User talk:ESkog

---

Index of Talk Page archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F May 19-December 22, 2010 - December 23, 2010 - November 10, 2011 - December 8, 2011 - October 8, 2012 - October 18, 2012 - May 27, 2013 - May 30, 2013 - March 26, 2014 - January 29, 2015 - March 15, 2017 - April 12, 2017 - November 19, 2024 - February 24-November 18, 2025

You nominated three fictional biographies in project space for deletion. The originator appears to have been TeratomiusRex. They have been indefinitely blocked on both English Wikipedia and Commons, the latter for uploading fictional images that were probably generated by artificial intelligence. I won't be surprised if we see more similar fictional biographies soon. If they show up within 90 days, CheckUser can examine the duck feathers with a microscope. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago you blocked TA ~2025-43626-87 for, among other things, this edit. Since then, they seem to have attempted to add me on Discord with several accounts, at least one of which seems to have been created specifically for this purpose. They also seem to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle in the Wikipedia Discord at pretty much the exact same time; I didn't actually see what they said/did before the mods there deleted it, but I saw people reacting with what seemed a fair bit of shock and concern. I read WP:Harassment and, while I'm not 100% sure this qualifies, I'm also not 100% sure it doesn't, and given you're an admin I thought I might ask you what the best course of action here would be. Thanks. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 06:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ESkog Hi, the user you blocked they made baseless threats on their talk page: Please stop putting pressure on me or I will sue you. My aim is not to fight, but to reveal the facts through sources. Please understand, otherwise it won't be good for you. WP:NOTHERE [1] Kajmer05 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2] Are you that dense? It's paid editing; I know exactly who it is. Baton passed from User:Dancingtoad to User:Ozone Goggles after this slip-up on Ricardo Rosselló,which no one seems to have noticed:[3] That's an internal PR document which Dancingtoad carelessly copypasted before self-reverting.[4] It's a massive sockfarm going back over ten years now. I could show you and Drmies all the steps if I feel like it. Give me an email and I'll write you there.~2025-42542-91 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're an admin? Rebeka29681 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Something you need? (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you consider narrowing your block of this range? [5]. It's way too wide, we've already had at least three unrelated editors caught in it, and there are good-faith editors on the range. The person you were trying to block is on 92.40.218.0/23, which probably shouldn't be blocked for six months either. -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this warning, I believe editors are allowed to transclude articles onto their talk pages if they want. Granted, that editor seems to be here in bad faith, but that particular edit didn't need reverting or warning. lp0 on fire () 20:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, while the user was a vandal-only account, that edit was not technically problematic. Good call. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; nice to meet you :) lp0 on fire () 21:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrinister293 is Andrew5, who is WMF banned. Please revoke TPA and email. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello ESkog why you are reversing my edits in the page ¿do you want a troyan? ~2026-77894-6 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(the link behind "NeonPlexx" is the account's Special:Contributions as it doesn't have a user page)

I saw from Special:History/User:TEOPLEXX17 that both users had been the only substantial editors there

Special:Contributions/TEOPLEXX17 shows that the TEOPLEXX17 account has only edited its user page since being created, and NeonPlexx is a self-declared fan of them

Both accounts have been using the user page for WP:UPNOT purposes (Neon mega-diff 1, mega-diff 2); when I tried to blank it, I always got reverted (diff 1, 2)

I also saw while checking Neon's Special:Contributions that it vandalised my userspace, likely to get revenge or whatever

If you don't mind, could you indef both of them and delete the user page per WP:NOTWEBHOST? Thanks! Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Neon also vandalised articles repeatedly before checking into Teo's user page: 1, deleting a letter from "Minecraft"; 2, causing the short description to contradict the lead; 3, false claim of fixing typo(s); 4, adding image to citation; 5, change of meaning falsely claimed to be copyediting Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: The vandalism and meat/sockpuppetry are both concerning. I've blocked them for the time being, but it's a fairly soft block; while I agree that they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, it looks more like immaturity/confusion than malice to me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(oh yeah I realised that Teo, as Neon, also created TEOFORCE44 (talk · contribs), which hasn't made any edits; however, it might just be revived for continued vandalism, so... we should keep an eye on I guess) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Special:Log/NeonPlexx Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a new policy on TAIP? I was not aware of it. I assume I know the issue that you are talking about, and I agree that it is an issue. Anyways, this TA still needs to be revdel'd (at least the comments on TonySt need to be). I can see the other TA is being oversighted (at least I think that's what the two lines mean?), but I can't see who is doing the oversighting. So I am hoping you can do a revdel for now. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not that new but new to me. Trying to be careful not to say too much about what I can see that others cannot. I'll look into those other edits, thanks! (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know you show no screenshots meaning you may be abusing admin powers

If you delete this you are confirmed to abuse admin and are suppressing the human right to free speech Managed democracy (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, ada cainan tidak membeli ini diadaptapun tersenyumat liriki tenir yang indikator bentak, ipol nomokin eidupati monowaisai, 6.0002 keatiriku atiril individu-indemans gol penyanyi dengan membimu-belum bikin tenir yang tertentu. Ada tidak ada tidak, karena memikatin lebih banyak-tentu yang tidak, jadi nama kenyruk lebih lebih kekorelebel anjing-tidak. Shoebill897 (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoebill897: Sorry, Google Translate can't make heads or tails of this. If this is an actual comment or request, rather than just spamming nonsense, can you give it another try? (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note regarding edit warring. Are you an arbiter in these matters? I don’t know how this works. This article and its editor seem both un neutral and ahistorical, and in some places dangerously close to being both anti semitic and excusing terrorism- the use of the word fedayeen could be seen as pro terrorist. As Wikipedia has suffered hugely in the last two years from accusations of systematic bias in this area ie the war in Gaza and it’s history, I’d welcome a discussion around this thank you ~2026-89402-0 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eskog, I am attempting to cite the comments I made discussing the reviews of Daniel Wellington, however I am a little confused in how to do so as I do not know what counts as a credible source on the matter. Could you please direct me to any helpful resources. Thank you in advance for your time. ~DNACUK DNACUK (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]