User talk:CoconutOctopus: Difference between revisions

 

Line 120: Line 120:

I’ve come across a new contributor adding unsourced BLP information to the same article repeatedly. Following the protocol, I’ve reverted the edits and they’ve been notified twice on their talk page. Please let me know what’s to be done in case they violate the sourcing policy for the Third time.

I’ve come across a new contributor adding unsourced BLP information to the same article repeatedly. Following the protocol, I’ve reverted the edits and they’ve been notified twice on their talk page. Please let me know what’s to be done in case they violate the sourcing policy for the Third time.

Many thanks! –[[User:Retro music11|Retro music11]] ([[User talk:Retro music11|talk]]) 09:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! –[[User:Retro music11|Retro music11]] ([[User talk:Retro music11|talk]]) 09:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

== Deletion review for [[:Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist)]] ==

An editor has asked for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist)|”’a deletion review”’]] of [[:Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist)]]. 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.<!– Template:DRV notice –> [[User:Cobaltx2015|Cobaltx2015]] ([[User talk:Cobaltx2015|talk]]) 12:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Archives

Hi
I have been associated to many interesting music projects over the years especially from my city of Bradford where the music scene is not as boisterous as other UK cities myself and other artists have been recognised as trailblazers and can be verified through legacy and social media..can you guide how we and me can be featured here please? Thanks
Moss —Moss sheikh (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you read WP:42, a quick overview of notability guidelines here. For musicians, the specific guidelines are WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. It’s important to note that Wikipedia is not a place for users to promote themselves or their work but is a neutral encyclopedia that not everything is notable enough to be featured on. If you do wish to try writing an article about yourself or any acts you were associated with you will want to create your draft through the Articles for Creation process. It’s important you also declare any conflicts of interest you may have. CoconutOctopus talk 13:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Was interested in making an article on Sam Shamoun and saw there was already a draft published but was deleted and it said come to you to request it if someone wanted to fix it. Thanks! AML KING (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you head to WP:Requests for undeletion and ask for a draftified version there you may get that; I had said so in case the author wanted such in the immediate aftermath of the deletion vote but it’s been enough time I’d rather it go through RFU. CoconutOctopus talk 17:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CO! Thank you for clerking on the Vikingsam SPI case; I wanted to come here to ask if you had any advice for a venue for further discussion of the case. I definitely understand the logic behind your close (I was pretty surprised by the lack of CU evidence), I think there is still plenty of evidence of coordination and I’d like the chance to get more eyes on this. Would re-opening at SPI be an option? WP:MEATPUPPET unfortunately doesn’t give great guidance here as to the options. I’ll try to lay out more evidence here, I was trying not to be overly verbose at SPI but I did end up finding more evidence after the case opened. Because the investigation quickly became more complex, I want to focus on a few connections between individual users that IMO are the strongest:

Twickenhm has edited 10 unique pages during their tenure on Wikipedia [1]. Pfomma had first edited 8 out of those 10 pages [2]. This includes [3] move warring with Liz to do the same move in one day to move a page away from what was indicated in the souce material. If you look on commons, Twickenhm also uploaded as “own work” a photo for an article Pfomma created: [4] (as an aside, this seems likely to be copyvio).

Out of 107 pages across all namespaces Vikingsam has edited in their time on Wiki, Pfomma had also edited 34. If we reduce that to mainspace only, it’s even more noticable — 30 overlapping out of 71 pages edited by Vikingsam (see [5], [6]). Additional behavioral overlap:

• Repeated pattern of asking NPRs (in particular Onel5969) for page reviews. In my experience, this is common behavior among UPEs/COI editors who want their work to appear on Google. See [7], [8].
• The page has been deleted to it’s hard for me to track exactly what’s going on here, but there was a strange interaction between the two regarding the deleted article Ally Soudy. According to the logs at Ally Soudy, Draft:Ally Soudy, Pfomma created the page, which was then moved back and forth from draft several times, before Vikingsam took the article from draft, published it, and it was A7’d. There’s also this interaction, where Vikingsam removes the article from Pfomma’s user page: [9]. You might be able to see better what’s going on here through the deleted history.
• On commons, once again we see Vikingsam uploading copyright-questionable photos to support Pfomma’s work: see [10], the contribs have been deleted but photos were uploaded for Christopher Muneza, another article created by Pfomma, and Ally Soudy.

I do also feel pretty strongly that FearlessLion, VikingSam, and Ekimou are sockpuppets of one another. It feels so impossibly coincidental for FearlessLion to have dug back into a previous AFD of Vikingsam’s articles (of which there are many) to word for word copy the language a vote at that article used ([11], [12]), and for them to both be focused on adding promotional fluff to Emmanuel Sibomana, an incredibly niche subject averaging 1 pageview per day (there are more examples from both in the history but for a sample: [13], [14]). I cannot come up with a good faith explanation for this, especially the copied AFD wording. Ekimou there isn’t much to say given that they only have three edits, but all three are indicative of sockpuppetry as outlined at the SPI.

I’d really appreciate any advice on where to take this. Some of this was already presented at the SPI (link for convenience’s sake: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikingsam), but I’m hoping laying it out in a more organized manner, in terms of specific connections, might make the connections between these accounts more clear. Thank you also so much for all the help you’ve already given on this case! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it was certainly not an easy SPI case and I did have quite a bit of discussion about it with the CU team. Whilst there’s obviously a lot of similarities, there are enough differences and tells that we couldn’t be confident of socking between Sam and Lion enough to block (obviously, making a decision to block is something I’ll only do with a very high level of confidence as it’s quite a serious action). I do think there is perhaps some level of MEAT going on, but again not to a point where I have enough confidence a block was the correct call. Ekingou has only 3 edits which outwith the most glaring duck cases or a positive CU result isn’t enough to again reach the blocking threshold. If you think there are serious concerns with the integrity of AfDs I think ANI (eugh) might be the best place to go for a wider discussion; if Ekingou continues to make socky edits then a new report at SPI would also be warranted. Hope that helps clear things up a bit – I know you put a lot of effort into the report and it’s not the result you were looking for. CoconutOctopus talk 21:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to elaborate on what these tells/differences are? I think that’s the only part that’s confusing me a bit, the more I’ve looked into their behavior the more connections I’ve found between them (as an example, I just came across this one — check out their wording choice in these two AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racine Kamatari, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Kade, “I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source“). Definitely sympathize with the confidence we need in order to block, and don’t necessarily think its the wrong call in this scenario; if anything, its just frustrating we don’t have better tools to deal with this, it seems so impossible that these accounts are not related in any way. I do have some concerns about AFDs (this outcome was likely socked; this one, while not closed yet, seems headed to a no-consensus due to this behavior) but obviously would prefer to avoid ANI if possible.

Also as an aside, and if you’d rather me take this to a different admin please let me know, but is there any information the G7 request to Kevin Kade? It struck me as odd that the creator would successfully fight an AFD and then G7 it the next year. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoconutOctopus. Do you mind deleting Aulanko? It’s been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 December 6 for over 7 days. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m not super versed in CCI and don’t have the time to look into it right now, apologies. CoconutOctopus talk 19:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, it’s not urgent anyway. I’ll wait till either MER-C or Sennecaster get to it eventually. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am writing to request the restoration of my draft, “Reception and criticism of the EA Sports football games,” to my userspace so I can fix the issues.

It was deleted under G15. I acknowledge that I used AI tools to help me find sources to help with my sources and helped me write an initial draft, which resulted in hallucinated references and poor formatting.

However, I have since manually researched and located valid, working citations from reliable source,s including The Guardian, BBC News, Eurogamer, and GamesIndustry.biz to verify the content. I have also rewritten the text to be factual and encyclopedic, removing the AI-style repetition. I did actually write the article myself, I asked AI for alot of help regarding the formatting and how to use wiki code.

I have learned that AI is not as reliable as I once thought it would be, and I now use the appropriate guides to help me write the article.

I would like the chance to publish this manually corrected version with the verified sources.

Thank you for your time. Wikispeedrunner2 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to restore it to your sandbox if you go through and manually fix all the references to be genuine links, and ensure you properly rewrite the draft to ensure it is accurate before resubmitting. CoconutOctopus talk 21:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response.

I have now gone through the draft and manually replaced all references with working links from reliable sources, and rewritten the text to ensure it is accurate using the correct in-text references.

I would appreciate it if the draft could be restored to my userspace so I can continue improving it before resubmitting through AfC.

Thank you for your time. Wikispeedrunner2 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have restored thw draft to User:Wikispeedrunner2/Reception and criticism of the EA Sports football games. Make sure it is fully updated and reviewed before moving it back to draftspace and submitting thru AFC or it will likely be deleted again. Best of luck! CoconutOctopus talk 14:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google play store —Thee baddest (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? CoconutOctopus talk 09:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Access Thee baddest (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m the user who opened an SPI thread about users who I believed were sockpuppeting. Whilst closing that thread, you said that if the hounding behaviour continues, that I could leave a message on this page about it. I noticed it when I saw several of my most recent edits had been reverted (almost all of them with no explanations in the summary), in the order that they’re listed on my user contributions page (although the edits weren’t published in that order) . I’m not sure what else this could be called apart from wikihounding, and I’d appreciate your help in dealing with it. I’ve already requested protection on the pages it’s occurred on, but I fear that it may continue to future pages I edit.

Here are the diffs:
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Will see what I can do; let me know of the behaviour continues. CoconutOctopus talk 00:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s been two more examples of frivolous reversion that I can only attribute to wikihounding, [23], which was reinstating an infobox with an incorrect template and zero sources cited that I removed, and [24], which was me correcting a link to better correspond to the source. I’m at a bit of a loss for what I should do from here, as I feel like this user/these users will arbitrarily revert any edits I make, no matter what the content is. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My account password tell me
Username
Waniya.bano
Password
? —Spamz harry (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rephrase? CoconutOctopus talk 06:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to the mentor!
Thank you for taking the time to address our concerns.
I’ve come across a new contributor adding unsourced BLP information to the same article repeatedly. Following the protocol, I’ve reverted the edits and they’ve been notified twice on their talk page. Please let me know what’s to be done in case they violate the sourcing policy for the Third time.
Many thanks! —Retro music11 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist). 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. Cobaltx2015 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]