Jump to content

User talk:Mazca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khruner (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 17 December 2020 (→Long-term abuser: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Mazca's talk page.
  • If you want to leave me a message, please do so in a new section below. I will reply here, to keep the conversation together, unless you tell me otherwise. If I suspect you might not be watching my talkpage, I'll tag you.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please feel free to reply there.
  • If I didn't leave you a message, and you don't want to leave me a message, that is your own problem. Enjoy the picture of a dead horse to the left.

Closing remarks re Mail on Sunday

Hi, For ‎Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?, you wrote: "The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source ...". I believe you should explain there why you think one cannot cite the print edition of Mail on Sunday, which requires no mention of url=dailymail.co.uk, and why you think there was a consensus for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan: I didn't say anything about the print version in the closing statement because it literally wasn't mentioned in the discussion, and implying I said there was a consensus explicitly forbidding that is incorrect. The sentence you quoted is, I believe, accurate - using the online version of the Mail on Sunday would contravene the 2017 and 2019 RfCs as it is on the prohibited dailymail.co.uk, but the print version was not mentioned in the closes of those RfCs. This does, however, lead to a "significant de facto barrier" in the normal meaning of that term, because it means both searching and verifying items sourced to the publication is much harder. If one were to start regularly citing the print version of the Mail on Sunday, one would not be in explicit violation of the letter of those RfCs but I imagine there would be significant opposition for several reasons, and it would probably exacerbate the need for an actual RfC clarifying the exact position. ~ mazca talk 23:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mazca. As the poster of the clarification request I can confirm I was alluding to the print version as well. I mentioned the domain explicitly because it may have posed an issue with prior RfCs, but my statement wasn’t meant to limit from the print. That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain. I must say I’m also confused how your close addresses the underlying question. Web content can also be accessed via mailonsunday.co.uk, so a close based on domain alone kinda avoids the bigger question: what’s the *current status* of this source, which is what I was trying to clarify. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader I'm sorry to hear the close didn't help, but I'm honestly not sure what you would reasonably expect from a closure of that discussion. The issue is not clear from previous RfCs, and the result of the request for clarification is that lots of people said different varieties of that statement. I genuinely think I tried my very best to extract what useful information can be taken from this discussion going forward - (1) The Daily Mail is prohibited. (2) dailymail.co.uk is prohibited (3) the Mail on Sunday as a title is not explicitly prohibited but many people think it should be and (4) it uses the expressly-prohibited dailymail.co.uk, making its use difficult and likely to be objected to. A closure reaching any more conclusion than that from a small free-form discussion would have been basically legislating based on my own opinion on the topic - and, from PG's comments above, even this inconclusive narrative closure seemingly could be read as an overreach.
Ultimately this was the kind of non-RfC freeform discussion that often doesn't need a formal closure. As several people had requested one, including Peter Gulutzan at ANRFC and Guy Macon unarchiving it to request one at AN, I was happy to do it - but I think any lack of conclusion here is due to the discussion itself, and the lack of formal consensus on this topic, rather than my closure. My intention was to summarise for future reference, as I don't believe any new consensus has developed in that discussion, nor did most participants seemingly intend to do so. I apologise if this didn't solve your issue. ~ mazca talk 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good close. If Mazca had decided the issue in the closing summary after the discussion made it clear that the RfC was not clear on this specific question that would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.
In my personal opinion, if we ever have an RfC on The Mail On Sunday it would end up being deprecated just like The Daily Mail was, but of course I could be wrong; only an actual RfC will show whether my prediction is accurate. If any editor starts insisting on citing The Mail On Sunday based upon the previous RfC not being clear on this, I guarantee that the result will be an RfC on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)::[reply]
mazca, If you had used words like "difficult and likely to be objected to" in your summary, that would perhaps be close to the statement by Primefac that dailymail.co.uk usage "muddies the waters somewhat". Even if you had used such words about Mail on Sunday in general, i.e. even when there is no use of dailymail.co.uk, well, who would argue? All that's asked of a closer is a summary that actually reflects what was in the discussion, without addition of your opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I simply feel the terms are basically identical in meaning in this context. The lack of specific consensus regarding the print MoS combined with the prohibition of its website means that using it is "difficult and likely to be objected to". The same situation presents a "significant de facto barrier" for its use. Both could technically be described as my opinion, but only in so far as it's my summary of the views expressed the discussion as I understand them. ~ mazca talk 19:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make a specific proposal. If you reject it I will support a close challenge but will not initiate one. (1) Quote what Primefac said: "A closer of the Daily Mail RfC explained that Mail on Sunday 'is not covered by the scope of the original discussion ... I will, however, note that dailymail.co.uk was specifically included in the close, which muddies the water somewhat as MoS uses that base URL'.". (2) Replace your sentence "The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source, and I think specific consensus via a new RfC would be needed to overturn that default." with what you apparently think is equivalent: "The use of Mail on Sunday as a source will therefore be difficult and likely to be objected to, and I think specific consensus via a new RfC would be needed to overturn that default." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone challenges this close I will post a comment comment that the close was a good close and that the challenge is totally without merit. I have carefully read all of the above and do not find the arguments persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but, having thought about this, I'm not going to adjust it to your preferred wording. That quote of Primefac, while not inaccurate, seems rather selective in that it leaves out both the conditional at the start and the explicit statement that a new RfC would be needed to clarify - and when there's been quite a lot of other participation I prefer to avoid directly quoting people in closures. The other part I wouldn't ordinarily have a problem with as I do indeed view the two parts of it as broadly equivalent - but I still totally fail to see any argument as to why they aren't broadly equivalent, and that just makes me faintly dubious as to the point of the change. I'd encourage you to request a close review if you genuinely think this closure does not reflect the discussion, as despite all this extra discussion I don't think I've come to agree. ~ mazca talk 14:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 28 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: Thanks for the notification. I was indeed unfamiliar with the new WikiProject guideline regarding this, and I'll plan on avoiding making any PC approvals when I run across them on DOY pages. I'd just draw your attention to a few aspects of this that made me unaware:
  • That page currently only has two citations across the whole thing. I totally get, now that I've reviewed the WikiProject page, that the intention here is to fully source all of them, and avoid new unsourced entries - but right now, a page like that looks like it's been made deliberately without inline sources. In this case, I checked the addition, saw it was sourced on the subject's article, and approved it given this matched all the other nearby entries.
  • The editnotice does not appear when you're just doing a pending changes review. I suspect other admins and PC reviewers not familiar with the project may make the same incorrect assumption.
I don't mean this as a criticism; you're very welcome to enforce WP:V in this way on those pages, but I figured I'd give some feedback on why this surprised me! Cheers ~ mazca talk 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Yeah, we have a lot of work to do to clean those pages up. You're not the only one who has been surprised. There's a lot of incorrect or unverifiable info in them. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article currently exist that should not

I believe there is an article that does not pass notability criteria and still exists.Please have a look at that Shahoodu (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahoodu: Please actually specify what article you're referring to if you'd like me to look into it. Articles for deletion is how you'd suggest an article needs to be removed. ~ mazca talk 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Block Blues.This article does not even have enough contents to be approved as an independent one.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even though the page has cited 6 sources, most of them not uses the term "West Block Blues".No real indication that the supporters of the club have recieved in depth reliable coverage. A lot of the sources are just stats about attendences and WP:ROUTINE news reporting about the sort of events that happen to some degree.Still it was not delted as per the discusion Shahoodu (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article only have 6 sentences.I insist on that it must be merged with the page of the club which they are supporting. Shahoodu (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin in the deletion discussionbm said that they passes GNG.But there is not a single notable event or anything they have done so far apart being from the supporters club.So please take necessary action on this issue Shahoodu (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both AfDs had a significant consensus that there was enough coverage to justify an article. I get your argument, but while the article's a bit short and pointless it isn't actually doing any harm. I'm just one admin that's not involved in this - I just don't have any particular authority or desire to get rid of this article just because it's a bit of an unnecessary split. If you think you've got stronger arguments than were made in the last two AfDs, it's entirely reasonable to renominate it, I agree some of the arguments weren't great. ~ mazca talk 19:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks

Thanks for being willing to close this long one. Going to disagree with your close there, though. Obviously I was involved, but it seems like a definite consensus to delete on count but especially on strength of argument. On the specifics:

The only real reason I mention headcount is because you wrote "fairly split" on the application of WP:NOT, which doesn't seem accurate.

The "reasonable argument that this is a valid split," as I understand it, takes for granted that (depending on which person's argument you meant) that there is a rationale for having a total list of all fatal dog attacks in the world and this is a split off of that (the case certainly wasn't made there) or that including every single fatal dog attack in a particular country would make sense in an article but needed to be spun out because it was too big. I don't see consensus for that, either (and indeed basically all of the delete arguments still apply).

You mentioned the sources provided for coverage as a group, but didn't really come to a conclusion about that (the sentence ends with "this starts to cross into very emotive territory regarding certain advocacy groups"). Did you see the thread on RSN? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododentrites:Thanks. On your final point: I deliberately didn't draw a conclusion there because it really felt like we were moving out of any reasonable scope of a close that I already felt was getting too lengthy. Trying to apply an RSN discussion to a side-discussion in a discussion as inconclusive as this is really going beyond assessing a consensus, and starts to feel like issuing an adjudication. But overall, I think we disagree as to how effectively WP:NOT really covers this type of article as currently phrased; in particular I think a lot of the mentions of WP:IINFO in particular without trying to describe why this article applies to them (the section as phrased just doesn't really mention this type of article) were relatively weak. The headcount was close, and I don't think either side really had a monopoly on strong or weak arguments, and I could not in good faith conclude there was a consensus here, even though I'd have loved to be the one that actually put this long-running debate away. Do feel free to WP:DRV it if you genuinely think I've reached an incorrect conclusion here, but I do think that an RFC to reach some more general policy/guideline on how WP:NOT applies to lists of "deaths by x method" is most likely to actually fix this disagreement, without getting directly back into the emotive dog attack area. ~ mazca talk 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After this afd, I'm have no interest in getting further involved in the dog-attack area (who could have guessed that this would be such a controversial topic!). I need to think more about your well thought out close, just wanted to say here that 1) I appreciate you taking the time to offer a well thought-out rationale (in a discussion that was sure to make people upset however you closed it) and 2) I think that as an involved editor, I'd agree with Rhododendrites statement above that I really did feel there was a (rough) consensus to delete the list, though I can see the argument for NC. Maybe it's worth taking to DRV for wider input from users whose opinion is not as clouded by involvement as mine? Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: I know the feeling! If you think a DRV would actually help, you're very welcome to do so and see if other uninvolved users feel there was an actionable consensus there. ~ mazca talk 00:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but am involved as well. The policy-based arguments far out-weighed the keeps in number but most of all because they are policy-based. Another thought as a parent - I would not want to see the description of my child's death in any list for the world to see, especially one like that list. WP is supposed to respect the private lives of people, and plastering the death of a child with a description of it and strong potental for a misidentification of the dog type just because it was published in a newspaper is against everything WP represents, and is just plain wrong morally. It is a terrible injustice to the families of the deceased. And that doesn't take into consideration the beloved family pets that will be targeted, misidentified and put to death because WP gave that list validity. It serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. Atsme Talk 📧 14:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:The headcount was close, and I just did not reach the same conclusion as to the strength of the policy-based arguments. I genuinely did not think a consensus was reached here: obviously you are welcome to disagree, but I don't really appreciate the implication that I'm somehow going to be responsible for the deaths of beloved family pets as a result of not finding a consensus. This is an understandably an area with strong opinions, but I'm not sure how to even respond here. ~ mazca talk 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think our BLP policy speaks loudest, along with several WP:NOT policies. That list includes the names of minors - babies & small children - and provides the circumstances of the death that advocacies can use for impact in their relentless attempts to get breed-specific ban-legislation passed despite the misidentification of dog types in the reports WP has allowed editors to mirror, despite policy. What other reason would we add such details? We don't list condition of bodies involved in car wrecks, and we certainly don't list people, especially children who were murdered along with a detailed description of the circumstances. We rarely do that for notable people. The goal with this list is to put an end to all bully-types once and for all, and that includes dogs that have been misidentified based on looks only. They're doing it now in animal shelters. I also believe this situation needs further review by ArbCom because of the strong BLP vios in these death lists, and the names of children being exposed globally - we customarily don't include the names of living children in any of our articles, even when they are notable BLPs. To name them when there is a strong potential for inaccuracy surrounding the circumstances goes beyond the pale. You are probably not aware, but SMcCandlish and I have recently been attacked and outed off-wiki. He turned the incident over to ArbCom but it demonstrates to what lengths these advocacies will go. You might also make note, if you haven't already when you did the iVote count, that a couple of the support iVotes had fewer than 500 edits. The most problematic editors at the AfD was Normal Op because of his bludgeoning and was warned about his behavior but ignored the warning - which is typical behavior for him - because he made a PA against me right after being warned. His former user name was Nomopbs - No More Pit Bulls, perhaps? He just came off a t-ban for similar bludgeoning behavior and PAs. Your decisions are your own, Mazca - I'm simply presenting policy-based facts. My comment at the AfD provides all the diffs needed to support my position. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely meaning "no more pit bulls". Agitating against those and related breeds was pretty much that editor's WP:SPA purpose, and they did not deny this was the meaning when taken to ANI for that topic ban. Which should probably be re-instituted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did I deny those incorrect guesses about my old username at that ANI, but I repeatedly denied it elsewhere and explained what it did mean. Nothing made a difference so I finally changed it to avoid further misunderstanding. But here you are bringing it up again. Anyone thinking I'm an SPA should visit my edit history and the WP:SPA article, including "An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA." Can't you just WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Normal Op (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:I definitely share your opinion that I don't think the victim names belong on the list - it just isn't useful information to 99% of readers, even if we set aside differences on whether the article as a whole is encyclopedic. But I ultimately think that a lot of these issues have got tangled up in themselves in that AfD - quite a lot of the best arguments about the current state of the article (individual entry inaccuracies, and the very questionable inclusion of superfluous victim information) are re-hashes of very valid editorial arguments about what belongs in the article, and not necessarily useful arguments about how suitable the article itself is. The policy argument for deleting the article is an awful lot more ambiguous than the argument for removing one or more of the columns.
Beyond that, I don't disagree with anything else you said in that post - but I still don't think it changes my opinion of the lack of consensus in that discussion. There are some long term behavioural issues here, and I'd be happy to provide input in future if this does end up at ArbCom. But these things aside, as someone who's a dog owner but not particularly involved in the US-centred pitbull debate, there are way too many toxifying factors to make this issue solvable via an AfD consensus. If there are tendentious editors ruining it, get them topic banned (again?) at ANI or at ArbCom. Potentially, the WP:NOT policy around these articles needs clarifying too, and getting a consensus there via RfC, one step removed from the direct dog attack area, is also potentially productive. The fact that the overall situation is messy, I would say, makes it harder, not easier, for an uninvolved administrator to honestly find a consensus in a tough debate. ~ mazca talk 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:NOTHERE

Since you kindly offered to take a look, at such cases, see User:Nawabkh2040.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and blocked. Particularly unsubtle one there. Cheers ~ mazca talk 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: User:Chandan Kumar Shee (Creator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it - left the account alone for now, hasn't done anything else egregious! Cheers ~ mazca talk 22:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another: User:Madhubabu yalla, who reverted my first blanking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and deleted, cheers ~ mazca talk 23:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked the role account; other one's already been dealt with by other admins and Asingh408 seems harmless enough to just leave blanked. Thanks again. ~ mazca talk 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed

Hello Mazca, I am currently on mobile. I was granted extended confirmed on this my alternate account but I realize I can’t edit semi protected articles. If you don’t mind can you add confirmed status to this my alt account. Best regards --Synomobi (talk). 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris mobile:  Done, no problem! ~ mazca talk 12:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Mazca --Synomobi (talk). 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage protection request

Thanks for adding TE protection to Template:Family name hatnote. Can you please add it to Template:Family name hatnote/core, which is a necessary subpage that is part of the template? I would appreciate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95:  Done, thanks for pointing that one out. Anytime ~ mazca talk 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock activity resumption

Hi there, I've noticed that this sock has resumed activities in a similar vein (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/92.14.216.40/Archive#11_October_2020, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/92.14.216.40/Archive#22_October_2020). Could you extend their block please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: Yup, done. I'll disable the ability to edit their own talk page editing too if they carry on, always unclear as to which IPs are long-term and which ones are very dynamic with this guy. ~ mazca talk 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're back (cf this edit) on a new IP, the page protection on the article having been lifted only today. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind restoring the page protection and blocking the new IP please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, sorry missed this yesterday. Clearly the same user again. ~ mazca talk 15:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, most grateful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, the latest IP is User:81.170.43.217. The indicated geolcation is slightly different but it isn't the first time they've popped up in Ayrshire, see User:88.110.127.48, whom you blocked. Usual kind of subject matter, indicative American spelling of "behavior". Could you swat this one too please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, they've been blocked now for 72 hours but I'd imagine the article will attract more attention from whatever IP they pop up on next. Would you mind reinstating page protection at Scottish people? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - Scottish people is already protected for a month based on the last appearance on the 25th. ~ mazca talk 11:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is. That doesn't cover the talk page then? I guess pp for a talk page is a bit of a different kettle of fish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the two things are separate and talk page protection is rarer. However, in this particular case it might become reasonable if the disruption does continue, as there's been little other activity on it - we can consider it in future. ~ mazca talk 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the food fighter

Hi Mazca, you may recall the ANI report where you blocked Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EC2E:5270::/64. Looks like they haven't learned anything, and are back to making unsourced changes claiming Lebanese national origins of foods, contradicting the existing sources... maybe you could take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU:  Done. Clearly still the same person on that /64 range, blocked for 3 months this time given it's exactly the same behaviour. Thanks for the report! ~ mazca talk 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619

user:2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619 is a sock of user:2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619 and is rapidly vandalizing right now. CLCStudent (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now all sorted by Materialscientist before I got there. ~ mazca talk 13:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term abuser

Hello, not sure if you remember this discussion. Well, they are back as if nothing had happened and ignoring warnings. The previous IP was globally blocked a few months ago, yet they are now editing with IP 73.18.218.180. Could you stop them once again? Khruner (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mazca&oldid=994837458"