User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 6

I have heard from many sources that valwood is hated.

it is not irrelevant and you had no right to take it down.

@Cailloudabeast: Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, two integral Wikipedia policies. We need reliable sources, not just hearsay, before we can insert information into articles. Moreover, calling schools "snobby," "obnoxious," "stuck up," and "racist" is a clear breach of the latter policy which I cited above. If someone simply wrote that about another person, it would also be considered insulting, and would have to be taken down; that would fall under the WP:BLP policy. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, broadly speaking, that generalizations are bad. However, dragonfruit is excessively nasty and that's the generalization that proves the rule. Please have mercy. Bad Dragonfruit Yuck (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bad Dragonfruit Yuck: I like your name, but please use your editing powers for good rather than adding joke content. Thanks. GAB^Hello! 22:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that my fiery denunciation of dragonfruit was anything less than gravely serious and almost morbidly sincere in its convictions. That said, how about we compromise and call it "provocative content"? Bad Dragonfruit Yuck (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems fair enough. If you could add some less-provocative, sourced content to the article to improve it, however, I'm sure it would be appreciated. GAB^Hello! 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB. Thanks for adding that evidence to the The kyle 3 SPI. Since you seem to be good at that sort of thing, do you think you could have a look at the edits of another, more subtle potential sockpuppet whom I've been watching quietly bias a whole bunch of articles for a while now?

The suspected sockpuppeteer here is a well-known Palestine-Israel POV-pusher and system-gamer and the recipient of a whole bunch of sanctions in this area. Unusually, the master is neither blocked nor sanctioned and I suspect this is either a new sock created to avoid previous scrutiny, or a throwaway sock intended to eventually end up topic banned without affecting the master account.

The suspected sockpuppeteer has been accused of sockpuppetry several times in the past. He is a technically inclined user who undoubtedly has the ability to evade a basic CheckUser. Thus I wanted to run the behavioural evidence past you to ensure it holds water before I submit an SPI. Do you think this is worth persuing? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount: Thanks for asking me, I'm honored. I'm about to take a look now. One thing I would like to say is that this subject area is doubtless frequented by a number of different masters... so any account that looks suspicious may indeed be a sock, but the actual master may be obscure. I am also not so well-versed on this account, and reading up on the background may take a while. I would also recommend you seek another editor's input besides my own, just to get a sense of how others see it. Anyhow, I'll elaborate on these particular fellows in a bit. GAB^Hello! 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm digging the nice box, too; I should really try doing that in the future :) GAB^Hello! 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have reviewed the edits provided between the two suspects (columns 1 and 2), and I'm not sure if they are operated by the same person. While there may be a connection, I can't immediately discern it from the edits. The standard for behavioral evidence in SPI is fairly high -- and with good reason, too. You may want to get a second opinion, though. I recommend you consider a few different questions:

• Which editors do each tend to quarrel with or insult?
• What specific views are they most engaged in promoting?
• What unique spelling quirks do each demonstrate?
• What specific pages do they overlap on?

You also may want to look at noticeboard and talk page posts, as well as the reverts done by each editor (which can be very illustrative). Keep in mind that the sheer contentiousness of the subject area means that there will be lots of problematic editors arguing for any one POV... and yet they may be totally unrelated. Wishing you good luck, GAB^Hello! 22:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, thanks for having a look and giving your honest opinion. I wanted an opinion from someone outside the subject area. I honestly don't feel much affinity with any of the current crop of editors there, I'd describe every one as "difficult".

On reflection, it seems I was mistaken to suggest the "alt" account was that of the suspected sockmaster (an SPI was opened, but a connection was never proven). Since the suspected sock's editing is closer to the "alt", I'll quietly drop the suggestion for now, unless I see a further smoking gun. Thanks for maintaining the discretion here: I wanted to be very sure my claim had merit before I started naming names and pointing fingers at over at SPI. Thanks. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Howdy, indeed IPs are allowed. But in time, you'll discover that that IP is a ban evader. Anyways, I'll leave it with you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I'm sorry, may I ask what you were referring to? Sorry. GAB^Hello! 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you had restored the banned editors post at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think that was an edit conflict. Whoops. Thanks anyways. GAB^Hello! 17:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okie doke. FWIW, the IP-in-question is likely a banned editor. Its first edits being at ANI, are quite odd. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've long supported a generic "up to no good" rationale for quickly blocking accounts and IPs whose first edits are to ANI causing trouble :) GAB^Hello! 17:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My appeal to reason is doubtless troublesome. I'd even ended on a lighthearted joke; a true mark of a shit-stirrer. As for that being my first edit, my IP is dynamic... I'd much appreciate it if you were to stop snickering between yourselves about me. I might not edit under a name, but I still have such things as 'feelings'. 31.153.35.116 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; was not aware of that. I am, perhaps, a little too quick to assume "sock." GAB^Hello! 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For correctly identifying the amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny!

bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are hilarious .... I almost choked on my food reading your comment. :-D --Cahk (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I need to stop loitering around SPI, though... GAB^Hello! 19:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of User talk:Sockpuppet of sockpuppet of sockpuppet of sockpuppet of sockpuppet of sockpuppet? Same person? Adam9007 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: for sure, unless that very obvious vandalism style is more common than I thought. I actually think I know an earlier (blocked) master, but that was a while ago. GAB^Hello! 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the SPIs but I don't know if that was the first one. Adam9007 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: It's not the first, but Wikipedia is made798 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is rather similar. Next time the case is opened again, I might ask to have the case moved to them. GAB^Hello! 00:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for the work that you do maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Adam9007 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated, besides the whole "impersonation" part. GAB^Hello! 00:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this guy isn't me, he's a real impostor. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so I noticed :) GAB^Hello! 00:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I see you were involved in bringing this article to GA some time ago. Recently, it has been undergoing some revamping and editing. You may want to take a look at the issues raised and work on the article accordingly. This is an important article, as you know, which receives a lot of views per year. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I will be out for much of this week, but I can take a look afterwards. I may not be able to add much material (my sources are not so extensive on this particular battle) but I am happy to work on copyediting, general content issues, etc. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry I picked such a poor time to step away. GAB^Hello! 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

because i can Winterysteppe (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see you withdrew your Admin nom. You'd be a good one. Maybe next time. TimothyJosephWood 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: We'll see... :) GAB^Hello! 00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this seems to have happened. lol.TimothyJosephWood

Well, I have some admirers... but that sock wasn't too malicious. GAB^Hello! 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently putting together behavioral evidence in the SPI on Joseph Prasad as the user GeneralizationsAreGood12 (see SPI case and CU evidence here). Because the account has only three edits [25], I'm locking in on the user name chosen as it seems to be a play on your own user name. The comments at the user space regarding their choice of handle states, "I am against the idea of generalizations I just wanted to show something to someone that I don't like so I did my name like this" [26]. You and Prasad have 47 articles in common and several talk pages/noticeboards, and the like. I think it's very possible he's referring to you with the above statement so, in order to collect evidence, can you recall anywhere specifically the two of you have clashed significantly, to the point of where he would want to make a statement against you through a user name? Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, I see you've been here since I posted the above query. Any comments, help you can give would be appreciated so I can finish submitting the SPI evidence and the other suspected sock can be blocked, as it should be. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: My apologies. My phone died, and I was unable to access a computer. In any event, I do not believe I have come into contact with Joseph Prasad. I may have reverted him somewhere in the course of RC patrolling, but I don't recall any instances of my dealing with him. That being said, I can't honestly say why he would want to take a dig at me. Plenty of sockmasters dislike me for something or other. Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful GAB^Hello! 19:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was just a hunch. Thanks for the reply and your comments at the SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the account hasn't been blocked for impersonation - if it is not a sockpuppet of Joseph Prasad, then it is an impersonator of GAB. A block is required either way. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just pinging again after I thought about your query. I found your short question on my talk a bit suspicious. I really hope I'm not overthinking it, but did want to elaborate and possibly clear some things up.

For this case, as you know, finding 1 sock at a time is not the way to go. The offending accounts have usually been right on the first page of the new users log (until today). It was 3 days ago (not 2) when I first found this user on Special:Log/newusers, and posted to WP:UAA with Special:Diff/715348167. The log showed about a dozen users with similar names (you know what I mean). He began attacking Oshwah and admins, including me with Special:Diff/715353858.

If you were wondering how I got a big batch (7) of non-English usernames, they had all individually just vandalized my talk page, e.g. Special:Diff/715957997. I observed one account's creation time, scrolled 18 hours back, and found about a dozen more. I think this guy has a grudge on me, especially after my string of about 30 reversions on this sock and this sock a few days ago.

Recently for me, the other egregious extreme vandalism case is this, where we have a defecation-obsessed user from Maryland posting obscene pictures at WP:Sandbox (see its history and talk history) and attacking users who revert. That (ongoing) case has had me prepare for outstanding vandalism cases, such as this one. These past 2 weeks, I have sunk deep into vandal/new user patrol, more than I ever expected.

Let's please be transparent. If there's anything I should know that I don't, please don't keep it that way. Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another follow-up (smaller). I've had a chance to step away and clear my mind from the counter-vandal mindset that might have clouded my judgement a bit. You definitely have a lot of experience in sock investigations. I thought that you thought I was suspect, and was involved in the socks... somehow. That post above was me defending myself and giving my perspective. (haha) Anyway, yeah, I think you're right, that Special:Contributions/Wikipedia is made798 is probably an older master! Maybe it's worth it to have a CheckUser take a look? (I don't really have much sock investigation experience, except this past week, posting new entries.) Oh and thanks for CSD tagging the slew of new pages by the vandal. Anyway, best intentions, and cheers. :) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 05:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: No worries, I never suspected you had anything to do with this. I typically do new-page and RC patrol, but I have a few means of detecting socks easily (filters). It's not really something that you can consciously do, so much as just stumble upon. But it's interesting and stimulating. As for the 798 sock, I'm confident it is him, but there is no way of technically proving it because they are stale (outside the 90-day limit of CU data). You might be interested in reading on the Nsmutte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) case, which you might come across. In the meanwhile, I will keep an eye on the case. Since there are so many socks, you might just want to report them to AIV, which is far quicker. Anyway, thanks for your help, and best of luck. GAB^Hello! 12:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work in detecting and reporting various socks. Looks like there's multiple prolific puppeteers out today. *sigh* AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I try, but they never seem to stop. GAB^Hello! 21:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, that. Bad luck that activity peaks from multiple sockmasters coincide with some bad backlogs the past few weeks, though. SPI's been backlogged pretty much since I came off a hiatus in late March, the rest flutters in and out of backlog (AIV, RFPP, UAA).

But what can ye do? Revert, report, revert some more until backlog is dealt with, 'ignore' once blocked while keeping an eye on the usual suspect places for the newest reincarnation, I suppose. *shrug* Or just report-wait-keep-an-eye-out if the nonsense remains limited to the reported user's own userspace and/or it's a sleeper where the username alone is clue enough. No use getting into a revert-war over CSD-tags on userpages, better to wait for the 10m-2h it takes for them to get blocked first. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I put the speedy up earlier but then it was considered hasty-something to note is that a logged off IP keeps on adding the name to links, so check what links to Aashir Sheikh, might need to delete that again! Wgolf (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Yeah, it's gone now. GAB^Hello! 00:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though some pages still link to him that should be reverted (again). Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added that speedy deletion notice onto Www.guidancemdms.com, I have noticed this editor has created 2 pages, both talking about instututions mainly in India, I was wondering if I should open a report on this user at wp:COIN? Based on activity, I think this may be a SPA from a PR firm. Your thoughts? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Attack Dog: It looks pretty evidently promotional to me, although I must admit I have not hung around COIN too much. The pages will get deleted anyhow, so I guess you could report if you feel it is necessary. GAB^Hello! 15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saheehinfo#Comments by other users) that "the suspected sock is older than the suspected master by 11 months." How did you come to that? --Mawlidman (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (I am not GAB, though we have been accused of being cousins.) Look at the creation date of the accounts. (One way is to hover over the Talk link for each.) General Ization ^Talk 01:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saheehinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thehistorian1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Saheehinfo made his first ever wiki contribution on 18 December 2015; Thehistorian1984 made his first ever contribution on 3 January 2015 (a difference of around 11 months). Sorry for my slowness. So should i re-submit my sock investigation the other way round? --Mawlidman (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, GAB's comment will likely result in the clerk reviewing the request and making any appropriate changes, including moving the SPI if needed. General Ization ^Talk 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that "xxx edits since date" doesn't mean the account first edited on that date; it is the date the account was created. General Ization ^Talk 02:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for all the advice. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tikeem cumberbatch2 god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Widr is dead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These were pretty much blocked on the spot, but not sure if these are connected to any existing investigation...? — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more popped up in that user creation time frame that I'll refrain from listing. Edit: also removed some slightly offensive ones. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: I know of at least 1 other sock, but I do not know the master as of this minute (although I could do some looking). I'm assuming these are the same because of the pages created, as shown in the filter log. I will try to get back to you on this shortly. GAB^Hello! 00:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Alrighty, here is a preliminary list of other accounts I found (in no particular order):

• Fart blaster fart nuts 69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fart on wikipedia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fart on antandraurus or however u spell it (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fart blast master (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fart blast master2124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fart blaster rocket fart nuts 69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - a sleeper I found.

An SPI is not really needed for this sort of puerile vandalism. CSD and AIV/UAA is better. Thanks for contacting me about this. GAB^Hello! 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looking at your older version, it seems you got basically every one of them. Nice. I usually don't use the user creation logs, so I should start doing so. GAB^Hello! 01:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB,

I was wondering, Do userspace page creations get reviewed as well? I saw the notification that you reviewed my CSD log. KgosarMyth (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. No worries, it really doesn't mean much of anything, it's just something I habitually do when I see new userpages, etc. on recent-change patrolling. In any event, it seems you know your way around, so good luck! GAB^Hello! 12:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there GAB. I mentioned some canvassing that happened in conjunction with your RFA in a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion Continues. Best, — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Yes, there was pretty obviously some canvassing, and I would have told him to stop myself if he hadn't already been told so by another user. I saw the thread and will weigh in... thanks for notifying me. GAB^Hello! 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just trying to help you in your RFA review; I wasn't aware that such a specific practice was not allowed. Sorry for the inconvenience! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologizing; it is rather frowned-upon, although there are some userpage notices that can be used for these purposes. GAB^Hello! 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you my attentions were nothing but good and I meant the nice things I said about you in my co-nomination text. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for that, that's gratifying to hear. GAB^Hello! 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Generalizations are bad,

Sorry, I have no intent to waste my time on an edit war. Only wanted to update the safe schools wiki with the matter revealed in parliament relating the architects of the safe schools programme with their rather radical agenda on pedophilia. Of course that is controversial but my post was not taking a stance only reporting. How would you go about it? I thought I did a pretty good job of referencing to the ABC news site. Why the accusation that the edit was highly non-neutral? Call me old fashioned but "safe schools" and "pedophilia" dont seem to go together real well with me.

Could you please take a bit of time to edit the wiki to include a fair assessment of the pedophilia association rather than just reverting. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindOutTheTruth (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me. It isn't anything new. It gets my block and deletion counts up. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]