. I am very leery of using this powerful tool and I think I've only used it with sockpuppets. You can also select individual namespaces and just do mass reverts in particular ones, I'm most familiar with a sockpuppet who disrupts categories so I've used it to revert edits in Category space. Glad to see you back,Swarm.Liz^Read!Talk!23:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, nobody volunteered to scan the 2,000 edits that contained roughly a 25% error rate. I reviewed about 100 edits, but I do not have the patience to review 2,000. As I posted above, a mass revert appeared to be the least bad option available. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),pleaseEl_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl.El_C14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire晚安 (トークページ)06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,pleaseEl_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plllllljn.El_C11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

no晚安 (トークページ)11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/22,pleaseEl_C block it,also,please protect Bag (Spam and DE after last protect),thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem09:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mnnnnm.El_C13:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What if MCC214 could block the IPs?Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs!08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

that would be great, so el_c would stop making these keyboard mashes晚安 (トークページ)11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Found Many unsourced edits being published without any reliable source and being continuously undoing the edits. No Citations Found— Precedingunsigned comment added byPmk456 (talk •contribs)16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Pmk456: As the red text near the top of the page states, youmust notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Please providediffs to the problematic edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Based onthis edit by the OP we may need aWP:BOOMERANG.MarnetteD|Talk21:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. There's a lot of shouting in a few of the edit summaries with threats to block ([17][18]), including the one in the diff MarnetteD provided. I dare say it comes close to threats given the attitude used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May be conjecture, but is it not a coincidence that in 99.9% of cases where the OP has failed to notify the reported user, the OP in fact is at fault/WP:BOOMERANG-eligible? I guess that's not always surprising, though I do wonder what exactly is the cause of this. Regards,User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me |Contributions).23:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Failure to follow the clear instructions on this page regarding notification is probably correlated with failures inWP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️01:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Walter420 seems to have made a couple legal threats against IPs who were vandalizing articles ([19],[20]) and, upon closer inspection,placed a block template on the talk page of a user who isnot blocked. This is just from a cursory check of the user's contribs.AviationFreak💬22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for the legal threats.Cullen328 (talk)22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a sock of, among other accounts,Crab Meat Hooperbag. I'll put in a glock request, and suggest that any talk page conversation is not going to be very extended. --zzuuzz^(talk)22:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Genre warriorLKF2006 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been warned multiple times (diff,diff,diff), yet seems to be completely unbothered. Genre additions (mostly "adult") are either unsourced or poorly sourced despite having been specifically warned to adhere toMOS:TVGENRE, also instances of edit warring (diff,diff,diff,diff,diff,diff).Throast (talk |contribs)19:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, strange habit of blanking and then self-reverting (see edit histories ofList of adult animated television series before 1990,List of adult animated television series of the 1990s,List of adult animated television series of the 2000s,List of adult animated television series of the 2010s,List of adult animated television series of the 2020s). I don't think this should be ignored.Throast (talk |contribs)01:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Shashank1947 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)

I'd like some help in getting this user to respond on a talk page, like once. I'm grateful that they're updating WP, but I'd really like if they communicate as to why something (maybelike this andthis to start with) should be removed. All my attempts on their talk page, or edit summaries are futile. Mobile edit, sure.WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, maybe? —DaxServer (t ·m ·c)15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yep,WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. It is truly astonishing what the WMF can spend stupid amounts of money on, yet ensuring editors can see their messages is (despite being a major issue) apparently something that they can't be bothered to fix. Spectacular incompetence, but don't expect it to be fixed any time soon.Black Kite (talk)16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The mobile sites and apps should either be fixed promptly or shut down, since they actively impede collaborative editing. The fully functional desktop site works just fine on modern smartphones and mobile devices.Cullen328 (talk)21:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) They are a logged-in mobile web editor. A big red circle is shown to them about new notifications since at least a couple of years; see some screenshots at the bottom ofphab:T229902. There is anopen ticket about making it more intrusive, but it's not like they aren't seeing any intimation of the alerts.Hemantha (talk)04:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

106.203.238.218(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS) is continuously making vandal edits onDirector's Kut Productions andAnupama: Namaste America. He's also using negative remarks in plot summary forTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah for it's makers over a small mistake and promoting the same negative remarks inPacker&Tracker's talk page. I suspect him to be blocked UserPrincepratap1234's IP trying to evade his global block as usual seeing his talk and edit summary pattern and geo location also. Administrators please look into this matter.Pri2000 (talk)14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ohh wow, I was helping you in makingAnupama: Namaste America page better and you are accusing me for no reason. I did not say anything to you and did not make any derogatory marks on anyone.You try to own a page and don't let other people edit it.WP:OWN. even somone help you , you will betray them.106.203.238.218 (talk)15:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? Also, you should have notified the IP, but it's a moot point now.Singularity42 (talk)15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: I tried to make him understand this thing. You can see his talk page. But he started creating more degradatory remarks. You can see edit history. And this person is none other than Princepratap1234 who harassed and stalked me brutally in the past even on the day when I created the draft. There he made negative remarks against me and used my real name in edit summary which he came to know after severely stalking me. He doesn't stop here. God knows how many e-mail address he owns. That he comes by new IP. Few days back when I reverted an unconstructive edit by an User on Anupamaa he created negativity against me there also. Even he sent me a mail again 4-5 days back that his IP is blocked and I should remove all his contributions. I blocked his that mail again. He even harasses one other editor in same way.Pri2000 (talk)15:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When did i make derogatory remark on someone. anyone can see my contibution and check if i made a derogatory remarks or did vandalism.106.203.238.218 (talk)16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to create any edit war. Administrators just see his talk page,Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah edit history and Packer&Tracker talk page once. What's the need of using detractors remarks even on makers. These type of mistakes can happen in daily lives even happen in publication house producing History books. So will we call them that they just intend to make money???Pri2000 (talk)16:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Pri2000:: I don't seeany evidence of vandalism. What is see is two different perspectives on what makes an article better. You like your version better, they like their version better. This is acontent dispute and should go throughdispute resolution, which does not need any admins. When you use a word like "vandalism" in this sense, that is just wrong. Vandalismonly means that someone is trying to ruin a Wikipedia article, like by adding random swear words to it, and that isnot what is happening here. Accusing people of "vandalism" when they clearly are not doing that is a Bad Idea, and you should stop doing that immediately. I would strike the word from your vocabulary until you learn to use it correctly. Secondly, other than a single use of the word "shameful", I don't see any other derogatory remarks. Probably not the best choice of words on their part, but seriously, that's not a sanctionable offense. What Ido see at that article is an edit war; which you each should stop immediately, lest you both get blocked. I have no idea on the sockpuppetry issue,WP:SPI is thataway. --Jayron3216:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• A brief review of the IP's edits show the following less-than-kind remarks that Pri2000 is likely referring to:

Do they care about our country.They just care about money and being indian i did not like that thing.

see this https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/taarak-mehta-ka-ooltah-chashmah-team-apologises-for-airing-incorrect-fact-about-lata-mangeshkar-song-7887764/. Creator of this show does not even know out country history.

I see nothing else that constitutes vandalism or derogatory comments. Nothing actionable.EvergreenFir(talk)16:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• June Parker (talk ·contribs)

My first interaction with this editor was on the articleMelissa King assault case, where I reverted their removal of categories. First sign of problems was theirrevert of my edit where they were going to ″cut the bull and call me a liar″ immediately assuming bad faith and throwing in a personal attack as a bonus. They were given a civility notice about this edit summary on their own talk page by a different editor, where I alsowent to provide my reasoning for the edit as well as observations I made about their similarity and convenient timing of editing to an editor named Desertambition (who incidentally, is also a current report on this board). The initialresponse to this was not particularly notable aside from their continued refusal to assume good faith, justifying it by percieving others not doing the same, and they denied being a sock. However this apparently lit a fire in June Parker and they would not let go of insisting that I was directly accusing them of being a sockpuppet in edits such as these:1(a bit strange to claim a summon was made to this apparently aside from stumbling across the same article at the same time unrelated editor when there was no ping, and they apparently just found it on their own),2,3,4,5,6,78. That's eight (has gone up as I've been writing this) diffs accusing me of calling them a sockpuppet, based on my initial message on their talk page.

Throughout these diffs you will also see a complete lack of the conceptsWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA, aside from vandals I've reverted, I've never had so many assumptions spewn at me, particularly disturbing is the fixation on the white genocide conspiracy theory which Parker, for some reason, keeps bringing up despite no one else so much as mentioning it. Apparently because of my relevant edits, I am″obviously passionate about the white genocide myth″. I have never so much as read in depth about this conspiracy theory, let alone made edits about it, which makes the accususation all the more perplexing.

They showed up also onTalk:Melanin theoryhere claiming I had expressed I ″believe this page which describes a form of racism black people commit against all non-black races should be labelled as "Anti-white" and nothing else″, which like many things this editor says, came out of thin air.

I have tried to resolve and cool down the situation, but to no avail since the more I say and try the more crap I get thrown at me so I don't see what else to do but take it here since this editor is violating policies. --TylerBurden (talk)02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating June Parker and I are sockpuppeting:

1.[33]

2.[34]

3.[35]

4. Right before posting on ANI:[36]Desertambition (talk)02:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fast response, so you're going with the same reach but instead of accusing I'm insinuating? Like I said, being suspiscious of something and making observations, is different from directly accusing someone. Which you also falsely accused me of doinghere.TylerBurden (talk)02:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Accusing" and "insinuating" is adistinction without a difference.Desertambition (talk)02:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I never accused anyone and your diffs themselves show that.TylerBurden (talk)02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Given June Parker called for Desertambition to besanctioned for an unrelated dispute they weren't involved in unless we're playing a game of 4D chess here the sockpuppet concerns are hopefully not justified.AusLondonder (talk)08:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I recently read a wiki essay to do with wikihounding, which I was not aware of until recently. My intent in appearing on those talk pages was after revisiting some of the articles I had previously edited (IncludingMelanin theory) and viewing the contributions of Sangdeboeuf.

What I said there is fine to analyze but I had no intention to wikihound, which is an odd accusation coming from this user given that they appear to have entered two conversations on my talk page that had naught to do with them in order to accuse me of being a sock puppet, by suggesting my "Editing style", timing, and subject matter was too similar to Desertambition, multiple times, and then backpedaling when I defended myself against that. Also lauded with accusations of a bad faith attempt to "Whitewash" controversial South Africna politicians and events.

To boot, they seem to have a dispute with Desertambition which they engaged in on my talk page. After I tried to funnel multiple conversations we had into my talk page they continued to engage until I stopped.Which I doubt is against the rules, but I don't think Tyler has a right to complain about me being uncivil with the amount of things he has said to me, especially when I tried to be mature and end the conversation. By egging the convo on, attacking me, and now bringing the case here.

Feel free to deep scrub both me and Desertambition to prove we are not socks, as given this entire write up by Tyler he is still convinced I am a sockpuppet, naturally I won't let go of something if I am repeadetly called one. I have had multiple edit conflicts trying to post this too.

I am going to bed. Notify me of your decision in the morning.June Parker (talk)02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, so won't be responding here anymore tonight (I am usually either entirely inactive or less active editing during weekends but will try and keep up with the thread the best I can, but there's more to life than Wikipedia, espescially drama on Wikipedia). I will leave it on this: once again an accusation out of thin air, hounding is not something I have ever accused you of, so I'm not surprised to see that backed up with as much thin air as it came out of. Goodnight/whatever it is for you.TylerBurden (talk)02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Let me see if I got this right, because this is a confusing thread. On03:51, 21 April 2022, June Parker personally attacks TylerBurden with an edit summary that read (in part):I’m going to cut the bull and call you a liar. Not someone who made a mistake. Not someone who tolda lie. But aliar (i.e. someone who lies habitually). Not the most egregious personal attack, but it's still weird and unnecessaryWP:BATTLEGROUND. I presume that's what Doug Weller's NPA warning on08:52, 21 April 2022 was about, but who can really tell? Not even Doug, I'm sure.

Then, on11:25, 21 April 2022, TylerBurden says the following to Doug Weller about June Parker, stating (in part):It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least. After that, it's basically June Parker sayingwhy did you call me sock? with TylerBurden responding withI didn't call you a sock. And on and on that rendition goes with great repetition, and with neither side relenting. Oh, and17:36, 21 April 2022, Desertambition provides a super-friendly advise that talks about pearl-clutching or something (at length). Still not sure what admins are expected to do right now with... whatever this is, though it doesn't look to be heading anywhere good.El_C04:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This whole incident started with an egregious personal attack by June Parker, who went on to engage in repetitive axe grinding about sock accusations. It looks to me that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible, although I am prepared to be proven wrong by a dramatic change in their behavior.Cullen328 (talk)05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty uncharitable reading given that they insinuated June Parker and I were socking four separate times, including right before this ANI post. I have no relation to June Parker and it seems like "heavily insinuating" is pretty close to accusing someone. Surely there would be a similar issue if I was implying users I disagree with are socks. It's understandable that people would get defensive when accused of socking. I believeWP:PEARLCLUTCHING is relevant to the discussion as June is too combative but seems to be willing to learn and engage with the process and the reaction to their comments is massively exaggerated.

Here's the full quotes because you seem to be saying these "insinuations" or "accusations" never occured:

1.It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least.

2.If you are not a sock, or related to Desertambition, great. It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing. I'm not accusing you of being a sock for sure, I'm just saying I did find it a bit suspiscious but that's literally it. I've not opened an investigation against you and I don't find that to be necessary right now.

3.By the way, sorry for continuing to pester you, as you call it, but what do you mean you summoned Desertambition? I see no ping, so they just stumbled across your talk page?

4.I still wouldn't be surprised if you're more related to Desertambition than you're letting on, but that is not something I am going to accuse you of being with certainty, because I don't do that without feeling sure about it which I do not.Desertambition (talk)07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have a pretty good idea of the timeline of eventsJune Parker (talk)20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• June Parker seems to be here toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I share Cullen328's concern"that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible". In fact, just two days ago June Parker made the following egregious personal attack againstDavid Eppstein:"You are the one misrepresenting a source to appeal to your white genocide fantasy, your 'Big scary muscular black dude invasion' fantasy. If you insist on being intellectually dishonest and breaking the rules, I can't help you. Have the day you deserve." Clearly, June Parker needs to be made aware of just how unacceptable it is to repeatedly cast such aspersions on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Accusing editors of holding a "white genocide fantasy" is the same as calling them racists. June Parker doesn't belong here. --StellarNerd (talk)07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, unless there are promises made to not behave in this way in the future, I don't think they belong here either.TylerBurden (talk)18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of anything else, that June Parker'sfirst interaction with a person they had never previously met or interacted with is to call them a liar is not a sign that they intend to interact collegially with others. The other diffs cited above show similar personal attacks, which have no reasonable antecedent. I can't findanything in David Eppstein's editing history here that shows they have anything resembling a "white genocide fantasy", or could be interpreted as such (which is not saying that such people don't exist; they do. We deal with them all the time here at ANI. But David is definitely not one of them). It's a total invention of June Parker, who made it up out of whole cloth and lobbed it randomly at David because he did something June didn't like. This is not how disputes are supposed to be resolved. I'm not sure what is to be done yet, but something needs to change soon, hopefully voluntarily by June themselves, if not, maybe admins will need to do something. --Jayron3212:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• :I have had a look at a couple of their edits and would have to agree aboutWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am in two minds about mentioning this as it may seem minor and petty. Certainly by itself it is deserving of nothing more than perhaps a reminder to take care when dealing with citations.

  • As an example on the page2016 Ouagadougou attack theyremoved a source and replaced it with the citation needed template as it was dead and changed "said" to "claimed" in the text that was supported by the removed citation. A citation was added and thenwas removed by this user (and marked as a minor edit) with the edit summary "decrepit tabloid source". I have looked at the reliable sources list and there is nothing abouthttps://www.france24.com/en/ being unreliable. I also went to the site with the dead link and put the title of the dead link into their search bar to getthis which looks like the original citation.

  Gusfriend (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Apologies, the more I thought about it the more petty what I wrote sounded in my head so I am striking it out and will give myself a trout tomorrow morning.Gusfriend (talk)13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with all of this? This seems like something June Parker/TylerBurden could have worked out themselves. There's certainly some poor behavior, but it was addressed on the user's TALK. Why was it brought here and what should be done about it? A simple warning to stop casting aspersions should suffice.Nemov (talk)13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what you specifically are meant to do other than offer your opinion, which you've done I suppose, since you are not an administrator. They were already warned for the first personal attack they made against me, and you can see that I attempted to settle the dispute and ask them to be civil several times, to no avail. That's why I raised the issue here, June Parker does not listen to reason.TylerBurden (talk)18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  You repeatedly accused me of being a sock puppet to Desertambition and then accused me of being uncivil when I asked why you thought I was, backpedaling on those claims and then slyly insisting on it. I stopped talking to you because I couldn’t convince you otherwise.June Parker (talk)20:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I had been resolved to not speak to Tyler when it was clear he wanted to egg the problem further than what had initially happened to insist that I am a sock puppet editing in bad faith, in a talk page warning and another user's “Friendly advice” that he had little to do with, I can’t say much about what I have said to other users except that it doesn’t work and that I’m going to avoid doing in the future. Tyler appears to be starting more arguments with users who express neutral or any opinion less than calling for my block which can’t speak well for his conduct either.June Parker (talk)20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Adding to this but the main reason Tyler seems to have brought this issue to ANI despite us no longer talking is because he believes I am conspiring with Desertambition to push a POV he disagrees with, and when I kept asking why he believed this he denied it and then derided about how my behavior to him specifically was “Unacceptable”, while exhibiting the same behavior I appear to be, and barely even discussed the page content that I have altered. I believe this has more to do with a different dispute that I have little to do with.June Parker (talk)20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would recommend walking away from the dispute. Avoid casting aspersions in the future and assume good faith.Nemov (talk)21:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure thingJune Parker (talk)22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Except that and keep doing the same thing. How promising.TylerBurden (talk)06:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)