User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 10

Season's Greetings, GeneralizationsAreBad! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And a happy Kwanzaa to you, too! It's been an... eventful year, and I look forward to another GAB^gab 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw GAB (GeneralizationsAreBad) get created, and blocked it as an LTA account. If this is, in fact, you please email me and I'll unblock the account immediately. I wanted to keep your account from being impersonated, and I'm pretty certain that this account isn't you. But I could be wrong. Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: As much as I try not to make enemies, that's one of them. Thanks for letting me know :) GAB^gab 00:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a Prod notice canmot be replaced once removed as per WP:PROD. AFD is still available or a bold redirect or move to draft, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hadn't seen the previous prod. Thanks, GAB^gab 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For helping Wikipedia maintain its encyclopedic form. Jupitus Smart 17:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jupitus Smart GAB^gab 17:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

@CAPTAIN RAJU: You too! GAB^gab 22:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas GeneralizationsAreBad!!
	Hi GeneralizationsAreBad, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane ^talk 08:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Don't leave "Notify creator if possible" checked per WP:DENY if is an obvious troll. Just simply uncheck the other feature. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, thanks. GAB^gab 16:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say congratulations on getting Infinite Reach promoted, and well done for all your hard work. It's an interesting bit of history and I hope you enjoyed working on it. Do you think you'll be bringing more articles through FAC in the future? All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the kind words. I would certainly like to come back to FAC, but the issue is that some of the articles I've been working on lately are either not quite at FA standards or are still waiting for their GA review. I do have one pet project that I hope to create, though, and perhaps I'll be back at FAC in the future. Best, GAB^gab 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of topics! I like these neglected bits of history that tie in to other things. I'm working on war memorials at the minute but there are lots of articles like that that I keep meaning to write. For what it's worth, GA isn't compulsory—if you're feeling brave or confident you can just go straight to FAC (I know there's a backlog at GAN). And for military-related articles, MilHist's internal A-class review system is excellent for providing detailed feedback in preparation for FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

22:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

For your prompt blanking and reporting of the attack page Rodney Shephard. Keeping on top of that sort of thing is very important and your NPP or anti-vandalism patrolling helps us keep a lid on the nasty ones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - much appreciated. GAB^gab 03:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1995 CIA disinformation controversy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Happy Holiday Season!Thank you for your thoughts this holiday season; my apologies for not reciprocating sooner. I deeply appreciate the thought and the gesture, and I'd like to wish you and your loved ones a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year. :) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. You have new messages at Talk:1995 CIA disinformation controversy/GA1.
Message added 23:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The two Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence refs need to be corrected. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

GeneralizationsAreBad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

GeneralizationsAreBad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Would you be open to running the gauntlet? You have an extremely high chance of passing based on a cursory glance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Ah, the dreaded question resurfaces...

Well, right now may not be the best time, and there may be some wisdom in waiting a few more months. Not only would I (hopefully) have more time then, but I would also have the benefit of getting another GA finished and (very tentatively) another one written. Moreover, I could use that time to do an optional poll and other preparations. Nevertheless, I really appreciate the thought - it means a good deal, especially considering my first was ill-advised. I'll definitely consider it more seriously, now that you bring it up. Thanks again! Also, regarding the Meerasingh100 SPI, the named account hadn't been there when I declined... just wanted to clarify. GAB^gab 01:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense on the SPI. Good to know. A few months would definitely be wise; I generally advise 13 months between RfAs to be safe. It takes a few months to "ramp up" for a run, though, so it's something to start thinking about now. The ORCP poll should be your first stop, and afterwards there's the whole nomination seeking process. Email me or ping me on IRC if you're interested in talking about this further. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure - that hopefully won't be too much of an issue, but we shall see... All the best, GAB^gab 01:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to favor two editors/admins co-nominating instead of just one. When I floated your name to a couple editors before posting here, one of them said they'd be happy to co-nom. So assuming you wind up liking them as a potential co-nom, you're 50% of the way there before starting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's welcome news, for sure. I'm quite glad to hear that. To the chagrin of my non-existent legion of talkpage stalkers, I think it might be best to continue this via email, if that's alright with you. There are a couple of points besides noms, if you have the time/patience. GAB^gab 01:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Email sent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is Matt Alber. I'm a singer/songwriter based in Portland, OR and I noticed you have undone several edits I made today to Nate Mendel's page.

The edits I offered were under a section in his personal life called "Connection to AIDS Denialist movement." The section centers around a concert event in Los Angeles in January of 2000 benefitting a non-profit organization he supported called Alive & Well.

The title and content of this section severely lacks neutrality, contains inflammatory opinions, and further, seems aimed at defaming Mr. Mendel for his personal beliefs about HIV and discrediting the organization he supported.

Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

I have attempted to correct this lack of neutrality today, and since you have undone these edits, I'm writing to open a dialogue with you about this.

The correct term to refer to people who do not subscribe to the orthodox beliefs about HIV is "AIDS Dissident." I renamed the section to reflect this neutral, accurate term. I also offered a link defining the term. You undid the name change and the link.

In an attempt to correct the lack of neutrality within the section, I offered some brief edits that objectively describe Mr. Mendel's connection to the AIDS Dissident movement in his own words.

I also offered an article written and published by MTV News specifically relating to the concert event first described in the section.

Best Regards, MattWikiLoverInPortland (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLoverInPortland: Hi, I hope that you're doing well. I also appreciate your taking the time to ask me a question about this.

Indeed, the NPOV policy is crucial to Wikipedia's content. However, equally important is the question of proportionality - the policy in this case is the "due and undue weight" policy. The key part states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Equally important is the reliable sources policy, which requires that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." The MTV source seems fine; however, the aidswiki source does not. As a wiki, it contains user-generated content, and would not be considered appropriate sourcing. The medical and Mother Jones articles cited in the text, on the other hand, are acceptable sources. We would also not necessarily use an organization's own words to describe them, particularly when they've been described in other sources much differently (i.e. as AIDS-denialist).

I can assure you that our goal here is not to defame anyone, but to build an encyclopedia with a foundation of reliable sources and accurate, neutral writing. I'm also glad that you took your concerns to the talkpage, where other editors can take part in the discussion. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GAB =) Thanks for taking the time to write me back. I'm glad to be learning about the ways to make Wikipedia better and better. I'm glad you agree the MTV Article should stand. I'll try to add it again now.

I'm surprised to learn that an organization's own published mission statement isn't of interest. It seems only right to at least let their own statement stand alongside the un-neutral, inaccurate paraphrasing by the current author of the section. Especially when the paraphrasing has such a clear agenda in the writing.

Thanks for sharing the "due & undue weight policy." I agree with you that the AIDS Dissident movement is a minority viewpoint. I guess I would hope that proportionality can exist alongside respectful and neutral language. I think we can agree that people with minority viewpoints deserve to be reported on with respect. Have you read the subsection? The language as it stands is anything but neutral. It's very much "Judge+Jury+Sentencing" going on there. There's clearly an agenda here in the writing aimed at characterizing Mr. Mendel as a crackpot. Wikipedia isn't the place for personal agendas or character attacks.

Even with consideration for due & undue weight, this section's title and content do not currently live up to the NPOV. I look forward to finding a solution with you all. Best Regards, MattWikiLoverInPortland (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLoverInPortland: it's not that the mission statement "isn't important", it's that we need WP:RS, those being independent, third parties. Just like, we couldn't take anything you said, as gospel, if creating an article for you. We would need other sources backing up what you've stated. Them being the first party are clearly biased towards their own agenda and more than likely wouldn't be able to have an unbiased stance. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: Gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks a lot Crash! WikiLoverInPortland (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, on this GA. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1995 CIA disinformation controversy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1995 CIA disinformation controversy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thanks very much for your time and help - you did a great job reviewing. All the best, GAB^gab 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

GeneralizationsAreBad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, I just got a notification saying that you reviewed my user page. I know all article namespace pages are reviewed but I didn't know user pages had to be. Is this always the case? Thanks -DrStrauss talk 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: That was me marking the userpage as patrolled, just a feature of new page patrol. Backlogs can build up, so I sometimes click "patrol" to cut down on the backlog. Cheers! GAB^gab 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so it wasn't anything specific to my page? Thanks DrStrauss talk 18:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT - are all userpages patrolled as part of WP:NPP?[reply]

@DrStrauss: No, it wasn't anything specific. And yes, userpages are sometimes patrolled, although most focus on articles. Best, GAB^gab 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Head meet desk. I was going for the "thank" button, and my browser decided to move the text and I hit the wrong button instead. It's going to be one of those mornings, I guess. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can't tell you how much I do that, too. What would have been really ironic would be if I accidentally reverted you instead of thanking you for your own self-revert. GAB^gab 15:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for patrolling new pages and your SPI work! JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBerry: Thank you! GAB^gab 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	ur cool
	ur cool! Now u can eat ice cream and be in the exsculsive cooll club. (I never met u but u seem cool so u in da club now!) <--------------- cool kid memeber enjoying coool ice creammmmmm Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 16:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate (and encourage) wider use of my sarcastic, self-deprecating userboxes. GAB^gab 23:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbhijitSonavane? I originally opened it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrulyFan but then found the (possible) true master and moved it. I deleted the original since no one else commented anyway, but could you check if everything is kosher and/or let me know if I should undelete the original? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) I made one tiny fix, but the rename looks correct otherwise. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you revert something Katie added to her own talk page? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: It was an impersonator, or so it appeared. GAB^gab 18:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I was wrong. Sorry about that; but at least we've all got Katie's back. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've made the same mistake before. GAB^gab 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we true homies — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXx MinecraftMaster69 xXx (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just saw that you closed the following case. It's the first time I have seen an editor using two accounts to participate in a RfC. Just to make sure I understand the policy correctly, when you say that MShabazz is a clearly marked alternate account, are you referring to what is stated on the user's talk page? If so, is it up to editors when editing article/talk to check every contributor's talk page to determine if an editor is using multiple accounts? It seems conter-intuitive and places the onus on editors rather than the multi-account user to be transparent with a disclosure on the page they are editing.

I suggest the WP:MULTIPLE policy page should be updated to reflect that Multiple Accounts may indeed be used in this situation. It's current form states the opposite, 'multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring.' There is nothing included about exceptions for users who have disclosed on their talk pages that they have multiple accounts; hence my confusion. Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Veritycheck: The usernames are obviously similar and MShabazz's userpage states that it's an alternate of Malik Shabazz, who - in turn - also has a userbox identifying the alternate account by name. That seems plenty sufficient. I'd rather not write and change policy unilaterally, so I recommend you bring the concern up on the policy talkpage for additional input. Thanks, GAB^gab 02:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kellyrichter. Nice. :-p --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when clerks try to moonlight as sockhunters. GAB^gab 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!!! Oh well. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've learned that you can endorse your own filings. By the same token, you can ask for administrative action for your own filings. In other words, unless for some reason you want another clerk's opinion, in which case you should say so, you can make the socking determination and ask for whatever blocks you wish. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you for the tip - I was unaware that this was permitted. Best, GAB^gab 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you deleted whole section and info on trade unions which placed not by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regenteditor (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To talkpage stalkers: Yes, it was. GAB^gab 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hii Imad ellhamlichi (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Untukku is a suspected sock, based on notorious edits on Korean entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E610:1D5:C1B9:FEA6:6857:72C6 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. GAB^gab 04:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's complaining on WP:ANI (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FkpCascais_again_pushing_POV. --Calton | Talk 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: Unfortunately, I can't say I'm too familiar with Asdisis, but based on IP geolocation and what I know of that master's behavior, it seems likely. I don't know if it's too late for a block, as they may have moved on by now. GAB^gab 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positive that they are a sock puppet of [2], as he was using sockpuppets to create and then save from deletion this article: [3]. Crazyerer re-created the article, which makes me suspicious that he may be a sockpuppet. I'm asking here because I know you are a clerk and are experienced in this, and I couldn't report him for some reason using twinkle, as making a sockpuppet investigation for Mokezhilao was apparently banned. Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 13:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Layla, the remover: I went ahead and added them to the SPI. Thanks, GAB^gab 15:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month you left a note on my talk page about opening a sockpuppet investigation. I didn't feel confident at the time, but I'm getting a feeling about a new appearance: User:Sheila Ki Jawani. This one week old editor with 1300 edits seems to be developing a similar string of posts on their talk page and has edited about 70 articles in common with User:Cynulliad3 and User:Motivação. Leaving posts on the earlier account talk pages did not seem to help. Is there any other approach that might work? — Neonorange (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neonorange: Thanks for the tip, I'm currently looking into this. I'll get back to you in the near future. GAB^gab 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your observation here, and opened an SPI. Thanks, GAB^gab 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralizationsAreBad—what are the alternatives? This is obviously not going to stop. If the editor's contributions were a little less idiosyncratic (I'm convinced they are acting in good faith), it's just that they are a time sink. Sterilized by cupcake = Sheila K = Cynulliad & 2,3 = Motivação. — Neonorange (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one came to my attention because I have Allan Bloom on my watchlist—the last two edits, January 7 & 29, were by Cynulliad3 and by Sterilized, respectively. The editor interaction tool overlap, the edit summaries, and the edit contents leave little room for doubt. I think it may be worthwhile to try to draw this editor into the community; otherwise a new account will pop up after each block. This editor doesn't act out—no personal attacks, no other incivility, no deliberate disruption—just difficulty in identifying errors and appropriate corrections. We should at least try a flexible response. — Neonorange (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: is much wiser than I about the art of wiki-rehabilitation. GAB^gab 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'll try to help if you tell me where to post (original account talk, I guess). However, this user doesn't talk much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Thank you so much, Anna - I was just curious to hear your opinion on this, since my job revolves around finding socks and having them blocked, rather than reforming them. The original talk is as good a place as any; the new account may notice it if we place it on their talk, but I have not fully evaluated it yet, so I can't say that it's a sock quite yet. I'll take a look shortly. Thanks once more, GAB^gab 02:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Well, I posted at the original talk, and at Sterilized by cupcake‎. No harm in that last post if it gets them talking to clear up who they are anyhow. I hope to be able to get a response at original talk and see if we can head off an LTA mess that is a losing game for all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, and I wish I had your patience dealing with this sort of thing. Maybe some day... :) GAB^gab 02:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything special. You have more patience finding and stopping socks. I don't have such patience to play whack a mole, so I'd rather be lazy and just ask them to stop. Sometimes it works. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GAB, you might consider slapping this into your common.js. Very helpful tool for spotting sockpuppetry trends in article edit histories. Blocked users will be marked with strikethroughs.

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');

Unrelated to this, re: your email, I guess the real question I have is whether the multiple accounts are being used for a prohibited purpose, such as promotion or prior block evasion. It sure does have the appearance of coordinated editing, or one person using multiple accounts. I don't think it's technically sockpuppetry unless they're doing something naughty. You might approach them with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and ask if they're using multiple accounts and perhaps encourage them to self-identify. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you Google translate this it sounds like one of the guys might have acknowledged editing on behalf of others. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Yeah, markblocked is a godsend. I think I enabled it through preferences. I also went ahead and notified the trio with agf-sock notices. I'll keep an eye on that situation for any new developments. Thanks, GAB^gab 23:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know that it was a preference tick. I'll look for it, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps the proven parameter would be more suitable. I'll leave the rest up to you. Apologies, JustBerry (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBerry: Thank you - I don't usually see the point in tagging unblocked accounts, especially if they've long since stopped editing. GAB^gab 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you thinking. The issue here was that I initially thought that Cynulliad was a victim of impersonation, rather than a fellow sock. Such confusion led me to tag. Proven (as apparent), instead of confirmed, would be more accurate--surely. Thanks for verifying that. --JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check back again, I'm 98% sure it's gathered a new sock. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 04:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 858 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]