User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 13

Greetings. These guys responded to their block by issuing a legal threat. Is this sufficient grounds to revoke talk page access as well? Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I've told them that their threat has made an unblock even less likely. GAB^gab 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They popped up again today with a new account. Quickly blocked for the same reasons as the first, but I've started an SPI page to note them for the record in case they decide to persist. --Finngall ^talk 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guy uses multiple IDs and tries to remove sockpuppet investigation tags to avoid detection. Can you tag and lock his page for editing? Many of his alts were banned already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Escapement

PeterMan844 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterMan844: Tags aren't mandatory, even for indeffed sockers. And since non-admins/non-clerks are not supposed to add tags (although some do, inappropriately), I would request that you refrain from tagging. Regards, GAB^gab 00:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure how this process works, but is there a chance that you could please check user Thornstrider against the NHP sockpuppet? Seems a bit 'odd' that this is a brand new account, and within 9 min of creation, they are editing one of NHP's own pages. Just a thought, thanks for your time. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NsTaGaTr: I assume you mean a checkuser check - in that case, you'd have to open an SPI under NHP in order to request a check. The instructions on that page should help you out. GAB^gab 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB,

You closed this SPI due to lack of diffs. There's still a constant stream of throwaway accounts editing the article as you can see at the article history. How should I handle the matter? Just watch the page and continually clean it up? Is there a better way? --Slashme (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: It looks to me like much of it died down in April, and those SPAs are all inactive. If any more appear or resurface, you could open a new SPI or take it to WP:COIN (in fact, you could even do that now, if you wished). Regards, GAB^gab 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think for now I'll keep an eye on the page and take it to COIN if it starts again. --Slashme (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This about your close of the Capitals SPI may actually be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have another IP sock. 75.138.64.141‎. --regentspark (comment) 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Blocked. GAB^gab 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a new section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stylized_as_"stylized"_currently;_formerly_"stylizeD"#September_2017; I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure, since I don't do SPI much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked two of those IPs, but can't comment about a rangeblock. GAB^gab 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing out No longer penguin. I'm 100% sure it's yet another sock of Eimukas22 (investigation). It appeared 3 hours after I reverted an edit from an IP which was also likely Eimukas22 and has exhibited all the signs in the original investigation, including constant tinkering with statistics and exchange rates, uploading of copyrighted pictures, random acting out (as it's first edit) and editing all the same articles. I will submit an SPI investigation once I have some time. No longer a penguin (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh.
Message added 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've added the info necessary to bring the investigation forward. Hope it helps. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to be that this is not their first rodeo. General Ization ^Talk 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: This tactic is so common that I can't really say, but you have a point. GAB^gab 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watched (and asked a few questions) in your first try for admin a year ago. (You eventually withdrawn.) I went around asking the question - why did you withdraw? Now that I've answered that question myself, I am happy to see that you've passed RfA with 100% support rating. =) Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 18:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you think generalizations are good or bad? Do you have an opinion? Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 20:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. As for your question, I think that generalizations can be useful for understanding broad concepts without getting into excessive, granular detail. However, they can be very dangerous if they oversimplify complex problems. GAB^gab 21:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to fix it, but you're too fast!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous last words... thanks GAB^gab 21:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! A beer to celebrate your success, too! Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 23:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. Can you clarify situation on Op. Storm? 1) If I modify the page with relevant sources (both clear quote primary source and already used source in the same page), and there is 5 IPs reverting it without any explanation, how is that possible? 2) Nota bene, all changes have also been elaborated in talk page, whereas abolutely no ground was given for reverting the page. How is that possible? 3) How it is possible that they just state something like "link not working" or similar lie, and keep reverting the page? So, the plan is clear - I am only 1, so if I revert it, I get a warning - it is 5 of them, so when somebody reverts it twice, the new one jumps in. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.200 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer my questions?

Hi GAB--seeking advice in your capacity as an SPI clerk. I'm quite unfamiliar with that area, but I noticed a new user had been added back material to an entry on my watchlist after another user had removed it for block evasion. Following the thread back, I understand at least the first account to add the material is a sock of an LTA focused on climate change. The more recent new user has gone on to edit one fuel-related page to date. Like I say, this isn't my area of expertise so I wasn't totally sure how to proceed (whether that's something to bring to SPI), but the LTA page mentions contacting an SPI clerk so I thought I'd reach out and at least take the opportunity to learn some more about SPI/where the line's drawn on what's worth reporting and what not. Thanks for any guidance you can give! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: I recommend you report this to SPI. Thanks, GAB^gab 17:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks so much for the input--good to know that makes sense to you, and will do! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, when you get the chance, mind blocking Hantangan, Wwemmatxxt, and Sigtradeyang? Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You've been helpful before, and I hope you can help me again. I would like to replace the logo on the current Blick Art Materials page with the current one (the one now shown is obsolete), but I do not have permissions to do so. Please advise how to accomplish this? Asghunt (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asghunt: Hi again! If what you mean by "permissions" is copyright, I think that an admin specializing in copyright issues (Diannaa springs to mind ) might be better able to assist you. If you are referring to our COI policy, then your best bet would be to make an edit-request on the article's talkpage. I hope that this helps. Regards, GAB^gab 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the one on their Facebook page, you could upload it to the Commons. Here's the mark-up:

{{Information
| description = Blick Art Materials logo
| source      = https://www.facebook.com/BlickArtMaterials/
| date        = 2017
| author      = Dick Blick Holdings Inc
| other_versions =
}}
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademarked}}

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those lines :P I was expecting to see hr! DrStrauss talk 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel myth, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, thank you for your comments at my RfA, and your username being of great use there too. Your support is much appreciated! (Also, can I say how super suspicious it looks that you commented right after Gab4gab? :P) ansh666 20:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: Congrats! I'd better get busy blocking myself as a sockpuppet. GAB^gab 00:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the last report,[1] why you blocked everyone including[2][3] but you didn't blocked some like Quretulki? Capitals00 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: At the time I blocked the rest of those guys, that account was dormant. I've dealt with it now, though. GAB^gab 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What do you mean, 'done'? Wait.. What?!" Good to see you, and congrats on your RfA! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Thanks! I won't miss yours... don't worry GAB^gab 23:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 197.52.29.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please block this as an open proxy, used by User:Nate Speed. Thank you. 42.113.33.183 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. GAB^gab 23:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 178.148.159.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can you please also consider blocking this IP as well? Nate Speed appears to have jumped to this address. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this IP as well: 77.68.9.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Thanks. 113.158.44.153 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to please block another Nate Speed IP, 125.237.12.83, and, if appropriate, semi-protect his latest target article (Saban Entertainment)? Apologies, I know this is just like whack-a-mole. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize, I love whack-a-mole.  Done. GAB^gab 00:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed talk page access when you changed the block for User talk:197.52.29.59. Some IP had access to that, as they removed the block notice. Aren't we supposed to leave a notice of blocking on the talk page? — Maile (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oftentimes for LTA's and trolls, there's no point in leaving block notices. Also, the string of IPs that this banned user has access to are open proxies, which are generally hard-blocked for a long period of time do to there frequent abuse from banned users. 113.158.44.153 (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ GAB^gab 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

• 125.237.12.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please disable talkpage access. Thanks. 153.204.214.221 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 00:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he isn't done yet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kingshowman#06_October_2017 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant (talk • contribs)

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hi, I reached out to Diana, per your suggestion, but haven't heard back. Advice, please, on how to update the Blick Art Materials logo? Thanks.Asghunt (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage. GAB^gab 22:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For looking into this so promptly. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. You have new messages at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Since pings aren't working. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - you know I love you, but please let my clerk trainee work his training cases to completion. This case was clearly tagged with the clerk at work template but he wasn't allowed to see it through. I need him to be able to process these like you were able to process yours during your training. I can't get him up to speed if you guys step all over it. I'm sure it was an oversight, but let him request the page moves and mergers and blocking he can't yet do. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 23:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: My apologies - these big UPE farms always get my blocking finger itchy. I'll be more careful for future cases. GAB^gab 00:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

112.196.133.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
156.198.220.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
190.79.19.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
62.151.183.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could you take care of these? Thanks. 72.193.22.100 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All now hardblocked for 1 year. GAB^gab 00:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please also block 88.0.89.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 47.151.166.216 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 02:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're back at:
90.148.244.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
42.60.224.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
36.84.62.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
194.44.241.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 211.210.145.162 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you protect Gordon Hayward? The player suffered a gruesome injury and vandals are having a field day. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, it seems. GAB^gab 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GAB, I had guessed that the reviewing admin might decline and considered db-reason, but my finger had already hit the button. The reason I filed the CSD was because yesterday the original page was very promotional but they blanked it a minute later. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Understood - I deleted it. GAB^gab 02:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were currently active at ANI so I'm asking whether you can revdel some edit summaries giving personal information at this article. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet:  Done. GAB^gab 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mopping. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 162.211.126.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP only has minimal edits, but it is a suspected open proxy server registered to this webhosting service. Could you hardblock it? Thank you. 198.236.58.11 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GAB^gab 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems this IP acount (User:212.95.8.240) is another sockpuppet of GoguryeoHistorian. Could you check out this one? Why is a user like him not blocked permanently? Using this huge amount of sockpuppets for vandalism should get more than 1 week in my opinion. He simply keeps continuing with his various IP accounts, also with the one I posted here, amongst others. Regards Akocsg (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: Reblocked. GAB^gab 16:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GAB for taking this case. I think next block evasion should probably be worthy of indef, as Goguryeo attracts some of the worst POV editing since the beginning of time. Cheers, Alex Shih^Talk 17:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: If you check 212.95.8.128/25, you'll find a lot. I'll indef them if I see anymore evasion. GAB^gab 17:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, I'm asking you for any advice because you've interacted with PeterMan844 before. They seem like a nice enough good-faith contributer, right? And I couldn't help but feel bad from them when they were being harassed by those Escapement socks. However, on User talk:Sro23/Archive 5#User:Therecordkeepers, PeterMan844 admits to ban evasion. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grace Saunders was so long ago, and I was going to just drop the issue when PeterMan844 "retired", but that's clearly untrue as the user has been editing even today. What do you make of this? Sro23 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: I'm very sorry for my delay here - real life sometimes intervenes.

This is really more of an ethical question than one of policy. I, too, sincerely don't want to have to block them... and yet banned means banned. I think that Anna Frodesiak would have a better idea of what to do here - I don't exactly know. Thanks, GAB^gab 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm sorry for dumping this info publicly on your talk page. Sro23 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. It's not easy. The good news is that they are not behaving destructively, so it's not like we have a time-urgent decision to make. GAB^gab 18:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, tricky. Normally this should be discussed with the blocking admin (or others who were involved), but he hasn't edited since 2012. This is a lot of socking. I think guidance should be sought at the admin's noticeboard. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind unclosing and unarchiving this case? As Patar Knight notes in his response to me and edit summary [4], and as I have repeatedly requested, all of the unblocked, un-tagged, and uncategorized socks need to have that done to them. Per my comment on the case: "@GeneralizationsAreBad, KrakatoaKatie, BU Rob13, and Patar knight: The stale socks (all except the stricken one are very obvious duck COI SPAs) need to be blocked and tagged (at least as suspected socks), because this is now obviously an LTA situation and the vast scope of the problem needs to be documented. Kevin can't do the blocking; an admin needs to do that and I suggest that the admin do the tagging and categorizing as well." [5]. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I've blocked the accounts without tags, because they are actually older than ArtistForum and I don't want to cause any confusion. Best, GAB^gab 16:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please then re-open the SPI and let someone familiar with SPI tag them as suspected sockpuppets? This is clearly a WP:LTA situation and and the vast scope of the problem needs to be documented. Softlavender (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Please forgive my delay here - the last week has been hectic. The aforementioned blocked accounts are already linked to the SPI through their block log entries - I've also done some tagging, although I don't think it's entirely necessary. GAB^gab 17:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 197.160.2.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Another Nate Speed open proxy, thanks. 183.77.21.159 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. GAB^gab 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GaB. This IP account 90.146.213.80 again started with his disruptive POV-edits and propaganda. See here for example: diff Again in the same articles. Weren't those sockpuppets supposed to be blocked indefinitely? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Apologies to GAB and I hope you don't mind my dealing with this. I saw it pop up on your talk page and we've talked about this in the past. Akocsg you can't indeff IPs but I have blocked this one for a month. I think GAB put a range block out last time but those are imperfect and it's not hard to get around them if the sockmaster knows what they are doing. Perhaps a spell of long term page protection on the commonly targeted articles will deter them. I don't know what those are but if you post a list of them here I'm sure that GAB or I can slap some protection on them. I'm thinking a month should do the trick unless this is a very determined troll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ad Orientem. It's no problem. I can't know for sure, but that IP account obviously made very resembling disruptive edits and pushed POV mostly in the same articles as GoguryeoHistorian. Like for example in the article Turanism. He generally distorts facts and pushes POV related with Turkic, Altaic and as it seems Korean and Japanese topics. And here is another one again I just found by coincidence, I am not sure about this one, but it should be checked: [6] Practically the same motivation in the Turanism and Hungarian Turanism articles. The anti-Turkic POV can be also seen in the Dingir article in this case, where a sourced statement was simply deleted. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Thank you for helping out here. @Akocsg: I am not so sure about 74.70.146.1, which geolocates to a completely different location (i.e. not Austria), but thank you for being vigilant. GAB^gab 17:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeneralizationsAreBad:, I think he is back again. See here: diff. Again in the article South Korea–Turkey relations. Coud you impose a protection on that article? Seems like this troll is pretty determined. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: He's hopping IP ranges to try and evade rangeblocks. Since the past 18 days worth of activity on that page has been nothing but socking, I protected it for 2 weeks. Let's see if that works. GAB^gab 03:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thank you. Akocsg (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 36.75.40.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Nate Speed again. Open proxy. 24.10.102.248 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done. GAB^gab 13:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMG^talk 16:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Uh... Happy Halloween? GAB^gab 16:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Formerly TJW in case you didn't catch the name change.) I just got a chuckle out of it. Went for a smoke and pulled up RC and it was one giant wall of blocked socks. GMG^talk 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Ya, that's always fun to see. Reminds me of 190.10.8.6 (talk · contribs), a proxy used by at least three separate LTAs. Good times. GAB^gab 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question about the SPI:

• Can I submit a SPI case for an user who is using IP-hopping for edit warring and evading 3RR? By reporting main account and used IPs. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wario-Man: ANEW might work better for that, actually, but there's nothing wrong with SPI. Regards, GAB^gab 15:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB. Any chance you could take a look at this SPI? Sro23 declined a CU but I really don't understand their reasoning and it isn't consistent with other requests. I've already asked them to take another look. LebronJamesGOAT is a massive DUCK and given that, it seems very likely to me that a check could lead to other accounts. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Generally, we like to see a demonstrated history of using sleepers before CU-endorsing for a sleeper check. It's also worth noting that behavioral evidence may count for more here, since paid-editing cases often lead to wonky CU results, anyhow. Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful. GAB^gab 01:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Still can't say I understand but no worries. Plenty more socks in the sea ;) SmartSE (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

189.216.21.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
89.79.50.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2.229.242.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
175.214.153.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
188.55.160.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Nate Speed again. 87.201.100.192 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All reblocked. GAB^gab 01:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 20:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I think we have a very dubious I.P here GAB. I have reverted and rebutted the poisonous claim on the talkpage. I used salty language, but this was an edit too far in my opinion. The I.P's previous edits are also concerning. Action needed? Irondome (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they've made some problematic past edits. I've gone ahead and warned them. GAB^gab 02:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GAB, could you please move the article Türkiye Futbol Şampiyonası to 'Turkish Football Championship'? For some reason I can't do it. The Turkish title is not a brand and is not known outside of Turkey, so it's nonsense to keep it that way. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I have a general question concerning wiki tables. In the article List of Turkish football champions you'll see two tables in the "champions" section which are parallel. I would like to adjust the right one (National Division) so that the year 1936-37 is on the same height with the analogous year of the left table. How can I do that? I hope it is clear what I mean. Akocsg (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: I think you might want to put in a request at WP:RM. Unfortunately, I am not the best with tables, so I'm afraid I couldn't be very helpful. Sorry. GAB^gab 17:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

I mentioned you as a possible pair of eyes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking question for you: How would you respond to questions like this or this? Is there a good way to balance the need to answer questions like this against the need to not reveal too much about how we identify socks? Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: These discretionary questions are a difficult part of working at SPI, to be sure. I'd try not to disclose specific details, but generalities are alright. COI/UPE is a lot more obvious anyways, so it's somewhat less sensitive than socking cases (such as Scibaby (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), etc. - some may differ) Just use your best judgment, and you should be fine. Regards, GAB^gab 04:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GAB - Just curious...It amazes me how you can hear the quacking from afar, and are then able to tie it in to multiple accounts. I really don't understand how that works, much less why good editors would resort to being a dirty ole sock, but there is one in particular I wanted to ask you about - IP94.246.150.68 - I had limited interaction with the IP editor and had no idea of his past editing history, but based on what I've experienced, I can say that the articles that editor has worked on in my circle of interaction were quite good. I hate seeing such productivity go to waste. I'm not privy to the level of disruption created by their sock activity but if it's not really bad, what would it take to get the block removed early? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Well, I didn't need to do a ton of sleuthing - this IP has been blocked twice before as a sock of SNAAAAKE!! and has been used for many months of block evasion. This individual - who has also used HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) - has received over 15 blocks for edit-warring and incivility since 2006. If they want to contribute as a member of the community and not as a sockpuppeteer, they can always request an unblock through their main account. Sockpuppetry will only restart the 6-month period of "good behavior" (i.e. not socking) that they need to request the standard offer. I'm sorry if this isn't a very satisfying answer. GAB^gab 04:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I understand and thank you. There's no doubt in my mind that you know what you're doing. The closest I came to understanding IP blocks was when I accidentally got caught in a range block while out of town at a horse show and couldn't login to WP using my iPad cellular. A few of our trusty admins came to my rescue and I was back editing muy pronto. Thanks again for the info. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed paths at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I am Justin! My bad for being too slow :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and you blocked my ip range - please remove :( JarrahTree 01:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I've unblocked the two accounts in question - my apologies for not consulting you before I blocked. GAB^gab 01:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nope - well worth the effort - appreciate the diligence - the triple name repeat came after i registered for the asian month activity, and reminded me of the utility of having a few preventative doppleganger unused acs with nearby names -

nope - what you did was appreciated - and in order - better that than have a range of idiot adjacent names utilised - there are certain times of the editing day when sysops seem very thin on the ground - I would rather be accidentally reverted or have something stopped - than have the opportunity of the unwashed run free... JarrahTree 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not holding it against me If you want to identify your doppelgangers as such, just use Template:Doppelganger. Regards, GAB^gab 01:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the report at UAA in that case, I thought it a bit off that the account removed all the content of that page like it did. Unfortunately the ambiguity of the "thank" function after my report made me think this definitely was an impostor. –72 _(talk) 02:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

check my talk - O - I feel like an imposter and fool at the best of times - thanks for putting up with my response to the attracting flies at the asian month list :( JarrahTree 02:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, you recently blocked User:94.246.150.68 but they are continuing disruption on their talk page. Please consider removing access. Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GAB may be busy in the real world right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, some suspicious IP accounts are making disruptive edits again. They are likely by WorldCreaterFIghter / GoguryeoHistorian again. They are beginning with 188. See here: [7], [8], and [9]. They are very likely related with this one: [10] Could you invesigate this? It's obvious since again the Turanism article is involved, and most recently Turkic topics edited by me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

funny how you try to convince an admin to start witch-hunting for you.admin see Aq Qoyunlu Dastan Bayandur.nothing is vandalism or related to other users.just restoring proper content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.111.73 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an investigation case here. Maybe you would like to check it. Akocsg (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GAB may be busy in the real world right now. SPI is probably where this belongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad:

Thanks for taking over in regard to 74.62.42.130. I am new to dealing with vandalism and I was not at all sure about what I was doing. cheersOldsanfelipe (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! GAB^gab 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for bothering you, but as someone who has had a bit of a run in with Apollo The Logician I feel it necessary to raise my suspicions with you. An account, under the name: Kim song-chi has recently been created and made a series of edits in short succession. The account's creation coincides with the latest sockpuppetry by Apollo The Logician, and the type, 'style' and subject matter of the edits seem to show some similarities to Apollo's. While I admit the actions of that account are perfectly legitimate, I have my suspicions and therefore believe that further investigation is necessary. Are you able to do so? If not, can you advise me on how to conduct my own investigation? Brough87 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brough you provide evidence for these claims as opposed to just stating them? What similarities do you think we have? The only thing I have done is revert your obviously pov and undefinitional removal of a descriptor. If you are going to make wild claims like that you will obviously need to provide evidence.Kim song-chi (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brough87: If you have sufficient evidence, you could file an SPI report (the page shows you how to do it, or you can do it through Twinkle). Regards, GAB^gab 18:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, seems my instincts were on point. Brough87 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, happy Friday! So... I made the block to TB12theGOAT right as you did, and inadvertently overwrote your block. I apologize for that. It looks like we blocked the exact same way, so that's good. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem at all - I'm glad I'm not the only admin 'round these parts :) GAB^gab 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post at ANI re: that /22 range, thanks for pinging me to the sock investigation page. I had blocked solely based on the persistent harassment and block evasion (and light other usage in that range). The sock page gives some extra context for me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied :) GAB^gab 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This[11] and This[12]. What should I do?! That's an obvious WP:DUCK. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have clerks/admins who do behavioral analysis on these accounts, without the need for CU. SPI is perennially backlogged, but I will try and look at this case in the near future. Regards, GAB^gab 17:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the naming convention for SPI cases that only involve IP's? Specifically I'm concerned about this case. The one named account seems unrelated to all the IP's so the case should be renamed, but I'm unsure to what the new title should be. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: That's a good question - I don't recall ever having this sort of thing come up in clerking. It would probably be best to move it to the oldest IP we could find, but it would be a good idea to let those previously involved in the case know. GAB^gab

for deleting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gamaliel, though I was rather looking forward to seeing how it played out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: Sorry to disappoint you ;) GAB^gab 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life can be cruel, but I will get over it after waking up crying in the middle of the night for a week or two. Carptrash (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GAB, although I too was looking forward to the LOLs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am MrCharlesBlack. You recently deleted my request for a sockpuppet investigation. Then you posted ["this message"] on my talk page. In it you used the phrase "bogus SPI cases". But, I can't seem to find any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that use the word "bogus". Can you kindly refer me to the actual rules that you think I might have violated? Also, you mentioned something about the relationship between SPI cases and content disputes. Once again, I am unable to find a Wikipedia policy or guideline dealing with this topic. Please provide actual evidence of actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines that I have actually violated. —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC) MrCharlesBlack (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrCharlesBlack: "Don't file vexatious cases" is pretty much a given at SPI. WP:GAME is probably the most applicable policy here, although there are doubtless others. GAB^gab 20:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralizationsAreBad The quote that you provided reads "Don't file vexatious cases". But, that quote doesn't correspond to the WP:GAME policy that you linked to. Would you kindly refer me to the policy that this quote was taken from.MrCharlesBlack (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralizationsAreBad I'll make you a deal. If you can provide evidence in the form of quotes and links that correspond to things that I actually said and did which unambiguously violate the WP:GAME policy, I will not dispute your claim.MrCharlesBlack (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:POINT. If you file an SPI in bad faith or based on shoddy evidence, expect it to be deleted. The claims you made were not supported by any evidence. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking this IP. I just found another IP address in the same range that has recently vandalized, which is 81.128.179.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Could you block this IP as well? Thanks. 119.71.15.22 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT (as I was writing this): It looks like another admin blocked them already, but I personally don't agree with the block duration that they chose, and considering the block log, as well... I don't know what the policy is of "changing" other admin's blocks, but I would have personally blocked this IP for 2 years, and considering the fact that they started vandalizing again shortly after the previous block expired, then such a short block will not really do much to stop vandalism from that IP address. (if you want, I guess you can change it to that duration). 119.71.15.22 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-a pal. Long time no see. I completely failed to notice that you (finally) became an administrator here on Wikipedia! Many congratulations from me, well deserved. I'm sure you will do the community well for many years to come. Kind regards from a friend. :) Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

41.235.90.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Their latest proxy. Thanks. 76.109.126.61 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]