1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 |
Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST
You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd! | |
---|---|
Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:
This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link |
-- Environment of New York City Task Force
Who?
Could you take a look at Tubbytexan and Fact Repealer? JBW blocked Tubby as a sock but without identifying the master. It was clear to me that Tubby and FR were the same person, but I was unable to identify an earlier account/master. Then, as you can see, a user whom I don't know tagged FR's userpage as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eiskrahablo/Archive. I am not familiar with that sock farm; however, at a glance at a few recent socks it didn't look obvious to me. Would you mind sorting it out? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, plus a few more. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eiskrahablo#29 August 2022 -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- If it's of any interest to you, Bbb23 and Roy, the reason I blocked without identifying the master is that I was 100% sure it was a sockpuppet, but only 85% sure whose sockpuppet. It astonishes me how many experienced serial sockpuppeteers are completely blind to how obvious they make it that their latest account is a sockpuppet. If I wanted to get away with sockpuppetry I'm sure I would have no difficulty in making it 1000 less obvious than this one did. 🥴 JBW (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- No criticism intended, JBW, I only pinged you to give you a chance to comment if you wished. Some checkusers CU-block accounts without identifying the master. BTW, was your 85% guess right? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, Bbb23, when I saw your message here I was busy, and meant to come back to answer it, but it then got lost from my brain. Things I put off until later very often do get lost; that's one of the symptoms of attention deficit disorder, which plagues my life. Unfortunately I don't now remember who I thought the sockmaster was, so I can't answer your question on that. As for there being no criticism intended, I never thought there was. As I said, my message was just in case you and/or Roy might be interested, not because I thought I was defending mself against any criticism. JBW (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- No criticism intended, JBW, I only pinged you to give you a chance to comment if you wished. Some checkusers CU-block accounts without identifying the master. BTW, was your 85% guess right? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-35
23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not have UTRS access
? You're an admin. That's all that's needed (well, I have no recollection of asking for extra permissions to access UTRS). https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/review - Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. I once had access, and was asked to give it up because I was not actively working UTRS cases. Maybe that was just for some particular private UPE queue? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
consistently being disruptive, making changes and removing content
This Gowri Nandana S panicker seems like It is a sockpuppet of [2]. This user is consistently being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content. This user focus on puffing down others by change the real fact of Indian film, actor articles and awards. Please kindly investigate about this user Nehansaxan (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
🙄eh??? Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Check Nehansaxan and previous history with their former IDs
This Nehansaxan seems like It is a sockpuppet of some one who has done disruptive editing and that user just made only very few edits focused om hiping actress Meena. This user is consistently being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content. This user focus on puffing up actress meena, and sneha and others by change the real fact of Indian film, actor articles and awards. Please kindly investigate about this user too. I think this user is a sockpuppet of huge fan editor of actress Meena and Sneha. Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 August 2022
- News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
- Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
- In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
- Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
- News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
- In focus: Thinking inside the box
- Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
- Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
- Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
- Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
- Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
- Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
- Essay: Delete the junk!
- Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
It is obviously a sockpuppet of [3]
Wow this user Gowri Nandana S panicker change the whole story, copies exact words from me and put total blame on me now - A good faith edits. The user is the one who consistently being disruptive right now. It is obviously a sockpuppet of [4].
Evidence for sockpuppetry is given below. Removing awards and content, reliable sources
Meena [7]
Reba Monica John [8]
Asha Sharath [9]
Rima Kallingal [12]
Trying to push Jyothika over top billed actors. Still going on in various articles to push their agenda [13], [14]
Create an account after sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya
Removing huge size content and sources without proper explanation
Manju Warrier [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]
"Sneha"
It's certainly possible the same person (Sock)[25]. I have provided info there. Please take action on user Nehansaxan (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This Nehansaxan is certainly possible the same person (Sock) who tried to comback as a New ID, who tried to impersonate on my same name. Nehansaxan is surely a sock of Fazmi Haris and GowriNandanaP please check and investigate about this. Please take action on user Nehansaxan (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously not. I'm doing good faiths revert/edits here. For sure you are sockpuppet of [26] who keep disruptive right now, making changes and removing content Nehansaxan (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
See how this fake Nehansaxan is puffing up actress Meena and Sneha. Check the previous history of Nehansaxan and see how Ridiculously trying to make an edit war over the pages Meena, Sneha and Tamil Nadu state Award for Best actress . so immatured behavior like a mixed versions of both a man and woman🙄. Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have provided all your criminal info up there. Don't trying to justify your ugly work. Seriously no idea why you trying to remove the fact, content with reliable sources and info of some actresses and actors. Back to back come with new ID to puffing up your favorite. Degrading others by removing their contributions. Must be insane Nehansaxan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Copy the exact same words and link from me and paste here. It's so obvious who is fake and immature now. God is great Nehansaxan (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
- A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
- An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
- The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
- The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.
- An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
- The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
- The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
- Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Voting compass
Thanks for the pointer to the useful tool at WP:VPM. It's now been archived, but you might want to restore it for the benefit of those yet to vote. Certes (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Clarification needed.
Can you identify which words or phrases here constitute personal attacks? I will gladly rephrase to remove the parts you object to. --Jayron32 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- In addition to the generally aggressive tone, you made assertions that the person in question was incompetent, that they were a vandal, and a troll. I fully agree that the method of testing they employed was inappropriate, but that doesn't justify the language you used. Please address the testing process, not the individual person. And thank you for seeking clarification. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
More beautiful socks
Hello RS, latest contributions of MyrtaBeautyQueen for your busy shredder. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
DYK for West Farms Soldiers Cemetery
On 4 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article West Farms Soldiers Cemetery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the soldier guarding the West Farms Soldiers Cemetery went missing for six years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/West Farms Soldiers Cemetery. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, West Farms Soldiers Cemetery), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 7,358 views (613.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
DYK hooks
Hi! Thanks for volunteering to fill preps at DYK. I noticed that you promoted the ALT1 hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Banking in ancient Rome to prep set. That hook, however, has not yet been approved, so we cannot promote it. Whenever a new hook is suggested by someone, we need a reviewer to approve that before promoting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, what's the best way to fix it now? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that the ideal course of action would be to reopen the nomination and add
{{subst:DYK?again}}
to request a new reviewer to check ALT1. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that the ideal course of action would be to reopen the nomination and add
- Hi there! Echoing Kavyansh's thanks with another note: as a general rule, if you're going to make any significant changes to the hook, you'll want to ping the nominator in the edit summary. We get recurring discussions every time someone wasn't pinged about their hook changes, and didn't like the outcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for volunteering to build preps, and you are hopefully open to questions. You dramatically shortened the hook for the Ukrainian composer. In that version, we don't see a relation to Ukraine, so no hint at what kind of censorship, and there's also no hint at his class and perios: the short version could be about any music, including trivial 21st-century, while we talk about someone rated one of three for a whole period, which most people don't know so I believe it's worth saying. I suggest you stick to approved hooks. If you don't like them you could ping people in the nomination, asking what they think of your version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt thank you for your feedback, and yes, of course I'm open to questions. As I said above, I was just going with the advice in WP:DYKNN about trimming hooks, but it's obvious from your comment that I went too far. I have restored the original hook in the prep area. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's great! - Quite generally, as a prep builder, your job is to place approved hooks, and while omission of redundant words, or more elegant phrasing may count still as what was approved, major cuts really make a hook different so not the approved one. Discussing this beforehand - such as saying "I was going to promote this but think it could be shortened" would cause you little trouble, and leaves the question open and transparent for all to see. What happens between nomination and prep often remains a mystery, needlessly so. We had a hook today about a woman of colour improvising jazz-fusion, and it came without any of this leaving only improvising (no woman, no colour no jazz-fusion, not even jazz), and no image which would have told without extra words that she was a woman of colour. I had no time to fight ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. I also went back and reverted some of the other edits I made to hooks in the prep. It might be worth revising the "Don't be afraid to ruthlessly trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses" that is currently in the instructions, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's great! - Quite generally, as a prep builder, your job is to place approved hooks, and while omission of redundant words, or more elegant phrasing may count still as what was approved, major cuts really make a hook different so not the approved one. Discussing this beforehand - such as saying "I was going to promote this but think it could be shortened" would cause you little trouble, and leaves the question open and transparent for all to see. What happens between nomination and prep often remains a mystery, needlessly so. We had a hook today about a woman of colour improvising jazz-fusion, and it came without any of this leaving only improvising (no woman, no colour no jazz-fusion, not even jazz), and no image which would have told without extra words that she was a woman of colour. I had no time to fight ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt thank you for your feedback, and yes, of course I'm open to questions. As I said above, I was just going with the advice in WP:DYKNN about trimming hooks, but it's obvious from your comment that I went too far. I have restored the original hook in the prep area. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-36
23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Fact writer009 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri/Archive#31 August 2022 you ran a check and found Fact writer010 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) but not 009. Are they indeed different, or was something possibly missed? DatGuyTalkContribs 10:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen them before, I'll take a look now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the obvious username similarity, I'm not seeing a connection. If you think they're a sock, please file a SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- It makes sense, Əzərbəyəniləri (talk · contribs) saw Fact writer009 (talk · contribs) make this edit which he disagreed with, so he copied his username, made a new account, and reverted it. Was just curious if there was something in the CU results. Thanks. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the obvious username similarity, I'm not seeing a connection. If you think they're a sock, please file a SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)