The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) →Help..: Reply Tag: Reply |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins: new section Tag: |
||
(32 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Archive basics |
{{Archive basics |
||
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 11 |
||
|headerlevel = 2 |
|headerlevel = 2 |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
||
== |
== SPI == |
||
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Peace Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Appreciate your remaining even-keeled in resolving the ''NFL draft'' dispute. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's ''actually productive''. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exposed.factotum|this SPI]]? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Operation Torpedo]] and [[Operation Dark Huntor]] redaction == |
|||
::No, thanks, I'll let some clerk earn their keep.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== GENDERID RfC close == |
|||
@[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] |
|||
{{ping|The Wordsmith}} |
|||
I have reviewed the redactions that you made to the two listed articles. I want to continue to work on these to bring them up to the necessary standards that were cited in the discussion/violation about using court documents as primary sources for living persons. I was unfamiliar with the ability for somebody to utilize a tool that could take a revision out of reach of normal editors, so did not make any backups. The work that you redacted represented the only copy of more than 100 hours of work. |
|||
*1. Some of what you redacted was not done surgically, and easily met the standards of wikipedia or at least were not part of the alleged violation. As such they should not have been removed from revision control and placed out of reach of wiki editors for review or revision. |
|||
*2. The parts of the article that you unilaterally decided met the requirements for the violation are now placed out of my reach to correct, or find the requisite secondary and tertiary sources that are required to make the primary sources relevant or reliable enough for use. |
|||
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As such, I would like you to provide a way to access a copy of the revision so I can continue to work on them, at least to surgically restore the parts that were not in violation, and to rework or bring up to WP standards. If none else, so that I can have the benefit of the 100+ hours of work it took to curate the material so that it can be used in some way external to wikipedia. I also will not use the material to restore the tables or other names of living persons without first bringing it up for discussion/review. |
|||
:Since RfCs are [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Disclaimer - the intent of the work wasn't to dox or draw undue attention to any living person, but as stated in the discussion to focus on the operation, the laws that surrounded it and new case law that was developed as a result of the novel law enforcement operation. Thus, the work isn't the work of a zealot wishing to further harm the individuals that were members of the cases associated with the operation, which was potentially the concern of the discussion that resulted in the redactions to begin with. [[User:PaladinOfDaedalus|eximo]] ([[User talk:PaladinOfDaedalus|talk]]) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When [[WP:DETCON|determining the consensus]] we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the ''why'' of the close, rather than the ''what'' of the close. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AE == |
|||
:I'm certainly sympathetic to your perspective, I would hate to have hours of my effort wasted too. Revision Deletion is a tool that Administrators have, which can hide revisions from non-administrators when it contains serious policy violations. It's very possible that some of the material could meet Wikipedia guidelines, but with an issue like that we don't have the luxury of waiting for it to be fixed. [[WP:BLP]] is our most important policy, and including criminal allegations sourced only to court records is a serious issue that had to be handled immediately. In addition, the names of the people arrested/charged should probably not be on anyway, at least not without significant coverage in secondary sources. |
|||
:I'm sure your intentions were good, you just misunderstood Wikipedia policy and happened to be working in a topic area where enforcement is unusually strict out of necessity. I'm willing to email you a copy of the material you wrote, as long as you agree not to post the names or personally identifiable information on-wiki. If you'd like to later set up a draft in your own userspace (with names redacted), I'd be happy to review it before you move it into live articles. Let me know if you agree to that condition and I'll send them via email. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|The Wordsmith}} |
|||
::I agree to the terms; thank you for your understanding; I'll certainly reach out to the community to figure out the best way to document these important operations. [[User:PaladinOfDaedalus|eximo]] ([[User talk:PaladinOfDaedalus|talk]]) 19:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith, |
|||
== HaughtonBrit == |
|||
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zilch-nada|this]]. |
|||
Good day. I saw that you partially actioned HaughtonBrit's SPI-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit]. However, the other sock Dazzem is unblocked, I believe owing to DatGuy's statement: "Dazzem (talk · contribs) is Possible, but hasn't made enough edits for a behavioural block. I've blocked them for a week for other loutsocking." I'd like to address this, the whole situation is so convoluted because of HB's brazen sockpuppetry, gaslighting, and frequent oscillation of IPs (both IPv6s, v4s and proxies) that it's head spinning. I will try my best to reiterate my case for Dazzem being an obvious sock of HB. |
|||
Thanks, [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Just to get this out the way, HB's MO on Wikipedia is to aggrandize and augment Sikh military achievements on Wikipedia, since the Sikhs were historically involved in major conflicts with the Afghans, HB tends to be active in Sikh-Afghan conflicts, but also Mughal-Sikh, Anglo-Sikh, Maratha-Sikh conflicts and more. He edits from Pittsburgh or other nearby places in Pennsylvania-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MehmoodS&diff=prev&oldid=1136500477]. Bbb23 commented-"In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh.". After his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked, this user has been hounding me non stop with various 2601:547 and 2600:1016 IPs which geolocate to Pittsburgh, or occasionally with different Pittsburgh IPv4s. See block logs-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2601%3A547%3AB03%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F49], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A24.154.112.204], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1016%3AB020%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F44]. I listed some of the harassment on the SPI page as well. |
|||
:Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
In March, a user KamalAfghan appeared, making edits aggrandizing the Afghans. HaughtonBrit immidiately began a campaign against him- for example you can see Javerine (HB confirmed sock) reverting KA-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1146376194], and then HB 2601 IPs hounding him after Javerine was blocked-see 11 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh+Empire&date-range-to=2023-05-16&tagfilter=&action=history]. More hounding: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durrani_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1154911209], you can see 14 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle+of+Bannu&date-range-to=2023-05-18&tagfilter=&action=history]. 8 edits (from both HB's confirmed sock Ralx888 and 2601:547 IP) here-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle+of+Hasan+Abdal+%281813%29&date-range-to=2023-05-20&tagfilter=&action=history]. 12 edits in close proximity to KA here-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kandahar_(1834)&action=history]. You can also see the 2601:547 IP trying to recreate a deleted battle that HB made, which was later declined due to sockpuppetry-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Jullundur_Doab_(1767)&action=history]. Eventually HB started approaching admins just before KamalAfghan was blocked on May 18 discussing the possibility of sockpuppetry-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=prev&oldid=1155390541] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=prev&oldid=1155510013] (you can note that these messages were made on the same day KamalAfghan was blocked). Somehow, Ponyo caught wind of this and promptly blocked KamalAfghan. |
|||
::Shiny things are the worst, especially [[tinsel]] ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. {{u|Seraphimblade}} kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in ''how'' it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm surprised it hasn't gotten ''any'' attention from other admins, but if it doesn't then I'll just take action on my own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Help.. == |
|||
Since then HB has frequently been posting to Pnnyo's talk page regarding KA's sockpuppetry- |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1157893424] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1157893982] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1165229394] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1165229470] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1169393965] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1169394928] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1169402621] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1169403936] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1169404205] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1172880813] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1172880926] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1172881036] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1172881232] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1173036563] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1173063212] |
|||
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts. |
|||
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times. |
|||
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1187532736] (here Ponyo locked her talk page meaning that if HB wanted to canvass, he'd have to do it with an account) |
|||
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets. |
|||
You can see the 2601:547 IPs and the 71 IPv4 geolocate to Pittsburgh, and some of them are FedEx ISP proxies. HB has been abusing a certain proxy network that provides IPs that have a listed ISP of FedEx for years now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit/Archive#18_September_2021] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit/Archive#28_January_2023] when I filed a SPI on him on Jan 2023 which led to MehmoodS's unblock request being denied, I pointed out how he was using these FedEx proxies to block evade. He has been abusing these proxies since 2020, there are hundreds of diffs of him using them to evade his block and engage in edit warring without an account so he could avoid punishment, but this example is the most glaring- HB was having a disagreement on the page Battle of Saragarhi, making numerous edit both through accounts as well as these 192 and 199* FedEx proxies; he was engaged in a discussion with an admin utcursh-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Saragarhi&oldid=1025711154]. To troll and gaslight his disputant, he made an account impersonating utcursh, which he pointed out: "Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either." and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1025641643]-"After posting here, the anon (192 and 199 FedEx proxies) created an account impersonating me ([[User:UAtmaram]]), and added a few other sources to the article." and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1025641643#Valid_Sources?]. AtmaramU is a confirmed Hb sock. |
|||
1. Stars678 |
|||
You can see on KamalAfghan's SPI, with the exception of Maplesyrupsushi, all of them were filed by HB's FedEx socks-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kamal_Afghan01/Archive]. Dazzem makes the same post on Ponyo's talk page-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&diff=prev&oldid=1194740673] regarding KamalAfghan despite being a brand new editor. And this was right before HB's confirmed 2601:547 Pittsburgh IPs were harassing Leviathian12, whom HB believed to be a KA sock-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:547:B00:E453:0:0:0:0/64]. In fact, the most current KamalAfghan SPI report is by the confirmed 2601:547 HB sock-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:547:B00:D373:613C:D03A:DCD9:EE6A]. Just goes to show this user tries to gaslight and be as outlandish as possible, so that anyone who reports him seems like they're exaggerating or being overzealous because no one would act that absurdly. |
|||
2. JapanNipponTokyo19 |
|||
You can also note that 170* and 199* FedEx proxy who filed the SPI on KamalAfghan and were canvassing on Ponyo's talk page was also on Courcelles' talk page trying to get me blocked by saying I'm a sock of PrinceofRoblox-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles&action=history&dir=prev&offset=20230925174749%7C1177058004] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles&diff=prev&oldid=1180566868], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles&diff=prev&oldid=1181037043]. Which is basically what Finmas (now blocked HB sock) was doing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince_Of_Roblox/Archive#28_December_2023]. |
|||
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643 |
|||
I'm sorry- I know this is pretty convoluted, but Dazzem is 110% a sockpuppet or at the very least meatpuppet of HB, it isn't even a matter of suspicion or plausible deniability. Their behaviours match 1:1. If you want me to clear anything up or have any questions, please let me know, I think it's imperative that a a brazen block evader and gaslighter like HB be shut down swiftly. He has been harassing and hurting people and disrupting Wikipedia for far too long. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e |
|||
:After checking this additional evidence, I've gone back and blocked Dazzem as well. Thanks for following up. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hello, I recently updated the SPI concerning RangersRus, I also added a TLDR timeline which sort of condenses everything. I believe the connection between the two accounts is very strong or at the very least there's an enormous red flag here. I would appreciate it if you took a look a it. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've seen your update, and it is definitely more concise which was needed there. As far as moving it forward, I'm not a Checkuser or Clerk so I can't do anything there until one of them takes a look and decides whether to run the check. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I understand and I appreciate you looking into this, however the comment "The evidence seems pretty thin to me" is on the SPI and I'm worried that a CU/clerk will look at it and be more dismissive of it. It's happened in the previous 2 reports even though the accounts listed were clearly socks. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
5. 203.168.xx |
|||
== SPI == |
|||
6. 203.81.xx |
|||
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times. |
|||
:Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's ''actually productive''. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exposed.factotum|this SPI]]? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, thanks, I'll let some clerk earn their keep.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post. |
|||
== Tyciol == |
|||
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets. |
|||
Hi, The Wordsmith. Thank you for your work at SPI. You blocked [[Special:Contributions/70.29.157.201]] locally on the English Wikipedia. Would it be possible to also globally block that IP? Tyciol is a cross-wiki sockpuppeteer; for example, you can see his IP socks in the history of Wikiquote's "Lolicon" page [https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&action=history] and Wiktionary's "parthenophile" page [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=parthenophile&action=history]. Cheers, [[User:Genericusername57|gnu]][[User talk:Genericusername57|<span style="color:#ff7000">57</span>]] 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator. |
|||
:{{GlobalLocksRequested}} [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global&diff=prev&oldid=26344439] <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Not stale== |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Lades2222|Lades2222]] ([[User talk:Lades2222|talk]]) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I disagree with your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Observer1989&diff=prev&oldid=1211880403 closing comments here]. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40e3:4020:9f82:74a2:d559:b394:3862/32 ban evader is not stale] and he is still trolling other editors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1211828863][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1212124009] Range block is still needed. <span style="font-family:'Forte';">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#d93634;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</span> 13:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I |
:I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
== |
==Unblock== |
||
Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat). |
|||
Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. |
|||
Hi, I had tried to fix most of the issues with the page [[Dasht Tehsil]] which just got deleted as G5 (and, at one point, it looked pretty good, although I'm not sure if the page was still in that state when it got deleted), would it be possible to ask for undeletion if I took responsibility for it? Thanks a lot! [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 06:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness. |
|||
:{{Done}}, sorry I missed your edits to it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 06:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today). |
|||
== SPI reconsideration == |
|||
Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).[[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I really think you should reconsider the RangersRus case. |
|||
:Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I find it exceedingly unlikely that a user whose first edits to Wikipedia were two hours after HB's confirmed sock-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&action=history&date-range-to=2023-08-28&tagfilter=&offset=&limit=20] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A24.154.112.204] and had the exact same nature. |
|||
::Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification. |
|||
::Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive. |
|||
::Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself. |
|||
::Kind regards. [[Special:Contributions/89.214.148.253|89.214.148.253]] ([[User talk:89.214.148.253|talk]]) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==SPI== |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani|this case]]? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Who voted to delete an article, making the exact same arguments as HB's IP and proxy socks-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1195748445],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1202031892], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1200995996], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1202024521], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1200986209] and this is after HB made 14 edits on the talk page (5 in April 2023 + 9 in Jan 2024)-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1152531282]. Abecedare even striked one of HB's Pittsburgh IP edit writing "<nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit|Sock]]."</nowiki> |
|||
==Asphonixm== |
|||
Who only began their AFD voting spree, on the same day, just three hours after I made my first AFD nom in 2024 and made it clear that I was going to starting nominating poorly written/sourced articles that HB has proven over and over again to use any tactic to keep these articles-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_battle_of_Anandpur_(1704)&oldid=1195666027] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Udgir&diff=prev&oldid=1195712947]. Should also be noted that 14 Jan, HB was up to this-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:547:B00:E453:0:0:0:0/64] , [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kamal_Afghan01&diff=prev&oldid=1195617551], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1195603302], could be anything but HB . |
|||
Thank you for addressing another [[user:Hi Bree!|sock account]] of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account [[User talk:Nida Suryani|Nida Suryani]]? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "[[Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin]]," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as [[user:Rita Puspa]]. Once again, thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Is it not at least a little unusual that RangersRus made his first AFD 3 hours after my AFD nom (that too on a topic HB was/is extremely fixated on) when he had almost 1000 edits up to that point and then began voting in AFDs incessantly right then and there? I think it's fair to say that this HB watches my each and every move on Wikipedia-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&diff=prev&oldid=1208160729],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=prev&oldid=1208183586],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8&diff=prev&oldid=1166533669],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutrality&diff=prev&oldid=1177455365], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles&diff=prev&oldid=1177634504], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince_Of_Roblox&oldid=1192357617], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Suthasianhistorian8&diff=prev&oldid=1157342221], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Manakpur&diff=prev&oldid=1166409852] and that's not even counting the hundreds of times he's followed to me pages that I edited within hours, so this absolutely seems like HB tacitly trying to vote in my AFDs and the large volume of AFD votes seems like a way to evade scrutiny. He's done so before-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Manakpur&diff=prev&oldid=1166408409]. |
|||
::Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm]]. Thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 == |
|||
I think admins' apprehensions stem from the fact that RangersRus made a lot of edits on unrelated pages + they're unfamiliar with HaughtonBrit's editing patterns and underestimate his sheer persistence and bizzare nature. I really, really, really think that at the least an admin who's involved in South Asian topics and familiar with HB, like RegentsPark or Abecedare should at least take a look at this SPI before it's closed. I've also been chastised and spurned by admins before when it came to HB's sockpuppetry but my suspicions were correct or the accounts I reported were unquestionably HB-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1136095962], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1136097370], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Suthasianhistorian8&diff=prev&oldid=1147041354] (concering Javerine) + [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Javerine], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1187084965]. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
:Correct me if I'm wrong, but {{u|RangersRus}}'s first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August. As far as the AFD !votes, discussing the reliability of sources is what editors are ''supposed to do'' at AFD. His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir]]. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in. His rationales seem pretty reasonable; the fact that his first (in an unrelated AFD) was 3 hours after you nominated a different one isn't solid evidence. What you refer to as a "spree" doesn't mean anything; we maintain [[WP:DELSORT]] lists to group open AFDs by topic, and most of these were in the India category. Behavior like that is very common among legitimate AFD participants. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 --> |
|||
:I normally don't say much about what behavioral evidence I find in sockpuppetry cases, for [[WP:BEANS]] reasons (too much detail can tell sockmasters how to avoid being caught next time). In this case, I'll make an exception. There is a degree of overlap in topics edited, but that's not unusual for somebody interested in Indian history and culture. Many of these India-related articles have 2-4 different sock farms, sometimes fighting each otehr and reporting each other. The topic area is a mess. There are also tons of legitimate editors who sometimes have similar opinions to the sockmasters. Looking at RangersRus's participation in internal project areas, I see a natural progression that's common to legitimate new editors. His early edits have a few mistakes that are common to new editors but not seen in the HB socks I checked. As far as their writing style, I see a lot of grammatical and stylistic differences from previous HB socks. I picked up a few quirks that RR has that I didn't see in HB socks, and RR has a much less aggressive/confrontational tone. |
|||
:In short, I'm not going to change my decision. I see solid behavioral evidence that this is a different person, and I'm not seeing any of HB's disruptive tactics. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August." |
|||
:The 24* IP was indeed blocked in June, but it should be noted that this is an IPv4 which means that, unless it's a public or proxy IP, it is assigned to one person. If you look at the IP's edits, it's clearly ALL HaughtonBrit, you can see in April, this IP canvassed on Ronnie Macroni's t/p , asking him to create an article which detailed a Sikh victory, in order to counter the creation of an article in which the Sikhs endured a defeat. I actually vividly remember this IP, because HB was using them right after his account {{noping|Ralx88}} was blocked, that was the first time where HB had drastically ramped up their use of IPs to block evade. You can see that Ralx888 was blocked on 28 April 20:18, and the 24* IP becomes active on 21:58 on the same day. Take a look at the history for the page [[Battle of Kashmir (1814)]] in which the 24 IP was active in-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)&action=history], you can see a bunch of Ralx888 edits, attempting to hinder KamalAfghan, and the subsequent locking of the page by Abecedare for HB's sockpuppetry. You can also see during this time frame of April 2023, Abecedare was particularly active in countering HB's sockpuppetry-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1152319906], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cis-Sutlej_states&diff=prev&oldid=1152319968], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_battles_involving_the_Sikh_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1152320208], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gandgarh&diff=prev&oldid=1152320726], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Rajiv_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1152349200], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Akora_Khattak&diff=prev&oldid=1152531282]. The subsequent 24* IP's edits are obviously HB as well-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Lalru_bus_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1158374187]. The 24* IP's edits on Sikhism in the United States are undobutedly HB, HB made all these edits beforehand-[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1163847411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1163848237], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1163848500], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1163848945], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1163999912], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1147211847], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1147212145] and you can see that his other sock accounts were active in various Sikhism in X country articles-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Finmas]. |
|||
:You can also see for example, this 50* IP that resubmitted MehmoodS' unblock request after his t/p access was revoked-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MehmoodS&diff=prev&oldid=1097269736] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.248.64.249]. The IP was clearly used by HB to block evade while MehmoodS was blocked-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&diff=prev&oldid=1077717421], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&action=history&offset=&limit=500], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&diff=prev&oldid=1104525357], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&diff=prev&oldid=1104525664], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&diff=prev&oldid=1104776075], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadaji_Shinde&diff=prev&oldid=1104897318], which is one reason why MehmoodS' unblock request was denied. You can also see the exact same 50 IP socking on the page Assasination of Rajiv Gandhi-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Rajiv_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1152336264], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Rajiv_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1149995585], leading to the page being protected. You can see the 50* IP being used to edit war along with oscillating Pittsburgh IPv6s in July 2023 on the page Sikh Empire ( a page in which HB has made over 50+ edits if you include accounts and IPs)-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh+Empire&date-range-to=2023-07-07&tagfilter=&action=history]. You can see that the 50 IP was blocked in April 2023 for block evasion-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.248.64.249&oldid=1152348934] despite the resubmission of MehmoodS' unblock request taking place in July 2022. |
|||
:'''The main point here is that just because the IPs were blocked at certain times, doesn't mean that the edits made by them after the block, cease to be HB. These IPs are operated exclusively by HB, and there is undeniable behavioural and technical evidence to support that. ''' |
|||
:So the 24 IP that made the edits on the page Sikhism in the United States on 27 August 2023 was done by HB, and RangersRus came in two hours and made the exact same type of edits. Also the 24 IP removed Abecedare's block notice on his talk page in between his edits on Sikhism in the United States-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.154.112.204&diff=prev&oldid=1172515520]. |
|||
== [[WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Allan (actor)]] == |
|||
:" His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in." |
|||
:I did not say that RangersRus's first AFD vote was to an AFD I nominated, I pointed out that his very first AFD vote was made 3 hours after my nom. Also his first two AFD votes aren't exactly unrelated, they are both to delete battles in which the Marathas were involved. The Battle of Udgir-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Udgir&diff=prev&oldid=1195712947] was apparently a decisive Maratha victory according to this mirror source-[https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Udgir]. His second AFD vote overall was also related to the Marathas-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maratha_raid_on_Delhi_(1737)&diff=prev&oldid=1195717392]. I pointed out how while his primary motive on Wikipedia is to aggrandize Sikh military achievements, this concomitantly includes vitiating historical adversaries like the Marathas and Afghans, the former being particularly anathema to him. I included many diffs in the SPI which detail HB's fixation with the Marathas. MehmoodS, alone, made hundreds of edits on various pages just removing honorifics on the most prominent Maratha leader- Shivaji, who often has the honorifics "Chatrapati" and "Maharaj" prefixed and suffixed to his name on Wikipedia, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. He made dozens of edits logged out even after his account was blocked pertaining to the Marathas. Any admin involved in South Asian topics could take a look at HB's accounts and confirm this to be the case unequivocally. RangersRus's first few edits was also on a page where he removed content of the Marathas conquering a fort and the Sikhs being defeated by an Afghan ruler-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohtas_Fort&diff=prev&oldid=1173320549]. |
|||
:While these early edits to the page Sikhism and the United States 2 hours after his confirmed IP sock was editing it and Maratha related pages on their own don't mean much on their own, when you take in the AFDs and all the intricacies, they all are a dead givewaway. RangersRus up until Jan 14, had 990+ edits on Wikipedia and zero AFD votes, on the very day when HaughtonBrit was on major evasion spree-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:547:B00:E453:0:0:0:0/64], openly deceiving admins and filing SPIs against competing sock farms-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1195603302], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kamal_Afghan01], with the intention of aggrandizing his co-coreligionists. The day I made my first AFD nom on a battle in which the Sikhs were (erroneously) depicted as victorious is when RangersRus made an AFD vote to delete an article involving the Marathas-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThird_battle_of_Anandpur_%281704%29] (20:34 14 Jan) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Udgir&diff=prev&oldid=1195712947] (14 Jan 23:52). |
|||
:His subsequent AFDs such as this one on 15 Jan-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Akora_Khattak] is a page which HB has been fixated on for months-making 14 edits on the talk page of the article, 9 edits as Ralx888 and an IP on the article itself, and 4 edits logged out on the AFD (again the evidence for this is on the SPI). You can also note that RangersRus and the 4 anon votes have the exact same argument. He then goes on to make 60-70 AFD votes in less than 2 months, which is anything but natural and screams cover up. He votes in 2 of my AFDs since then, and I forgot to mention this but on my most recent AFD-the Battle of Rohilla[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Rohilla]-is a page HB edited 7 times before-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1091324725], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1091325305], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1091325450], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1091327306], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1094121567], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1100788823], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rohilla&diff=prev&oldid=1100788967]. What's also unusual is that RangersRus votes to keep the Battle of Rohilla in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources only having a small, vauge paragraph on it, whereas he voted to delete the Battle of Akhora Khattak in which the Sikhs were defeated, arguing that the sources did not have enough coverage on the battle. |
|||
:The sheer volume of edits prior to his first AFD votes, the unusual timing of it being just after my AFD nom, and it being related to the Marathas, the fact that he edited in close proximity to HB's confirmed socks, not just once but twice (Sikhism in the United States and the Battle of Akora Khatta AFD), the fact that he made 60+ AFD votes since Jan 14 (which you have to admit is a lot) which points to minimizing scrutiny, the fact that he voted to keep a battle in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources clearly having insufficient coverage yet voting to delete an article in which the Sikhs were defeated arguing about insufficient coverage from sources, the fact that HB himself used to edit the exact same way RangersRus is doing by interspersing religious edits in between a bunch of random movies, and the fact that HB has been following me on hundreds of pages and messing with me in all sorts of ways either tacitly or overtly, including on an AFD I nominated in 2023, seems to me to be a clear indication that RangersRus is being used by HB to tacitly vote in my AFDs to hinder me from deleting articles in which his co-religionists are aggrandized. |
|||
:Again, I really think it's a good idea to have an admin who's familiar with HB and South Asian topics to at least take a look and pass judgment, I don't see what the rush is when Wikipedia doesn't have any deadlines, and this is a case which involves a lot of extensive sockpuppetry being done through various means and a user who has displayed extreme persistence and deception and idiosyncratic behaviour to further their cause. There's just so much context and history a layman would miss because this involves 4+ years of sockpuppetry and thousands of edits across hundreds of pages. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Wikipedia may not have deadlines, but it does have backlogs. SPI is one of them, and I've been helping to clear it out. We don't need a scarlet letter hanging over the head of this user for months until somebody gets around to reviewing it a second time. You've already pinged multiple other admins and written on {{u|Abecedare}}'s talkpage asking for a second look. There's nothing stopping them from doing so, but I've noticed you have a habit of doing this which comes across as [[WP:OTHERPARENT]]. Admins and Checkusers have limited time available, and it isn't always possible to just wait for your preferred admin to get around to looking at it. I'd suggest giving it a rest for a while, they don't seem to be doing anything disruptive. If that changes, it can be handled via the normal methods. If they start doing more sock-like things, you can always file a new request. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with you but in the meantime, can the report be unclosed/reopened? Closing the report doesn't allow any other admins to review it, and the SPI already alerted the user, so he's almost certainly going to try to avoid the certain AFDs/behaviour which previously implicated him, thus making the prior report and any possible valuable CU data stale and likely unactionable. Shouldn't a user who has numerous confirmed sock accounts and thousands of logged out edits, who made 4 votes on a AFD just a month ago be investigated as soon as possible? Again, I am very confident that RangersRus is a sock account, as much as I was convinced about Finmas and Dazzem and Javerine. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It also seems the report was also closed based on fundamental misunderstandings of my arguments, notably "Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August. " and "His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in. His rationales seem pretty reasonable". This really does not seem fair. [[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 22:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->[[User:Suthasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Suthasianhistorian8|talk]]) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, |
|||
== Asphonixm == |
|||
You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've restored the article to [[User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor)]]. Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hey, The Wordsmith. Thanks for handling SPI. You've blocked [[Special:Contributions/SoilMineo39]], but could you revisit [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm]]? There's a new account, Barstain, with similar editing patterns to the blocked sock, and two others seem to have been created solely to comment on Afd, with their first edits on WP being on Afd discussion.IMO, It's unusual for new accounts to make their first edit on Afd discussions unless it's [[WP:SID]]. Thanks again. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Precious anniversary == |
|||
::::That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}} |
|||
:::::... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from {{u|Mushy Yank}} is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Recent SPI close == |
||
Hi, |
|||
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case. |
|||
:Since RfCs are [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When [[WP:DETCON|determining the consensus]] we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the ''why'' of the close, rather than the ''what'' of the close. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As mentioned by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company. |
|||
== RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I == |
|||
The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ant%C3%B3nio_Sim%C3%B5es_(executive)&diff=prev&oldid=1214347382] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale? |
|||
This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace. |
|||
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review]] is now '''no longer accepting new proposals'''. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]'s structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion: |
|||
There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Proposal 2]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, provides for the addition of a text box at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3: Add three days of discussion before voting (trial)|Proposals 3]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|3b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Usedtobecool}}, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial)|Proposal 5]]''', initiated by {{noping|SilkTork}}, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6c: Provisional adminship via sortition (admin nomination)|Proposals 6c]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6d: Provisional adminship via sortition (criteria to be determined)|6d]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 7: Threaded General Comments|Proposal 7]]''', initiated by {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Proposal 9b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Reaper Eternal}}, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%|Proposals 12c]]''', '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21: Reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21]]''', and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21b: Slightly reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21b]]''', initiated by {{noping|City of Silver}}, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and {{u|HouseBlaster}}, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Proposal 13]]''', initiated by {{noping|Novem Lingaue}}, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Proposal 14]]''', initiated by {{noping|Kusma}}, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Proposals 16]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki|16c]]''', initiated by {{noping|Thebiguglyalien}} and {{noping|Soni}}, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboard]]; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16e: Allow the community to initiate recall RfBs|Proposal 16e]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Proposal 17]]''', initiated by {{noping|SchroCat}}, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 18: Normalize the RfB consensus requirements|Proposal 18]]''', initiated by {{noping|theleekycauldron}}, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Proposal 24]]''', initiated by {{noping|SportingFlyer}}, provides for a more robust alternate version of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|optional candidate poll]]. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Proposal 25]]''', initiated by {{noping|Femke}}, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 27: Introduce training/periodic retraining for admins|Proposal 27]]''', initiated by {{noping|WereSpielChequers}}, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 28: limiting multi-part questions|Proposal 28]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions. |
|||
On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that ''we'' are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham. |
|||
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals]]. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her), via: |
|||
The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above. |
|||
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1213660347 --> |
|||
(Also copying in {{u|dormskirk}} as they have also been active on these articles.) [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Subject: Page Redirection Issue == |
|||
:A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.'''114''', which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.'''144''' was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP [[Whac-A-Mole]]. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Dear Administrator |
|||
::Many thanks for your help here. Yes, I agree 100% with everything that you've said (and the 114 vs 144 was a typo on my part, for which my apologies). Thanks again. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Jellypeeler == |
|||
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to inform you about a technical issue regarding page redirection on the website. |
|||
[[User talk:Jellypeeler]] has requested the removal of a block you imposed. Since it came at the end of an SPI, I think you're the only one allowed to respond, aside from a community discussion, so I declined it on procedural grounds. Could you review it? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 10:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
When attempting to access the page titled Assessment of Potential [[TikTok Ban in the United States]] users are being redirected to a different page titled [[Restrictions on TikTok in the United States]] Although the topics are related, the content on each page differs. |
|||
:I don't think they should be unblocked. In addition to the behviour I noted at the [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TwinTurbo/Archive| SPI]], after Yamla identified their other account, Mr. Riba, I took a look at that account's activity which is mostly on Commons (nothing here) and saw they uploaded a couple images of [[Mahek Bukhari]], an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Mahek+Bukhari&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Jellypeeler created here] (and other Wikis). One was a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png mugshot], which has since been deleted via [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png this deletion request] so you can't see it now but as I noted in the request, the image had been manipulated to make her look better. The other is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maybvlogs-4-PLT-shoot.jpg this one] which was uploaded via Flicker on March 3rd and attributed to Cheyanne Reynolds. The [https://flickr.com/photos/200191765@N04/53563439850 Flicker account] was created on March 2nd, a day before the upload, and only has four photos, all of Mahek Bukhari so seems coordinated. It's all very fishy. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Could you please investigate this matter and ensure that the redirection is corrected so that users are directed to the appropriate page? |
|||
:The restriction only applies to blocks marked as Checkuser blocks. I'm just a regular patrolling admin at SPI, so my blocks are subject to review in the usual manner. I think the evidence is strong, but I have no objections to an uninvolved admin handling the unblock request using their own judgement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Courtesy ping to {{yo|Yamla}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me know if you need anything from me. I have no objection if people want to lift the block here. Of course, it's not my block. I can also look for any further evidence of sockpuppetry, though I expect everything's stale. Also, Nyttend, welcome back! Glad to see you active once again. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 25 April 2024 == |
|||
Thank you for your attention to this matter. |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-04-25|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
Best regards, |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1220541483 --> |
|||
Syed Shahveer [[User:Syed Shaveer|Syed Shaveer]] ([[User talk:Syed Shaveer|talk]]) 20:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 == |
|||
:[[Assessment of Potential TikTok Ban in the United States]] |
|||
:This Page [[User:Syed Shaveer|Syed Shaveer]] ([[User talk:Syed Shaveer|talk]]) 21:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (April 2024). |
|||
== [[Help:Designing infoboxes#testing]] feature failure == |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
@[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
Looking to get an admin's attention on an infobox development question. The [[Help_talk:Designing_infoboxes|Talk]] page shows at least 3 users that are having an issue using the best practices methodology for initial testing of a new infobox. Whether it's because the feature is broken or because the language describing how to perform the task is too sparse....unknown. However, I've done due diligence in looking into the history of the [[Help:Designing infoboxes#testing|Testing]] section, and it hasn't been edited in over a decade. The first person identifying a problem on the talk page is from 2021. |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1220304714#Resysop request (Nyttend)|Nyttend]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|JohnOwens]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|Killiondude]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218467362#Handing in my mop|MelanieN]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
Can you look into this, or point me to your favorite admin to see if we can get this feature working or better explained? [[User:PaladinOfDaedalus|eximo]] ([[User talk:PaladinOfDaedalus|talk]]) 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
:I'm not sure that needs an admin specifically, but the Help page does seem to be missing a step. After you get to the blank page in your Userspace, you would need to actually create the template. If you're using a pre-existing infobox as a starting point, this can be done either through copying and pasting the code of the existing template (remembering to provide attribution in an edit summary), or editing the page with <nowiki>{{subst:Infobox Example}}</nowiki> to copy the code directly. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
== SPI close == |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|Joe Roe]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
Hello, you closed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kcosip]] but you didn't actually archive it. Please archive it. Cheers, —'''Matrix(!)''' ''([[User:Matrix|a good person!]])''<sub>[[User talk:Matrix|[''Citation not needed at all; thank you very much'']]]</sub> 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
:Only an SPI Clerk can archive the cases, one should be around to do that when they get a chance. Unfortunately SPI is severely backlogged, so it could be a while. There's no harm in just leaving it closed for a while. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship review]] has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|creating a discussion-only period]] (3b) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|administrator elections]] (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|creating a reminder of civility norms]] (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|full report]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
== AE == |
|||
* Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. [[phab:T280531|T280531]] |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith, |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|Conflict of interest management]]'' has been closed. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zilch-nada|this]]. |
|||
* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. |
|||
* A [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024|'''New Pages Patrol backlog drive''']] is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|new pages feed]]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
* Voting for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]] election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024#Voting|voting page on Meta-Wiki]] and '''[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/396|cast your vote here!]]''' |
|||
---- |
|||
Thanks, [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1220239146 --> |
|||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
:Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Shiny things are the worst, especially [[tinsel]] ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
== Help.. == |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
Dear Wikimedian, |
|||
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts. |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times. |
|||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. |
|||
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors. |
|||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. |
|||
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets. |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
1. Stars678 |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
2. JapanNipponTokyo19 |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643 |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> |
|||
== RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins == |
|||
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e |
|||
Hi there! Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review]] has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus: |
|||
5. 203.168.xx |
|||
* '''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Require links for claims of specific policy violations]] |
|||
6. 203.81.xx |
|||
* '''Proposal 3b''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|Make the first two days discussion-only]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 13''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Admin elections]] |
|||
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times. |
|||
* '''Proposal 14''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Suffrage requirements]] |
|||
* '''Proposals 16 and 16c''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_16c%3A_Community_recall_process_based_on_dewiki|Community recall process based on dewiki]] |
|||
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post. |
|||
* '''Proposal 17''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 24''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process]] |
|||
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets. |
|||
* '''Proposal 25''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Require nominees to be extended confirmed]] |
|||
See the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|project page]] for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]]), via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1218650058 --> |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Lades2222|Lades2222]] ([[User talk:Lades2222|talk]]) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:09, 5 May 2024
| |||||||||||||
Contentious Topics awareness templates
|
---|
SPI
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's actually productive. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of this SPI? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). The WordsmithTalk to me 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GENDERID RfC close
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since RfCs are WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When determining the consensus we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the why of the close, rather than the what of the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When determining the consensus we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the why of the close, rather than the what of the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
AE
Hi The Wordsmith,
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at this.
Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Shiny things are the worst, especially tinsel ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. Seraphimblade kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in how it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any attention from other admins, but if it doesn't then I'll just take action on my own. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. Seraphimblade kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in how it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shiny things are the worst, especially tinsel ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Help..
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts.
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times.
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors.
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets.
1. Stars678
2. JapanNipponTokyo19
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e
5. 203.168.xx
6. 203.81.xx
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times.
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post.
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets.
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator.
Thank you. Lades2222 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Unblock
Hi, I am Barr Theo. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer Chaotic Enby. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).
Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing.
Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.
Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).
Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification.
- Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive.
- Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself.
- Kind regards. 89.214.148.253 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
SPI
Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on this case? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. Orientls (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Asphonixm
Thank you for addressing another sock account of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account Nida Suryani? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as user:Rita Puspa. Once again, thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Hello, You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've restored the article to User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor). Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. Velella Velella Talk 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from Mushy Yank is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. Velella Velella Talk 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Recent SPI close
Hi,
Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case.
As mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company.
The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [1] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale?
This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace.
There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time.
On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that we are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham.
The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above.
(Also copying in dormskirk as they have also been active on these articles.) Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.114, which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.144 was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP Whac-A-Mole. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Jellypeeler
User talk:Jellypeeler has requested the removal of a block you imposed. Since it came at the end of an SPI, I think you're the only one allowed to respond, aside from a community discussion, so I declined it on procedural grounds. Could you review it? Nyttend (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think they should be unblocked. In addition to the behviour I noted at the SPI, after Yamla identified their other account, Mr. Riba, I took a look at that account's activity which is mostly on Commons (nothing here) and saw they uploaded a couple images of Mahek Bukhari, an article Jellypeeler created here (and other Wikis). One was a mugshot, which has since been deleted via this deletion request so you can't see it now but as I noted in the request, the image had been manipulated to make her look better. The other is this one which was uploaded via Flicker on March 3rd and attributed to Cheyanne Reynolds. The Flicker account was created on March 2nd, a day before the upload, and only has four photos, all of Mahek Bukhari so seems coordinated. It's all very fishy. S0091 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The restriction only applies to blocks marked as Checkuser blocks. I'm just a regular patrolling admin at SPI, so my blocks are subject to review in the usual manner. I think the evidence is strong, but I have no objections to an uninvolved admin handling the unblock request using their own judgement. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Yamla: The WordsmithTalk to me 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let me know if you need anything from me. I have no objection if people want to lift the block here. Of course, it's not my block. I can also look for any further evidence of sockpuppetry, though I expect everything's stale. Also, Nyttend, welcome back! Glad to see you active once again. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Yamla: The WordsmithTalk to me 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)