This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The kicker is really shit like this edit: "admin review requested". Well, request granted, I guess. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 02:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, gotta appreciate how accurate the sockmaster's username is... GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, keep in mind that "chauvinism" outside North America means "patriotism", albeit a strong version thereof. They probably learned a variety of British English, if indeed they're from over there. Drmies ( talk) 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know that meaning. You really do learn something every day here... GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		1 February 2021 — 28 February 2021

Volume 2 — Issue 5
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News! The Hope orbiter reached mars on 9 February 2021. Seven months after its launch on 19 July 2020. Confirmation of the Perseverance rover successfully landing on Mars was recieved at 20:55 UTC on 18 February 2021. With the first photo from the same day.
Article of the month. Mars Pathfinder The Mars Pathfinder is an American robotic spacecraft that landed a base station with a roving probe on Mars in 1997. It consisted of a lander, and a lightweight wheeled robotic Mars rover named Sojourner, which became the first rover to land and operate on Mars.	Image of the month. The first 360-degree panorama taken by Mastcam-Z, on Perseverance.
Members New Members: Acronymical (Joined on the 11th February) RedemptionVision (Joined on the 12th February) Yitzilitt (Joined on the 12th February) Number of active members: 100. Total number of members: 313. February Launches All times stated here are in UTC. Hyperbola-1 – Multi-payload (1st at 08:15) Failure Soyuz-2.1b – Lotos S1 (2st at 20:45:28) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L18 (4st at 06:19) Success Long March 3B/E – TJS 6 (4st at 15:36) Success Soyuz-2.1a – Progress 77P (15st at 04:45:05) Success Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L19 (16st at 03:59:37) Success Antares 230+ – NG-15 (20st at 17:36:50) Success Long March 4C – Yaogan 31 (24st at 02:22) Success PSLV – Amazônia-1 (28st at 04:53) Success Soyuz-2.1b – Arktika-M 1 (28st at 06:55:01) Success March Launches Launch dates can change. See a current list: here. Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L17 Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L20 Long March 7A – Yanzheng 6 Firefly Alpha – DREAM 1 Electron – They Go Up So Fast Soyuz-2.1a – CAS500-1 Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 5 Jielong 1 – Hainan 1 LauncherOne – STP-27VP Long March 4C – Gaofen-12	Article Statistics This data reflects values from the 28 February 2021 Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 17 4 7 35 FL 4 4 8 FM 97 97 GA 11 22 36 52 121 B 1 48 37 43 129 C 55 160 527 489 7 1,238 Start 38 158 1,121 2,208 372 3,897] Stub 7 245 2,178 225 2,655 List 14 131 79 211 435 Category 1,033 1,033 Disambig 48 48 File 198 198 Portal 55 55 Project 57 57 Redirect 1 1,122 1,123 Template 493 493 Other 39 39 Assessed 126 543 2,053 5,193 3,148 604 11,667 Unassessed 1 54 55 Total 126 543 2,053 5,194 3,148 658 11,722 Monthly Changes Since January, 44 new pages have been added to Spaceflight and 1 file has become featured. There are 2 new files as well as 1 more C class, 4 more start class and 3 more stub class articles, with an additional 3 list articles.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributor: Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

19:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved ( phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist ( phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Had a look through this and I think it's solid advice but thought I'd drop my two cents on the entire concept on clerkship - I feel that more and more often clerkship is being seen as a stepping stone to adminship, which in itself is not a bad thing but it gives me (and probably a few others) the aura that this is an exclusive club that someone needs to get into. This is also a problem with adminship itself, where candidates might tend to tailor their profile for the highest chance of success, which again is probably not a bad thing, in moderation. I feel that we tend to overdo things with advice columns ("advice for RfA candidates", so on and so forth) so as to most effectively meet the goal. In the midst of all of this, I think we lose the point of what Wikipedia is all about, and why we should probably leave editors to their own devices. Apologies in advance for the long ramble, especially when most of this is regarding advice columns in general and not yours specifically. I came across this when you added it to the SPI clerk noticeboard and realized that it's probably a more existing concept than it should be, especially for closed structures like SPI. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

QEDK, yeah, I get what you're saying. My main aim with that essay was to demystify the clerk selection process - let's be honest, it's almost entirely opaque to non-SPI folks. Also to prompt a bit of self-reflection from, let's say, the overly-enthusiastic editors who have no business anywhere near SPI. I'm definitely not in favor of SPI clerking as a stepping stone to adminship. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Remember when MaranoFan accused me of being a sock puppet of youcancallmejimmy? The latter turned out to be a sock puppet of BillieKhalidFan. Does MaranoFan just get to get away with reporting me for no reason? The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 09:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, unless an SPI report was clearly made in bad faith or an editor has a history of bad reports, we don't take action against someone for an incorrect report. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ImNotAnEntrepreneur. This account was just created like a day. I doubt it was created just to vote as Keep in this [ [3]] discussion where lot of socks and IP addresses have been involved. I am not experienced dealing with socks. So please have a look at it. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

what is it man? u r posing baseless allegations on me. pls read wp:npa. u seem to be canvassing people to vote according to ur wish u can visit wp:spi to file the spi investigation, but don’t make rubbish spurious remarks. ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk) 09:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk · contribs) I havent canvassed anyone in this AFD. And I did not accuse you for socketpuppetry. I just want this admin to have a look at it. Because that AFD have been involved by lot of socketpuppets. Did I opened any spi against you.? I just want this experienced admin to have a look at yours. Because some 1 day old accont like yours have previously voted at this AFD for vote sacking. Thats all. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

i know u did not open spi, but that is the right place not this or anywhere else if u feel that i am suspicious. i know this afd is very messy, but i saw it on india article for deletion, so thought of voting to it because i think it meets the creiteria and because mostly India articles get deleted because of less people on afd voting who can give real remark abt indian people. so if u think i made a wrong vote u could have talked to me, i have no issues in changing my vote if u feel im wrong. ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk · contribs), that is a very complex and messy AFD like you said. Let me tell you a thing. In that AFD, some new accounts have been already found as socks. So a new account of just 1 days suddenly showed up there, I felt something wrong. And believe me, I have nothing against you or anyone. One thing I agree with you, I should have told you first. And I apologise if I am wrong in that aspect. Let Generalnotability decides what to do next. Regards. And please keep this discussion out from this talk page. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki, ImNotAnEntrepreneur, hello to both of you. I agree that a lot of socks have been involved in that AfD, but I don't see anything to definitively tie ImNotAnEntrepreneur to any of the others, nor do I see enough evidence to ask a checkuser to look into them at this time, so I'm going to exercise some WP:AGF here. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, even I couldn’t understand why he blamed me. That AfD was pretty messy. And to prevent socks from commenting you should’ve protected it to avoid socking comment issues. ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk) 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi GN - I'm considering asking for clarification from Arbcom of a piece of wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations; specifically, how we are to interpret the phrase 'academically focused'. There is a looooooooong discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), with quite a lot of back and forth, but it all boils down to the question of what that phrase actually means. I don't want to drag you into the discussion, I'm just looking for guidance on whether this is something that the Arbs could look at, and if so, how I would go about filling in the paperwork to raise a clarification request. I've looked at those pages, and 'daunted' would be an decent descriptor of how they made me feel, but 'shit scared of making an idiot of myself by screwing them up' would probably be closer the mark. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I don't know either, let's find out! So the correct venue is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I don't think ArbCom wants to rule on a specific source, but if you can summarize what exactly is being debated, the arbs would probably have something useful to add. There's a link near the top of the page, "Click here to file a request for clarification". I suspect you will need to name a lot of people as parties here, but I'm not experienced enough to give you a definite answer here; I believe Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Noticeboard is the appropriate place to ask for help with that. I suspect that parties should include Buidhe and Volunteer Marek, but this is not in any way authoritative. GeneralNotability ( talk) 04:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GN; I've been having a chat about it with DGG on his talk page as well, going to think about it a bit more before doing anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm cannot find a link at WP:A/I or anywhere else. Do you know where they are? It's not just in the page history is it? Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, ...yup, it's the page history. Don't look at me, I didn't make the system. Individual C/A requests are archived to the most relevant talk page (for cases, that's going to be the case talk page) but there isn't a centralized repository of all requests. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK but can we add ARCA index to the revolutionary platform?

In other news, I know you just did one for Obamacare, but I can't help but think of Green Eggs and Ham when I read DESYSOP2021: They will not support it at 60 percent, they do not see an elephant. They will not support it with a trial, they will not support it by a mile.

Thirdly, whenever you have some time, your reactions, please, to: User:Levivich/Help and User:Levivich/sandbox2, both of which should be self-explanatory (I hope). Spanks a bunch! Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 08:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I'll put it on the platform (and ask team clerk what they think). The sandboxes look good! Is this intended to replace WP:Help? GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one possibility. Help:Contents should probably stay where it is, but this could be a replacement for the redirect WP:Help. (I just added Help:Contents button to the alternate layout, thanks for the idea.) Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW thanks for asking team clerk, and aside from an ARCA index, just adding what you told me (Individual C/A requests are archived to the most relevant talk page (for cases, that's going to be the case talk page)) to WP:ARCA would be helpful. I was able to find the drones ARCA I was looking for with your tip but it never occurred to me that there would be archived ARCA's on a case page's talk page and I see now it says that at WP:A/I, but I missed that earlier. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That was some mass attack. Even cluebot was confused. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the help, support and guidance you provided here — Amkgp 💬 04:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey GN, could you deal with Jonatitties ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Some things are borderline revdellable. Thanks, Java Hurricane 03:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Spencer. Thanks! Java Hurricane 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that while you closed this case the main case page still has a big "this case is open" template just above the text area. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Asartea - figuring this out as I go along, must have missed that step. I've found the step that I missed and corrected the issue. I am currently waiting to hear back from the arbs about whether they want a formal "case closed" announcement. GeneralNotability ( talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, To be fair it was an directly coded box, not an template; also known as a crime against existence. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Username now retired Aeribot ( talk) 10:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability. I noticed that you deleted 56 consecutive revisions by a variety of editors here. I'm just wondering if that was a mistake, or did you intend to delete all of them? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Clayoquot, yes, that was entirely intentional - there was some suppressible text posted to BLPN, someone made note of the suppressible text in a semi-public location a few days later, I removed the text and RD'd everything between the original posting and my removal while waiting for an oversighter. Unfortunate that three days passed between the original posting and someone noticing that it needed suppression (and so we had to hide all of that history), but c'est la vie. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 19:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks and best wishes, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.

Before:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

After:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article.

I think your perspective could be helpful because you were involved in the sockpuppet investigation that led to this proposal.

My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).

Praxidicae has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.

As of this writing nobody else has responded.

Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.

Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.

Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello GeneralNotability, I noticed you closed the above SPI with agf-sock warnings to the mentioned users. Today I encountered another account, Puraana_Bhoot ( talk · contribs). Could you advise me on what to do next? Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Grganml. I must insist the checkusers believe me and I beg of them not to waste time with a check on this one. Remember WP:AGF and that means when a person says he is not a sock of the person. Speaking of socks. Pahunkat himself has been using two accounts these past hours just to editwar. Puraana Bhoot ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Very funny - yes, that is my alternate account, as such it is called "Pahunkat Alternate Account". Pahunkat ( talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mister. You are 1 person using 2 accounts abusively. You have edit warred using both. Puraana Bhoot ( talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is your definition of "abusively"? JJP...MASTER! _{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Breaching 3RR. Twice with one account, then two more times with other "original" sock account. Puraana Bhoot ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, user above has been blocked indef by Oshwah. Pahunkat ( talk) 22:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, this one's been blocked, but next time you're welcome to either do exactly what you did here (that is, message the admin who handled the case) or add a new case to that SPI. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GeneralNotability/Archives/2021. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is as per e-mail.
Message added 12:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC). 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.

I just found this diff in addition to what I sent you. 220 of ^ßorg 12:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, acknowledging that I've seen your email - I'll try to take care of it tomorrow. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, yeah, I see what you're talking about. I'll take care of it. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I AGF but possibly, I might be a bit more suspicious in future. I take it you have no doubt about the connection per "astounding amount of overlap with past socks" ? 220 of ^ßorg 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, that's correct. If you look at their cross-wiki contribs, there are a few telltales there too - they really like writing about that one attorney (which, if you look at the sockmaster's username, is probably because they're writing about themselves). It's well past "two people who happen to share the same interests". ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So not a subjective assessment? ;-D. If only Promote Justices' work didn't require so much cleanup! 220 of ^ßorg 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 103.39.132.188 ( talk · contribs) is the same person as 103.108.117.148 ( talk · contribs) and 104.244.208.0/22 ( talk · contribs), so I suspect the range has similar issues to the two you've blocked. Best, CMD ( talk) 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis: yup, that's a SurfShark endpoint all right. Hardblocked. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! How's it going? Question. I want to make my own sandbox to do just some silly, alternate stuff haha. For example, I want to make an alternate list of presidents and prime ministers of Yugoslavia if the country had existed today, so 1945–present, and other stuff like that (ministers, etc.), just an idea of mine really and something I find interesting. So my question is, is it okay for me to make that, as in is that a problem? And also, when I make my sandbox, I presume no one can edit it besides me (apart bots who deleted non free images and so on)? And also, I don't need any refs. in my sandbox right? No one's gonna actually like check my sandbox, yes? I do hope to get an answer from you shortly! Bye :) Bakir123 ( talk) 23:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

comment from ( talk page watcher): Hi, Bakir123. You can use your sandbox to test and try things and even to work on drafts of articles. However, alternate-history stuff often gets deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Although editors generally don't edit each other's sandbox/user subpages, they do see them and they do tag them for WP:CSD sometimes. I've seen quite a few user subpages of fake "alternate history" deleted. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Bakir123, Schazjmd covered most of what I would have had to say. You should not be using your sandbox to write alternate history; doing that will probably get the sandbox deleted per our rules about Wikipedia not being used as a webhost (in fact, a couple months ago I blocked a user because something like 95% of their contributions were creating fictional election history in their sandboxes). And as for your other questions - recent changes patrollers do see your sandbox, and other editors can edit your sandbox (though it's considered poor form to do so unless they've either gotten your permission or are editing it to make a good-faith deletion nomination). You have a good deal of freedom in what you write in your sandbox, but fundamental rules of Wikipedia still apply - in particular, your sandbox should not violate anyone's copyright, nor should it make controversial statements about living people without adequate sourcing. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNotability,

I see that you just blocked Special:Contributions/103.115.184.249 as part of a proxy range block (if I misunderstand, please correct me, since I'm quite ignorant about these things). I just had an issue with a user editing from that IP, who showed up yesterday and started to systematically revert my edits. Trying to assume good faith, I asked for advice about how to best deal with this at the Teahouse. But now it seems as if someone may have taken special precautions for staying anonymous while systematically targeting my edits? Is that an accurate interpretation? Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: after posting the comment above, I became more suspicious, did some research, and was appalled at what I found. I opened a SPI about this. Any advice on how to deal with this would be very welcome. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've handled the SPI. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, I would like to ask you to help me better understand the evidence. Why would the IP range edit on exactly the same articles, with some subjects Iran-related but some not at all ( The Australian)? Why should the IP ranges only vote in the same RfCs, and not in any others? Why should they vote in the same non-obvious ways (note that the RfC here asked for exposing Iranian propaganda)? Why would the IP ranges not have any other edits on similar and related topics where no direct link with the registered user can be established? I'm asking these questions because I want to understand better, and avoid seeing a WP:DUCK where there isn't any. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you also look at this? Second edit suggests someone may have read a comment by you, and last two edits perhaps seem just a little too nicely balanced (they are continuing this here). Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 01:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of those are Hotspot VPN. I can't really make sense of either ISP (it's rather late here), but the 59.x one has been blocked by Ponyo, and the 92.x one is also ripe for a proxy block. For what it's worth, I've reverted the edits of both of them. Blablubbs| talk 01:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See also the only older of the 92.x proxy range: guess who also opposed this RfC? A quite vehement opposition, with heated accusations ( [14], [15]), and also some further interaction with the nominator of the RfC. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 15:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNotability, I appreciate that you may be rather busy, and that there are far more urgent things to do, but would you please give me a small update? Thank you very much, Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 14:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, well, it's hard to pin down all edits made by this editor, since they're using a VPN - the person behind the IP may be editing from other ranges and we've only noticed the places they overlap. It is also possible that this is meatpuppetry - someone asking a friend to make edits to support them. All I'm saying from the SPI is that I don't think these are the same person and I don't see clear enough evidence to block for meatpuppetry. Also, a side note from experience - Doogh is one of those articles that attracts a lot of ethnonationalist editors who insist that their culture/ethnicity/country invented it. GeneralNotability ( talk) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but surely an RfC about whether an Australian newspaper should be called centre-right to right wing (cf. [16]) would not also attract the very same Iranian-nationalist editor, so the voter in that RfC would need to be another user of the VPN. But how likely is it that two different VPN users of that same IP range (the 103.x one) would both be involved in the same articles as the registered user, or that two different users of the same VPN service (remember that the recent 92.x one started out at the 103.x one, and pushed Iranian-nationalist views) would support the vote of the registered user at two completely unrelated RfC's? Is the point perhaps that these things are not at all likely, but that a greater quantity of evidence of this kind would be needed to justify action? Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, those are very good points, and you're absolutely right that there are a lot of overlaps between users of this VPN and Wikiviani. I just tend to be conservative in blocking editors for meatpuppetry, I guess. I am trying to block those VPN ranges as I find them, but I'm reluctant to block Wikiviani. This really is a "gut feeling" sort of thing, I'm sorry I can't give you a concrete explanation of my thinking. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, and I would do exactly the same if I were in your position. Even as the victim of the meatpuppetry (which seems unmistakable), I agree that blocking would go much too far, but I was hoping for some kind of warning, or perhaps a reconsideration of some of his special user rights. Anyways, thanks a lot for looking into this. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, actually, that's an excellent point - I think there's enough evidence to give a warning over this. I'll take care of that shortly. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the revertions by Apaugasma here, here, and here triggered the IP storm that had followed them around for a bit. What I see, is IPs(Brazil, New Zealand, Taiwan), making it personal and following Apaugasma around reverting their edits, since their edits(IPs) have been reverted. The New Zealand IP started out as 121.74.12.98 and now is 103.115.184.249. I have yet to understand why Wikaviani is being associated with these IPs. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, the shared interests between Wikaviani and the IP editor(s) plus the overlap between the IP(s) and Wikaviani at a couple of fairly specific RfCs. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty thin to me. Wikaviani has 10+K edits in the last 3.5 years and has overlap in some RFCs? Wow. Do my edits overlap with 103.115.184.249? Yep. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I thought the overlap at two fairly distinct RfCs (especially considering, as Apaugasma noted above, that one of them was well outside of this IP editor's usual interests) plus the shared interest was enough to suggest that they could be connected, but I was far from certain, so I gave Wikiviani a polite note with an explanation of the meatpuppetry rules in case they were connected. Wikiviani explained why they're unrelated. I think their explanation is reasonable, and I apologized for the incorrect accusation. I was wrong, not the first time I've been wrong about this kind of thing, probably won't be the last. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear, are you familiar with the concept of a proxy server? It is a computer which acts as an intermediary between two other computers and hides one of the two interacting computers' identity from the other. It is often used by people who have a special need for privacy, to surf the web in such a way that their IP, location, etc. stays hidden from the internet servers they connect with. The only IP (and location, etc.) shown to those internet servers is the IP of the proxy. So while the IP range that attacked me was located in New Zealand, its user may have been from anywhere around the world, and indeed probably was not from New Zealand. For this reason, both the location of the proxy and the locations of other (non-proxy) IP users are meaningless in such cases. Also, I think you may not have looked at the actual evidence: please take a look at the edit history of the entire IP range, and you'll note that the overlap is much greater than your 3 overlapping edits articles. In fact, of the IP range's 33 edits before the 17 March attack, only 7 edits (1 August 2019, 20 May – 7 August 2020) are not in articles also edited by Wikaviani (evidence in the SPI case). While 23 of the IP range's overlapping edits are in 5 Iran-related articles, 3 are in an article about an Australian newspaper, to support the same RfC as Wikaviani. I'm citing just part of the evidence here, and I never imagined that it would be so difficult to get other editors to take a close look at it. I'm very sorry if this offended you, Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just going to say this once, you have no idea who I am and you know absolutely nothing about me. Your comment,

• " I'm very sorry if this offended you..."

..is the 2nd personalized comment I have seen from you. I look at facts, and the fact is that the IP made two edits to Alchemy, not reverts. YOU reverted that IP and from that point on that IP decided to revert any and every edit of yours. Plain and simple. If you want to make issues personal(such as your previous personalized comment), I can guarantee you that you will not be editing here very long. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am truly sorry. I should never have bothered you with this, that was my mistake. Please accept my sincere apologies. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 01:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

16:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I must have been trying to copy/paste their user name.--- Possibly ( talk) 02:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I reported an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shame on PJ Santos but has not allowed to publish. I need help from you to publish this user Kaputite ( talk · contribs) as this is the sockpuppet of Shame on PJ Santos. The sockpuppet was issued on March 23, 2021. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 08:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:103.110.49.124 and User:103.110.49.147 are same. They added same spam links from sport matik website. You have already blocked one of them. Thanks   Zoglophie 17:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Zoglophie, you're right, good catch. The .147 IP hasn't edited for a while, though, so I don't see a need to block them right now. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Re your comment here. While I don't dispute the block (since I assume CU evidence is solid), I am not sure I follow this: " Even if they are two separate people, this is meatpuppetry in my book.". IF they are two people, wouldn't this be fine? Co-workers or family members are not prohibited from editing Wikipedia, even if they edit similar topics, are they? We don't have any restriction that says 'one account per household/workplace', do we? Hypothetically, if one of us had a spouse, and she started editing Wikipedia and then joined a discussion we are participating in, would you recommend that she is blocked? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, co-workers and family members editing Wikipedia is fine. Co-workers and family members editing Wikipedia to advocate in the same areas without disclosure is not. It would be okay, for example, for my better half to edit Wikipedia in most areas...but if we're also showing up to support each other in project space, that's not okay. In this case, we have what appears to either be one employee of Aquila Polonica with two accounts or two employees of the publisher showing up at ARCA, and I find it hard to believe that two separate employees of a niche publisher "just happened" to find the ARCA independently of each other. I probably would not have blocked if they had acknowledged the relationship somewhere ("I'm the owner of Aquila Polonica, I see one of my employees commented here, I'd like to expand further" or something like that), but right now it looks like multiple accounts being used to further the publisher's self-interest. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Continuing this, see block appeals at [26] and [27]. What do you think? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have no objection to another administrator unblocking them if they accept the explanations offered by the two editors. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 15:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know. But is there any reason you, the blocking admin, are not willing to unblock them? If we take their explanation at face value (AGF) that wouldn't unblocking them and apologizing for the misunderstanding be best, in the context of WP:BITE, being friendly to newbies, and like? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, two reasons. The first is that I personally think this should be an unblock with conditions (specifically, I think Tataqp should be required to make COI/PAID/whatever declarations, and perhaps that both should acknowledge the relationship between the two accounts on their userpage). I'm generally reluctant to do those as the blocking admin -- it feels rather coercive for someone to block you and then have the same person say "well, I can undo my block, but only if you agree to these conditions I'm imposing on you". The second is more banal - I'm currently on my public-computer alt and won't have my admin tools until tonight, so even if I did want to unblock them I currently can't :). ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 17:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RabbitFanon2021 has another sock. You looked into this before. If you could have a look at this it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)