→User:BigHaz: my guess as to what's going on here |
→User:BigHaz: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
:::You haven't deleted a page since October 2020 and today you jumped in deleting many PRODs, some of them days before they were due to be deleted. If this is not a compromised account, then this is just incompetence and you don't know what admin standards are any more. You don't delete an article tagged for Proposed deletion days early. I still think a checkuser is called for here. Please do not remove this comment like you did my other one on your talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
:::You haven't deleted a page since October 2020 and today you jumped in deleting many PRODs, some of them days before they were due to be deleted. If this is not a compromised account, then this is just incompetence and you don't know what admin standards are any more. You don't delete an article tagged for Proposed deletion days early. I still think a checkuser is called for here. Please do not remove this comment like you did my other one on your talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::: I'd almost guess that it's more likely related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigHaz&diff=prev&oldid=1152577988 this] than to a compromised account. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
:::: I'd almost guess that it's more likely related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigHaz&diff=prev&oldid=1152577988 this] than to a compromised account. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::In the order in which you make the points: |
|||
::::1. '''I haven't deleted a page since October 2020:''' Correct. I have been relatively busy in the real world, but am not at present quite so busy. |
|||
::::2. Today I jumped in deleting many PRODs: Also correct. I received a notification that it would be a good idea that I perform some administrative actions and happened to have some spare time to do that. Deleting PRODs is a relatively simple action and one which (last time I was involved) was welcomed as a means of dealing with articles which shouldn't necessarily have been on Wikipedia. I see now that it is no longer the case. |
|||
::::3. Some of them days before they were due to be deleted: Wrong. I was careful to confirm that the pages in question had been listed for a week (which the information indicates is still the standard) before deleting them. I am more than willing to accept that there may be a time-zone issue here, as I am in Australia and it is approximately 11:30am on 6 May for me, but I am not aware of any which were deleted "days before" any due date. If you wish to provide examples, I am happy to be corrected, but flying off the handle isn't a promising beginning. |
|||
::::4. This is just incompetence: Wrong. As mentioned above, it is nothing of the sort. |
|||
::::5. And [I] don't know what admin standards are any more: You may be right in this claim. When last I dealt with admin-related matters, there was a general sense that it was a good idea that people were doing them. It appears that I am now trespassing on a little fiefdom where good faith is not to be assumed. If this is the case, I'll happily perform other actions in the future. |
|||
::::6. Please do not remove this comment: Why would I? This is a different forum to my Talk page. While you are free to escalate matters and fly off handles in either location, I consider this a more "public" environment than my Talk page. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:29, 6 May 2023
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Open tasks
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 59 | 71 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 23 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
- 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 150 sockpuppet investigations
- 16 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 35 requests for RD1 redaction
- 33 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 20 requested closures
- 139 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enough is really enough
I would like to propose that all AC/DC members pages be indef semi protected. I haven't dug into the the diff's (I've been reverting the Scottish/Australian editwarring For years now) and I think it's time to fix this. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have listed the main articles affected by edit-warring over nationality. The five musician biographies are people born in Scotland who were naturalised as Australian citizens in their youth. The band AC/DC was formed by them in Australia, making it an Australian band. Lots of good-faith editors swing by to insert "Scottish-born" at the top of a biography,[1] or to change it entirely to "Scottish" which is tendentious.[2][3] The longstanding consensus among these articles is to show only the naturalised citizenship of the musicians. Past discussions about this issue may be seen at Talk:AC/DC#Nationality, Australian vs Scottish vs Scottish Born. Indefinite semi-protection will help tremendously in keeping down the noise. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone want to put in an entry at WP:LAME while you're at it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I agree, all these drive-by edits made by IP's and newbies is exactly why I'd like to get these pages protected. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- As someone who used to perform in an AC/DC cover band (this is a true fact about me), I think I should simply be given total authority over these pages, whereupon I will list the correct nationality: Ruritanian. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- As someone who used to perform in an AC/DC cover band... I'm not sure that's something you should be spreading around the Internet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruritania: Nope, reveiw WP:COI - FlightTime (open channel) 01:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- ^^Edit of the week! :)—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone want to put in an entry at WP:LAME while you're at it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation annual plan meetings to discuss admin needs
Hi all - this week on Thursday 4th May at 17:00 UTC, the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a conversation about the Product & Tech OKRs for next fiscal year, particularly WE1.2: "Complete improvements to four workflows that improve the experience of editors with extended rights". We'd like to hear what you think about the wording of this goal, suggestions on the most important priorities for us to consider, and are particularly interested in learning about how you identify and prioritise what you work on as an administrator. You can sign up at Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Collaboration/Moderators conversation. Hoping to see you there! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that there are two other calls this week that might be of interest:
- Commons moderator workflow conversation: 3 May 2023, 15:30 UTC
- Future audiences: 5 May 2023, 16:00 UTC
- Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My sister works for California-based startups in the United States. She talks like this now, too. I can't understand half of the things that she says any more. I say that I have to go to the store to buy milk. She says something like, "I need to facilitate adjusting my food retention paradigm through a new data workflow in the food achievement OKR." I think maybe she's been replaced by a robot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I had to look up OKR just a moment ago. It doesn't mean the OK Ranch. I've already forgotten what I just looked up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Improv[ing] workflows that improve experiences". Such improvement! But to what? ST47 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, the whole page is like that. It's so repetitive it's meaningless. – bradv 23:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- A prime example of how people forget the KISS principle. The Night Watch (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, the whole page is like that. It's so repetitive it's meaningless. – bradv 23:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Improv[ing] workflows that improve experiences". Such improvement! But to what? ST47 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Should have said "fix BLP issue and improve ref per WP:MILK"; so much clearer... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I had to look up OKR just a moment ago. It doesn't mean the OK Ranch. I've already forgotten what I just looked up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My sister works for California-based startups in the United States. She talks like this now, too. I can't understand half of the things that she says any more. I say that I have to go to the store to buy milk. She says something like, "I need to facilitate adjusting my food retention paradigm through a new data workflow in the food achievement OKR." I think maybe she's been replaced by a robot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate, Bbb23, ST47, Bradv, and The Night Watch: Apologies for not being clearer in my previous message - let me try again. The Wikimedia Foundation makes plans which run July - June each year, and we're currently developing the plans for next year (starting July 2023). When making these plans we figure out what the broad objectives we have are, in this case for example, one of the Product & Tech departments' top level objectives is "Support the growth of high quality and relevant content ...". Because these objectives span entire departments they end up being written in a way that's high level and vague. To be more specific we define some Key Results - the numbers we think we need to change to feel confident that we're making a positive change towards our objectives. This year, for the objective I quoted the start of, one of those specific lines of work is to improve four workflows used by editors with advanced user rights. To be even clearer - we want to do more to help patrollers, admins, stewards (and in general folks who aren't new editors) this year. Product leadership heard a lot of feedback in the past year that you feel like the WMF hasn't prioritised the tools and processes you engage with enough, so that's changing! This KR is particularly vague ("four workflows" rather than naming anything specific) because we want the process of choosing this work to be a collaborative effort.
- These calls are a chance for you to share your thoughts on these priorities and to let us know what you think we should be working on. Being candid, we haven't yet come to a conclusion about what my team (Moderator Tools) will prioritise next year, so I'm all ears on what you think the focus should be. We could focus on AbuseFilter, the Spam Blacklist, new page patrolling, anti-vandalism bots, or something I haven't thought of or heard about yet. If you're interested in letting me know, the call on Thursday is one place you could do that, or feel free to reply to me here or message me directly.
- Is that clearer? Any other questions I can answer? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply Sam, this simplification does help clarify things a bit. I sadly cannot attend the moderator conversation, but I encourage the attendees to discuss experimenting with new tools. New Pages Patrol and the AbuseFilter/Spam Blacklist appear to be running generally smoothly at the moment, and this may be the time to start to shift focus to discussing and experimenting with new gadgets and tools that may better help with moderation. The Night Watch (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- A quick reminder that this call will be happening 1.5 hours from now :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This Book is Gay by Juno Dawson
Hello! I would like to go about creating a wikipage for the book entitled This Book is Gay by Juno Dawson. The book has been reviewed by several outlets and has been the subject of controversy within the United States, landing it on the American Library Association's list of the most banned and challenged books of 2022. Due to the title, however, special permissions are required to create the page. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- [4]. Can you not turn this redirect into your article? Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I came across that page while looking into this, but it seems like the correctly-capitalized title, This Book Is Gay, was indeed create-locked. I've gone ahead and turned it into a redirect as well, which I believe should be all you need in order to create the actual article (and it's a valid redirect in itself in the meantime, FWIW). signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I hadn't checked the alternate capitalization since it was redlinked with a lower-case i on Dawson's page. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- The issue here was the blacklist, which restricts the creation of any page ending with " is gay". Animal lover |666| 12:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I hadn't checked the alternate capitalization since it was redlinked with a lower-case i on Dawson's page. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I came across that page while looking into this, but it seems like the correctly-capitalized title, This Book Is Gay, was indeed create-locked. I've gone ahead and turned it into a redirect as well, which I believe should be all you need in order to create the actual article (and it's a valid redirect in itself in the meantime, FWIW). signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive editing, POV pushing, and/or possible sockpuppetry
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@FlameRetardant has been making edits to Stop Cop City-related pages, including a number of police-related killings, and generally being disruptive since January of this year. They were previously warned for one of these edits in which they claimed a police killing was justified without context; when the topic was resurrected by User:Bricology they promised to return it to the page despite the warning and have essentially turned the discussion into a political debate (see here): That's a justified killing alright. I'd say Atlanta should get their money back but I moved to Cherokee so I don't actually care. What I do care about is that the killing of Rayshard Brooks was justified. A justified killing alright. That's what it was. Justified.
They also have been adding "relevant racial details" to the Shooting of Kinsley White page which they created and also some suspicious edits to the It's okay to be white page. After the former incident, @Fram and @Drmies have pointed out (as did I earlier) that the editor seems to have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies, citing WP:BLP1E, WP:CFORK, DB-A7 in their very first edit; and that this suggests that they are the sock of a blocked user. So far the pages they have edited have been:
- Stop Cop City (environmental protest)
- Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (activist killed during the above protest)
- It's okay to be white (slogan popularized by alt-right trolling)
- Shooting of Kinsley White (six-year-old white girl killed by a black man, which are apparently "relevant racial details")
- South River Forest (forest related to SCC)
And talk pages associated with these pages. I feel that this suggests the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeed one of the edits to the Stop Cop City page had a pretty explicit confession of POV pushing in the edit summary: WSJ doesn't use "environmental activists" to describe these anti-LEO thugs and neither will we
.
While I'm not entirely convinced this is enough evidence to warrant immediate administrator action, I do think it is enough evidence to warrant some deeper digging or investigation. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- A ping is not sufficient notification of this discussion. Please notify them properly. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve looked enough to think we need either an AP2 topic ban under CTOP protocols or just a straight NOTHERE indef. Undecided as to which. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Understood. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: If we indef now, we can stop the disruption, rather than wait for a TBAN violation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was involved with them on the "Shooting" page and AfD, as indicated above. I would add that the username, coupled with the edits, strongly suggests deliberate trolling. Fram (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- You fine folks are right, of course. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was involved with them on the "Shooting" page and AfD, as indicated above. I would add that the username, coupled with the edits, strongly suggests deliberate trolling. Fram (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: If we indef now, we can stop the disruption, rather than wait for a TBAN violation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Draft
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please move the draft Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 to mainspace. It's very clear the article is ready for mainspace. 94.44.224.44 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
hi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
if someone from Arab wiki administrators has bias obvious and others administrators don't take action. what i should to do ? جرهام (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- We can't help you with issues on the Arabic Wikipedia. If you have brought an issue to the administrators there and they declined to do as you asked, the only other thing you can do is bring the issue to the Arabic Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. If they too decline to take action, there's nothing else you can do. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Interfase. Topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I was indefinitely topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts by Galobtter due to this case. Galobtter said that I can ask for the topic ban to be narrowed for me to do the edits on Azerbaijani topics not related to the ethnic conflicts. I will promise to not participate in edit wars in future and be more polite with opponents in case of any potential edit conflict. So, can my topic ban be narrowed to give me option to make edits in articles on Azerbaijani topics not related to the ethnic conflicts? Interfase (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- At this point, only 2 days out, I would feel better if you spent some time in editing in an entirely different field, so you can demonstrate how you can "not participate in edit wars in future and be more polite with opponents in case of any potential edit conflict". I tend to think in terms of the Standard Offer in these cases presents a reasonable time frame to designate good behavior; asking for modification of a topic ban after only 2 days seems a bit premature, IMHO. --Jayron32 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- My area of interest are articles about Azerbaijani topics. That is why I want to demonstrate my behavior on articles not related to Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict editing neutral Azerbaijani topics. --Interfase (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, you did not notify Galobtter of this thread; pinging them is NOT good enough. Second, I don't think Galobtter envisioned your appealing the ban this quickly, and your statement on that issue is misleading. I think you should withdraw this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I just followed the options for appeal showed to me by Galobtter on my talk page. I thought that pinging is enough. Anyway I notified Galobtter. --Interfase (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, you did not notify Galobtter of this thread; pinging them is NOT good enough. Second, I don't think Galobtter envisioned your appealing the ban this quickly, and your statement on that issue is misleading. I think you should withdraw this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to start editing and creating articles about Azerbaijani sportspeople, scientists etc. first to designate good behavior. --Interfase (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- My area of interest are articles about Azerbaijani topics. That is why I want to demonstrate my behavior on articles not related to Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict editing neutral Azerbaijani topics. --Interfase (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I should have told Interfase that it was unlikely the community would look at an appeal without editing in other areas for at least 6 months. I always hate how broad these country topic bans have to be, but the more I look at Interfase's edit history the more problems I see, and their last AE sanction was for an article about a dance, which doesn't suggest that their edits outside the conflict area are going to be unproblematic. Galobtter (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123
I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.
One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.
- Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.
- Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
- Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
- Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
- What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.
More:
- Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
- After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
- Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
- Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi
Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was going to have a constructive discussion with you in Nazran raid but instead you report me because according to you I do sockpuppetry, how convenient. There's no point in making these conspiracy theories that all these mentioned users are connected with me, when this has no basis in reality and was disproven many times as I was proven innocent in the sockpuppetry investigation. I could also say same thing about you, Russian viki and Reiner Gavriel being the same person because you three had the same type of edits in Nazran raid: [5][6][7]. You're also grouping everything together to make it seem like I was edit warring in many pages at same time. Let's take a look at Orstkhoy, I usually have small disputes with Goddard2000 but if you take a look at the talk page, we usually come at some compromise. Now about Fyappiy, previously there was alot of original research like Fyappiy society belonging to both Ingush and Chechen when this is not mentioned in any source, I simply provided reliable sources for it being Ingush to which Reiner Gavriel kept either reverting my edits or added the word Chechen despite him not being able to provide a source [8]. Now back to Nazran raid, to push for your point of view, you purposely revert my edits so that the reliable sources that I put are deleted. I even added a source that the battle was Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory but you purposely reverted all my edits [9][10]. I was going to answer to you in the talk page in Nazran raid, but since you reported me here, that's gonna wait. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Nazran raid discussion should be kept to its respective talk page. I have demonstrated that even your own sources don’t agree with what you’re writing into the article (WP:OR). You edit war, accuse editors that disagrees of vandalism and refuse to address the argument; which is awfully similar to the 4 or so sockpuppets you seem connected to and cooperate with; potentially the same person even. Do not deviate the topic. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody's deviating the topic except maybe you, and I'm simply stating what's apparent. You accuse me of pushing for my point of view despite the fact that I provided sources for my claims. (While reverting my edit) you move down the text about Ingush militants (and simultaneously removing the reliable sources too) to a different section on a excuse that it's undue weight when there's quite literally 6 reliable sources cited. I provided a source which clear as day says that the result of Nazran raid was Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory but you simply close your eyes on that and revert that. I also provided a source for Ingush Jamaat on participating in the raid but you reverted that as well. I really hope that the admins will resolve this issue with you reverting sourced material, accusing people of sockpuppetry and nationalistic edits. I will once again remind you that same could be said about you, Reiner Gavriel and Russian Viki being the same person as you three were editing the same way in the article Nazran raid. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, this is not the place to discuss what belongs on the talk page of said article. A WP:OVERKILL does not strengthen your point or overall notability of the subject. Please refrain from cluttering this section as you're not making any effort to explain yourself except diverting it to: X did this and that. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody's deviating the topic except maybe you, and I'm simply stating what's apparent. You accuse me of pushing for my point of view despite the fact that I provided sources for my claims. (While reverting my edit) you move down the text about Ingush militants (and simultaneously removing the reliable sources too) to a different section on a excuse that it's undue weight when there's quite literally 6 reliable sources cited. I provided a source which clear as day says that the result of Nazran raid was Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory but you simply close your eyes on that and revert that. I also provided a source for Ingush Jamaat on participating in the raid but you reverted that as well. I really hope that the admins will resolve this issue with you reverting sourced material, accusing people of sockpuppetry and nationalistic edits. I will once again remind you that same could be said about you, Reiner Gavriel and Russian Viki being the same person as you three were editing the same way in the article Nazran raid. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Nazran raid discussion should be kept to its respective talk page. I have demonstrated that even your own sources don’t agree with what you’re writing into the article (WP:OR). You edit war, accuse editors that disagrees of vandalism and refuse to address the argument; which is awfully similar to the 4 or so sockpuppets you seem connected to and cooperate with; potentially the same person even. Do not deviate the topic. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Please review my possibly involved actions
- Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (#Google Chrome version history)
Please review my admin actions here, as I am a participant in the deletion review discussion. Last night while writing a comment I saw that an editor had requested that the deleted page be restored for review, and later wrote the same request in large font as it had not been actioned for some time, so I restored it myself and then blanked it with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. It's a contentious discussion that's spilled out to a few different pages and I was concerned that someone would use the opportunity to restore the article from the undeleted history against process. A few hours went by before an IP did exactly that, so I reverted and then protected the page, with a note that any admin should remove the protection when the discussion concludes. I believe both actions are standard maintenance: undeleting a deleted page for deletion review is standard practice but probably nobody saw the request (it's a long discussion), but I'm not as sure about the second. Neither action has been challenged as far as I know, I'm just asking for a review per WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- You would have saved yourself the effort of asking for a review by instead asking any admin to do the temporary undeletion/protection, but I see nothing contentious in your actions themselves that favor neither side of the DRV process. So a reasonable application of WP:COMMONSENSE, IMO. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: the purposes of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT are (or should be) to make sure that admins (and editors in general) keep the best interests of our encyclopedia at the forefront of their minds when doing... basically anything. Clearly the undelete was done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The blanking was also clearly done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The revert of the restoration was also done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The protection was very much done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Even if any of those were ultimately found to be not what others would've done, acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia should trump that.
- The text of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT might say different. From a European's perspective (mine), where reasonableness always bests a more USian minute text analysis looking for loopholes, you're fine. — Trey Maturin™ 19:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely not an issue: both the undeletion and the protection are standard (see WP:TEMPUNDELETE and WP:PPDRV), and I'm sure any reasonable admin would have done the same thing. (As usual, the admins who are conscientious enough to ask for review are the ones least in need of it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Since undeleting an article and protecting it while it is at DRV is a standard procedure, I think this clearly falls under the straightforward exception of WP:INVOLVED. Galobtter (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Third relists at AfD
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:SO unblock request from Charlesvet88
Charlesvet88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has, in the past, admitted to socking from User:Caramel2155 and has also claims to have followed the requirements of WP:SO. They deny being Stanleytux; I checked the initial SPI report, and here, and the story checks out: the Checkuser and behavioral evidence link Charlesvet88 to Caramel2115 and to a few other accounts but not Stanleytux. Other than that, I'm just bringing this here to see if WP:SO has been met, and an unblock may be in order per WP:ROPE or not. Pinging @Bbb23: who blocked initially for commentary as well. --Jayron32 16:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:SO unblock request from MrTallBoy
MrTallBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sorry for the multiple similar requests all, I was clearing through the backlog at CAT:UNB and there's another WP:SO unblock request. Pinging the blocking admin @Dreamy Jazz: for commentary. User admits to the sockpuppetry, claims to have waited the 6 months as requested with good behavior, and is asking to be unblocked. Any commentary one way or the other? --Jayron32 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- @MrTallBoy, In order to evaluate this request, it would be helpful to me (but not required in any way) to see an example of what we could expect of you in unblocked. Do you have any examples of other wikis (wikimedia or otherwise) that you have constructively contributed to while you've been blocked? SQLQuery Me! 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- MrTallBoy answered on his talk page. I have pasted his response below:
Dear SQL, hope you are doing well. I do not have access to edit at WP:AN, so I choose to answer your question here as a right place. What you can expect from me in unblocked mode is the constructive edits, and to continue helping new editors with some editing trainings in my community on English Wikipedia.
While I was blocked, with hundreds edits I constructively contributed to the following wikis:
- WikiCommons
- Wikiquote
- Meta
- rw.wikipedia.org
- Wikimania.wikimedia.org
Thank you for your consideration.
- Most of those cross-wiki accounts were blocked by Yamla - I'd be interested to know from them whether there was evidence of socking on those projects, aside from the sockpuppetry over here. I'd also observe, perhaps uncharitably, that I doubt this user's competence to get involved in training new editors. Girth Summit (blether) 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I"m concerned that this is a compromised admin account. This admin is deleting PROD-tagged articles too early, first an hour early and now hours earlier than they should be deleted. There are a few of us admins who regularly take care of PROD'd articles and they are never deleted before their dealine. I asked this admin to wait until the deadline on the article but they have continued to delete PRODs and now I'm worried about whether or not the account is compromised or they are just out-of-touch with current admin conduct. So far, I've been busy restoring the prematurely deleted articles but if any of your know this admin and can reach out to them, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is the notice that I posted on their talk page which they removed a minute later. They seemed to have sprung back to activity. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can assure you that my account is not compromised. Perhaps let's all just take a deep breath, not jump to conclusions, and carry on. Your chronology, by the way, is faulty. Since I removed your post (as a "message received and understood" gesture), I have not - to my knowledge - deleted anything listed as a PROD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't deleted a page since October 2020 and today you jumped in deleting many PRODs, some of them days before they were due to be deleted. If this is not a compromised account, then this is just incompetence and you don't know what admin standards are any more. You don't delete an article tagged for Proposed deletion days early. I still think a checkuser is called for here. Please do not remove this comment like you did my other one on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd almost guess that it's more likely related to this than to a compromised account. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- In the order in which you make the points:
- 1. I haven't deleted a page since October 2020: Correct. I have been relatively busy in the real world, but am not at present quite so busy.
- 2. Today I jumped in deleting many PRODs: Also correct. I received a notification that it would be a good idea that I perform some administrative actions and happened to have some spare time to do that. Deleting PRODs is a relatively simple action and one which (last time I was involved) was welcomed as a means of dealing with articles which shouldn't necessarily have been on Wikipedia. I see now that it is no longer the case.
- 3. Some of them days before they were due to be deleted: Wrong. I was careful to confirm that the pages in question had been listed for a week (which the information indicates is still the standard) before deleting them. I am more than willing to accept that there may be a time-zone issue here, as I am in Australia and it is approximately 11:30am on 6 May for me, but I am not aware of any which were deleted "days before" any due date. If you wish to provide examples, I am happy to be corrected, but flying off the handle isn't a promising beginning.
- 4. This is just incompetence: Wrong. As mentioned above, it is nothing of the sort.
- 5. And [I] don't know what admin standards are any more: You may be right in this claim. When last I dealt with admin-related matters, there was a general sense that it was a good idea that people were doing them. It appears that I am now trespassing on a little fiefdom where good faith is not to be assumed. If this is the case, I'll happily perform other actions in the future.
- 6. Please do not remove this comment: Why would I? This is a different forum to my Talk page. While you are free to escalate matters and fly off handles in either location, I consider this a more "public" environment than my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't deleted a page since October 2020 and today you jumped in deleting many PRODs, some of them days before they were due to be deleted. If this is not a compromised account, then this is just incompetence and you don't know what admin standards are any more. You don't delete an article tagged for Proposed deletion days early. I still think a checkuser is called for here. Please do not remove this comment like you did my other one on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can assure you that my account is not compromised. Perhaps let's all just take a deep breath, not jump to conclusions, and carry on. Your chronology, by the way, is faulty. Since I removed your post (as a "message received and understood" gesture), I have not - to my knowledge - deleted anything listed as a PROD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)