User talk:Girth Summit

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Girth Summit,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

CU request

Hello @Girth Summit, Hope you doing well. Sorry to bother you. I have noticed you interacting with many other users I interact here. Therefore I am here to request you to kindly investigate a sockpuppet investigation going on against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav. Its been 12-13 days since it was filed and is awaiting Checkuser. I come to check updates daily but go back disappointed seeing no progress. I even tagged you and two other checkusers but you people might have been busy. I might sound desperate or you may think I am in a hurry. But I can't help myself. I am not able to concentrate with my edits because of it. I would request you to kindly investigate it as soon as possible. I have never abused the privileges given to my account and have always tried to give my best. I have made mistakes as everyother newbie does. I have also improved me with suggestions from seniors. I would request you to please do this as soon as possible. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty busy tomorrow, and unlikely to be able to look at this until Friday. I make no promises, but if I get a chance to look at it before anyone else does I will. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok @Girth Summit. I just brought it to your attention. I would request you to do this the earliest possible. Take your time. I shall wait for a couple of more days. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so having looked briefly at the SPI case, I'm not going to jump onto it. I don't investigate cases on request; I'm a volunteer, and if it had been a cut-and-dried bad faith filing I would have been happy to close it, but that appears not to be the case so at least some cursory investigation will be necessary. Since I am not particularly familiar with the proposed sock puppeteer, I'm not sure what I would bring to the case. I will therefore treat it as I would any other: as and when I have time to work on the (lengthy) queue, I may or may not get to this one. Sorry I can't offer you any more than that. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I am accused of being a sockpuppet of Souniel Yadav so I just wanted to get that thing solved ASAP. I even pinned you and two other checkusers in that discussion. But since you guys didn't reply so I thought of coming to your talk page one at a time. Anyways, is there a way I can formally request to get it solved? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The case is in the queue at WP:SPI. As you can see, there are lots of cases open - someone will get around to it in due course. There isn't really a mechanism by which you can request that your case be expedited ahead of others. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reuss-Lobenstein on a "All RFCs" 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 09:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Girth Summit,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

New possible sock

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Jhonny. The previous socks were blocked by you. The new account has already recreated new spam articlea including multiple times deleted articles Abhilash Pillai (writer) (Abhilash Pillai (screenwriter) and Abhilash Pillai (film writer)). 202.164.137.22 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Firefly got to this one already. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

LTA

Take a look at Talk:Culture of Switzerland, looks like the sock involved in this situation is back with a new account. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zzuuzz. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Altay74 posting about block on reddit

I just wanted to let you know that Altay74 has taken to complaining on Reddit, in case you weren't already aware. See here! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not a sock, it's all a coincidence - another day, another sock arguing that they're not a sock and it's all just a coincidence. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent SPI block امپراتوری های ایران

Hey Girth Summit, I see you recently SPI blocked User:امپراتوری های ایران [1]. Said editor added Islam to Ya'qub ibn al-Layth al-Saffar article, which has been mirrored by user:Inlistdetilas.[2][3]

Could this be a sock? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep - blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Purdue University Global on a "All RFCs" 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 21:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Pavle Gazi

reestablish the Pavle Gazi page. I don't care if he was blocked.... TheUzbek (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone - I'm not going to respond to a request phrased like this. You are at liberty to persuade me as to why I should undelete the article, with reference to the relevant policies, or you can simply recreate the article yourself if you believe the subject to be notable. It shouldn't be difficult, the article contained only three sentences. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

My tone is angry because you deleted a perfectly warranted and needed article on a leading politician of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia who played a very important role in the 1970s- He held both state and party offices, was a member of the LCY Presidency, LCY Central Committee and leading activist in his republican branch.

I've created a ton of articles, and I'm working on creating more. Most of the links in the Template:League of Communists of Yugoslavia were red, and I'm working on making them all blue. To succeed in that user's like you should not delete articles needed by the encyclopaedia.

Why is there a rule to delete articles by guys who breach WP policy? Ludicrous. TheUzbek (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The policy is detailed at WP:G5. The author of that article was the sockpuppet of a globally locked long-term abuser of this project, who is not only blocked on enwiki, but is forbidden from contributing to any Wikimedia project. They should not have written that article. Nobody else had contributed to it substantively, there was just a spot of gnoming (addition of categories, typo fixing and the like). We don't tend to spend our time evaluating the work of banned users, we usually just delete it on sight. The encyclopedia was getting along fine for the twenty years or so before a sock wrote a three-sentence stub about that subject; I expect we will continue to get along fine without one, but if you think we need it then, as I said, you are welcome to create it yourself (and I expect you would do a much better job of it than the sock did).

Now, next time you don't understand why an experienced editor has done something, I suggest you ask politely - if anything is ludicrous about this situation, it is your unwarranted anger directed towards someone who spends a great deal of time voluntarily to protect the project and its contributors from the harm done by people who come here to abuse our platform. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaltimoreCraft

Seems like that I've investigated that under some sort of wrong name, since I've never heard of LWCU/Lenis Felipe before, until you've made the first edit on this page. Not to worry, some users are first aware of long term editing violations later than others. Additionally, I wasn't aware of "StormAgnesSkinner" until I browsed the meta:SRG page and noticed that has been reported and obviously AgnesBaltimoreSwan contains Agnes as well. @Fehufanga:, it looks like you know the culprit in the brief report on meta. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a script installed that marks globally locked accounts, and gives a link to their central authority page. When I see a locked account in an SPI report I follow the breadcrumbs. I can dig out the name of the script if you're interested? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan "LWCU" refers to the loginwiki, which stewards use to do xwiki checkuser. The LWCU indication on the lock notice means that it was found from loginwiki. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about stewards' shorthand style - I just follow the breadcrumbs they leave behind. All I know for sure is set out at the SPI case. G'night all. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is the script which makes the linked usernames have the red dashes underneath, I am already using it. Also I didn't realise LWCU refers to something but it appears someone created that account with the username without editing once. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like the same one. It greys them out too (unless that's a different script, I lose track of the ones I run). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B9 hummingbird hovering

Not sure why the puppetmaster's user page has never been tagged, since it's apparently (according to the logs), not the first time this user has been caught socking. Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2023

Delivered October 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Girth Summit. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 20:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I received your email. Unless I'm looking at the wrong account, one of the accounts you mentioned has not edited in several years, so I'm not sure that there is any ongoing disruption that needs attention. I'll add that it's not enough just to point to a few articles that two accounts have both edited - you would need to present specific evidence outlining what it is about the editing that makes you suspect they are the same person. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you need a specific evidence on wiki or off-wiki? I can provide a strong evidence on the latter, but I'm not sure if that'll be sufficient. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question - do you mean the evidence is off-wiki (e.g. someone boasting about running socks on Facebook) or are you talking about how you will provide the evidence (e-mailing it rather than raising an SPI case)? Girth Summit _(blether) 09:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

To be specific, I'm a part of a WhatsApp group of Wikipedians in accordance with WP:GOA. I wanted this thing to be done more discreetly as a reason to not jeopardize my relation with this editor. Their real name matches with their username or phone number associated with the group. Hence I'm confident that it is a sockpuppet account. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 10:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You can send evidence of that nature through on an email. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Erledigt Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 13:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken a look, and it does look likely that they're the same person. However, I'm not seeing any evidence of on-going disruption - as I said, one of the accounts hasn't edited for years, and only ever made a handful of edits. They probably ought to have declared it as an alt account, but since it seems to have been abandoned I'd consider that water under the bridge. If I've missed something, and you believe there is an on-going reason for me to intervene, let me know. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, so if an editor has an alt account and not in use, it isn't a Wikipedia policy violation untill and unless they start editing back through the sockpuppet? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more of a 'meh' than a statement about policy. Administrators are here to stop ongoing disruption, not to rake over editing from years ago to see whether there was any past disruption. Remember also that we don't automatically block people for using an undeclared alt account - if it looks like an honest mistake, we tend to just ask them to declare the connection on their userpage. I don't see the benefit of going through their historic editing to see whether there were any WP:BADSOCK violations (like block evasion, or vote-stacking or whatever), if there is no suspicion that such behaviour is still going on today; I'm also not going to go to their talk page and ask them to declare a connection to an alt account that hasn't edited in three years, and has only a handful of edits in total. Does that make sense? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, take a look at my recent contributions; set it to show the last 500, if you like. It should hopefully become clear that I have plenty of work to keep me busy clearing up ongoing disruption from socks, I think my time is better-spent doing that than worrying about old cases. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

• Alex Bakharev
• CorbieVreccan
• Cyphoidbomb
• Davodd
• Hog Farm
• JamesR
• KnightLago
• Mark Ironie
• Nosebagbear (deceased)
• Rschen7754
• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Abonnieren
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Keyworth

I was wondering if you had any advice about the linked article above. Keyworth uses pronouns, but I haven’t been able to find a Wikipedia policy about what the approach is for our articles. I can’t imagine just because they choose to use they etc., Wikipedia has to follow suit. I have been reverting editors, maybe incorrectly. Seasider53 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think normal practice is to follow the example of recent reliable sources - if they are using singular they when referring to someone, so do we; if they don't, we don't. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please visit/revisit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princek2019

The alleged Fela Akinse has returned to create yet another draft about Fela Akinse. I think you were last to look at them and thought you might like another crack at it.

Either we believe this editor that they are Akinse, or they are sock/meat. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that last time I ran a check, I determined that they were likely to be a different person from the other socks. I don't know whether running another check would be helpful. If we accept their assertion that they are the subject of the article they're writing, WP:COIN seems like it might be more appropriate than SPI? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

LTA

Hello Girth, User:20983476r and User:963257q were involved in multiple instances of image vandalism on the 2023 Herat earthquakes page yesterday. They added uncensored images, which resulted in both accounts being locally blocked and globally locked due to a history of abuse. I kindly request that if there is an existing SPI case page for this LTA, please add their usernames to it. If not, please create a new SPI case page and include their details to maintain a record of this LTA's actions for the future reference. Thank you. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that is, other than it being a cross-wiki vandal. I expect that some of the Stewards might have a better idea than me about who they are, but I'm not going to take any action myself. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

GS, you may (or may not) find the CU log for the first one of interest. I doubt a meticulous record will be useful though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm - thought I'd looked at the log - must have looked at the second one twice! Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 08:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey @Girth Summit. Thank you again for giving me a second chance to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Mr vili (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck to you. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible socks

Renatones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Renatones

The account has been recently created on the Spanish Wikipedia and has made some hasty edit across various Wikipedias in different languages, including massive reversions to an article I have been improving recently. It seems to be familiar with Wikipedia mechanics, and therefore I suspect it might be a sockpuppet of some well-known sockmaster (Rajputbhatti?) or someone who targeted me in the past (Foorgood?).

Derek-airtken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Derek-airtken

This account is likely Jobas'; currently it seems to be dormant, but I already noticed it in the past and its edits are in the same style as those of Jobas and his other sockpuppets (also notice the WP:CWW warnings on their talk pages). Æo (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also ping @RoySmith. Æo (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick comparison to data we have on file for both Jobas and Rajputbhatti. There's no obvious connection to either based on CU. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the above section. I'll add what I wrote in a new section anyway in case it helps.

Started with WP:ANI#Disruptive reversions by new user. I then reviewed the edits of the new user, Renatones (created September 25), and believe they are a sock of Trenaliv (CU-blocked without tags by zzuuzz). First, the page intersection, second the topics that go well beyond the individual pages, and third the often long detailed edit summaries. I'm almost willing to block based on behavior alone, but thought it might be a good idea to confirm and to find out if there is an earlier master. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Trenaliv is most like Evlekis - I'll leave this to zzuuzz, who is more familiar with that LTA than I am. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, Trenaliv is the LTA known as Evlekis, and goes with all the socks blocked at the same time here. (The LTA known as) Evlekis is sometimes inconclusive, and (looking briefly) that's what I'm currently seeing. There's a fair bit of data to investigate, and it's not pretty. But what I do see fairly clearly is that Renatones is almost certainly Atilla the Great. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen enough, and stolen Bbb23's thunder. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming to the same conclusion, about both accounts. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And for clarity, they're confirmed to the previous batch (I linked above). There's some debate about how many Evlekis sockmasters there actually are, but this is certainly at least one of them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, the following IPs are likely from the same person behind Renatones. They already edited the "religion in Hungary" article in the past with arguments similar to those of Renatones and trying to pass off 2011 data as 2021 data (and I reverted them, this is why the second IP mentioned me in an edit summary): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:2620:9026:B0A0:25F9:F628:FA9A ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:1468:5AE1:A532:CC93:1477:4392 Æo (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Boy, all I did was step away and go eat some breakfast. It's good to know that Evlekis is still around.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a new Rajputbhatti report just popped up on my watchlist. Might be related? RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert on Italy

I can't anymore, this guy has already been blocked many times and has persecuting me with sooo many socks and IPs. User:JamesOredan, User:Venezia Friulano and dozens more (and also many IPs). Look at my talk page while he wages edith war on me with one account (User:Viristo), he goes there with one his IPs and mocks me saying I won't be able to stop him. Makes me angry, I am reporting all the time but it never ends. He is so obvious too and does it in my face to make me angry.Barjimoa (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Often, what trolls are really doing is trying to get an emotional response. Your best bet is to report them and move on with your day without giving them any further thought. I know it's frustrating, but try not to give them the satisfaction they are looking for. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI case against Jargo Nautilus

Sorry to bother you, but I believe that there must be consequences for Grandmaster's recent actions. My mental health has been severely affected today. I'm extremely angry and upset. I quit editing Wikipedia for the most part because of the horrible effect that it was having on my mental health. Now, I have been forced to return to this hellhole of a website in order to deal with the problems that were created by Grandmaster. I've still been reading Wikipedia occasionally, which is how I discovered the attack (it was sent as a message to my user page by the other victim, JM2023), and I've still occasionally edited my own user page. The source formatting of this website is good, but the culture is horrendous. But Wikia basically has the same source formatting as this website, so I prefer to hang out over there instead. I don't like this place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, there must be consequences for a person's actions. I ask you to do the right thing. I am innocent in all of this, and there needs to be justice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not think I would be crying today, but now I am. I have had a terrible day, all because of Grandmaster. He needs to face some kind of consequences for what he has done. This website has been terrible for my mental health. It's a terrible website. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you're sincere in what you are saying, but you are not helping yourself here. Someone thought you might have been socking. I investigated the allegation, and found that you weren't. You are entirely free of suspicion, and can simply go back over to Wikia (or do anything else you want to do). If you want to pursue this, you will need to present evidence not that you are upset, but that the SPI case was raised against you maliciously, but even if you were to do that successfully, the consequences for the filing party would likely be along the lines of a warning not to do it again. I would advise you just to put this behind you and move on with your day. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well look mate... How am I even supposed to know any background information about the SPI case given that I was absolutely not involved in the previous discussions at all? If anything, the only person who will have even the slightest clue of what was actually going on, aside from Grandmaster himself, is JM2023. Essentially, this entire kerfuffle was caused by those two editors getting into a fight, and then I was randomly roped into the conflict for no reason. I want out! Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The other detail that is important is that I actually know Grandmaster... from a long time ago. I encountered him way back in February 2023 and in the months leading up to it. This is why I suspect that he was specifically vindictive against me. I think Grandmaster has basically been holding a grudge against me for months, stalking my account and apparently trying to find any way to attack me. I was able to let go of my conflicts of the past. I walked away. Grandmaster didn't. He kept trying to find ways to attack me even though I was already (as he pointed out) topic-banned from editing a long time ago. The most recent attack against me is so surprising, because I had basically already forgotten about Grandmaster by this point. He really needs to let go. I'm not the one you should be telling this to. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If I can request one specific thing, I ask that Grandmaster be forbidden from interacting with me in any way, shape, or form. I don't want to ever hear about that person ever again. I will be willing to drop all charges against him if this condition can be enforced. He needs to stop harassing me and stop dragging on a conflict that I already walked away from eight months ago. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You are making a lot of assertions here, but you are not providing any evidence. How has Grandmaster been stalking your account and trying to find ways to attack you - aside from filing this SPI case, what actions has he taken since February that involve you?

In asking that GM be forbidden from interacting with you, what you are proposing is known as an Iban. I can't help you there, I'm afraid - administrators do not have the authority to issue them unilaterally, they are a community sanction that need to be imposed by consensus at a venue like WP:ANI. There is no chance of your being able to get such a sanction imposed without any evidence, which leads me back to my earlier question - aside from filing an SPI case, what has GM done to you?

Let me put it to you form my perspective, as someone who handles SPI cases pretty much on a daily basis (usually more than one per day). An editor sees someone behaving in a manner that they believe they recognise. They have a think about it, look at the editing pattern, and think to themselves 'that looks like that editor I encountered a while back, who got blocked/Tbanned from this area'. They report their concerns, and we investigate. Very often, the allegations are true - sockpuppetry is very common here, unfortunately - but we're always careful to investigate accusations thoroughly so that innocent parties aren't unjustly blocked. As far as I can tell (absent any evidence to the contrary), that's what happened here. Someone saw behaviour they thought they recognised, reported it, but when I investigated I found that the reported accounts weren't connected. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned - someone had suspicions, they were wrong, let's all move on. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, ask yourself, why did it even come into Grandmaster's mind to accuse me of sockpuppeting, when he literally hasn't even interacted with me ever since February 2023? Grandmaster must have a crush on me if he was thinking about me all this time. I've literally forgotten about that guy, but he is still coming up with creative new ways to be a pain in my backside. What sort of "suspicious activity" did I do in order to justify the SPI accusation? Absolutely nothing, which is why the SPI case was shot down in about five seconds. This Grandmaster guy has literally been using Wikipedia since 2005, he's an extremely experienced editor, and yet he is still doing amateurish behaviour like starting a sockpuppet case with basically zero evidence to prove his baseless accusations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think in saying that he hasn't interacted with you since February, you are kind of telling me that he hasn't been hounding you. He saw another account, thought that they were doing similar stuff to whatever it was that led to your topic ban (I don't know what that was, and have no interest in relitigating it here), so he reported his concerns. Nobody is saying that you've done anything suspicious - someone else did something that reminded someone of you, that's all. It wasn't you, the case is closed, no further action needed. If it happens again you might have a valid complaint, but a single SPI isn't a pattern of behaviour that should raise concerns. Now, I think I've given you enough of my volunteer time today - please go and do whatever it is you feel like doing, and enjoy the rest of your day. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your time today. Grandmaster can waste his life, but I will not be wasting mine or yours any longer. Thank you again. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

You may care to have a look at 174.48.231.224, who already seems to be attracting some attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Those messages on their talk page are pretty old, it could easily be a different user (although the contributions from this IP over the last year or so do suggest that it's stable, and occasionally used by someone with an interest in ancient history). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

They made a couple of tweaks last December to the article Battle of Leptis Parva which I created. This was the last battle of the Mercenary War, which they made extensive changes to today. This is such an esoterically specialist area that it has to be the same editor. It was mostly for info, I always find it difficult to judge how seriously to take IPs making unsourced edits to the leads of near randomly selected articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Reg Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AarushSinha10

Hey Girth Summit, If you have the time, can you please take a look at this? Looks like a obv case of socking to me. Thanks <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reaching out. I appreciate that you're trying to do the right thing and get someone to look at this particular case, hopefully you can appreciate that there are a lot of open SPIs at the moment (it's backlogged), and a limited number of us volunteering our time to process them. As a general rule, I don't jump on particular ones upon request, unless you can show me that it's particularly urgent (for example if multiple socks are harassing someone or performing lots of high-speed vandalism). Someone will get around to looking at it in due course, I promise. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 17:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. There is no rush because the disruptive editing was prevented by protecting the page initially when I filed this SPI. I only reached out as it looked like blatant socking and thought it wouldn't require a lot of investigation. Thanks for the reply and no worries, I'll wait for a CU to look at it <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Flex Liberia LTA

Is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flex Liberia approaching LTA status, if so, I could start making a report on it. Thanks, Seawolf35 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest (and I recognise that I'm saying this as a checkuser, so my perspective is somewhat one-sided), I'm not sure how useful LTA pages are. Even before I got the CU bit I rarely looked at them; nowadays it's an 'almost never' rather than a 'very rarely'. Publicly available and detailed behavioural descriptions of an LTA's habits are a bit like a 'what not to do' guide to help them avoid detection in future; long lists of IP addresses they may have used in the past (but which aren't confirmed) are quickly outdated. We have cuwiki, where we share and record information that can't be posted here. I can't tell you how to spend your time, but if I were you, I wouldn't spend it writing an LTA page on this person. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Technical Finding SPI question

Hi. I was pointed here by Yamla. I see that Bbb23 moved my comment on my SPI (apparently I put it in the wrong place, oh well). They've expressed that they want it archived, implying they don't want anyone to comment any further there, so I will ask my question to you here directly instead:

What is a technical check? Does this mean that a check was done on my IP? Does this mean enough behavioural evidence was present to conclude a technical check was necessary? If so, what about the behavioural evidence was convicing? I am not experienced with SPI and this is the first I've seen of it, so the information would be helpful for me to understand the process that led to this taking place regarding me.

In particular I don't want to be behaviourally associated with Jargo Nautilus in other users' minds since he and I seem to be mostly of opposite opinions and conduct; I don't want to be dragging his baggage around.

Yamla's response included:

The process that lead to that was the filing of a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jargo Nautilus. You'd have to ask Girth Summit what they found concerning, but note that checkuser data isn't generally used when the report is convincing. In such cases, there's no need for an investigation, the report itself is already convincing. It's when there's some amount of doubt, such as was the case here.

Just wondering if there was any behavioural evidence you found credible or that was not refuted by my comment? Horse Eye's Back seemed to express that they believe I am a sockpuppet based on behavioural evidence. JM2023 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023 (talk page watcher) I have been drawn to this and examined Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jargo Nautilus. The conclusion, by two editors highly experienced in these investigations is that you and Jargo Nautilus are unrelated.

The investigation is ended, which is why it is being archived.

Any Wikipedia editor may face an investigation into anything that may or may not have done at any time. It happens. This one has concluded that there was no substance in the report. You are unrelated. You will not achieve anything by pursuing this, because there is nothing to achieve. It has been closed.

Put simply, an editor suspected something. They asked for others to test that suspicion. The suspicion was proven unfounded. Isn't it time move forward with no stain on your characters from this investigation? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just asking if there were any behavioural suspicions on the part of the reviewers, since one user (Grandmaster) said there were behavioural similarities, and another user (Horse Eye's Back) concluded that the behaviour was the same... and I'm concerned I'm coming off as being like Jargo Nautilus (who is going to multiple pages and talking about how all of this is "traumatizing" and lambasting Grandmaster and various other users). Can't say I'd enjoy being seen that way. And of course Horse Eye's Back's remark came after the first review, implying he doesn't accept it? I'm not here trying to cause trouble, I'm curious to see if there are indeed behavioural similarities which I can't see myself, particularly regarding whether that triggered a checkuser action. I'm not trying to come off as pedantic or incessant or something. JM2023 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

To be frank, you're coming off as someone who wants tips on how to do sockpuppetry and escape attention. I was also considering performing a check. Let's say the circumstances that aroused suspicion won't arise again and let it go at that. OK? Cabayi (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

uhh... does this look like a violation of WP:AGF to anyone else? Like I'm not trying to start anything. But to summarize: I was accused of being a sockpuppet; that's fine, I write a defense; it's not something I'm torn up about. Two userchecks are performed and I'm cleared, the investigation is over. I'm not contesting the investigation; officially I'm not a sockpuppet. But apparently my behaviour is seen to be similar (and the count of users who view the behaviour as similar is now apparently up to 3 i.e., you say "the circumstances aroused suspicion") and at least one user still views me as being a sockpuppet. Since I'm concerned my behaviour is too similar to Jargo Nautilus who is not being civil and I don't want to be seen as being him or to behave similarly to him, I ask if any behaviours were found to be similar and which behaviours they were... and now I'm told an admin thinks I'm asking for instructions on successful sockpuppetry (after I was just cleared for that very thing).

Like I'm not trying to press the issue, but actually maybe I am, because I'm failing to see why my behaviour is similar or suspicious, and when asking for specifics I'm now perceived to be doing something bad by an admin and I don't understand why. It makes me a little concerned for the future of my account. JM2023 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023 This is very simple:

• No-one is going to tell you what if anything aroused their suspicions because no-one is going to give an editor a clue about how sockpuppetry is detected. Heck, I have no idea.
• You have been cleared
• It is time to stop this rather strange quest.

You and the other editor affected by this should both understand that now is the time to move on. Indeed, the more each of you keeps banging on about it the more people less charitable than I are going to scratch their heads and wonder about it, good faith assumptions notwithstanding. See Streisand effect for reference to unintended consequences. You are straying into the arena of being about to cause those in my view. Indeed, until today I was totally uninterested in your behaviour, had never heard of your account. Now loads of people have heard of you and of the other editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All I am asking for is for someone to point out what the similarity is that I fail to see because I don't want to behave like Jargo and I do want to see what it is that I'm doing that makes it look like that. Multiple people have apparently seen similarities, even in my and Jargo's comment, but somehow I haven't. Those people know what those similarities are but cannot tell me, despite the similarities being apparently public knowledge anyone can find. And the more I ask what they are the more suspicion I raise. Somehow even random non-admins can see behavioural similarities in my comments and his yet I cannot even be told what they are.

At this point even if this entire website suspects me of being a sockpuppet due to the Streisand effect (which I would say this is not -- I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm trying to find something), the only reason it would bother me is because I am not even told how my behaviour (i.e. comments, formatting, expression, interests) is similar. Like that's all I want to know. I don't understand why it seems to be such a huge deal that "loads of people have heard of" me. All I want is to be told what specifically I am doing that makes me look like a sock. I want to know what was so suspicious about the comments and edits.

And yes I know this is long-winded and maybe it's time to drop the stick like you said, but I just want to be told what it is that I've been doing that makes editors notice similarities my behaviour with Jargo's (BEFORE this disscussion and Jargo's various discussions which I had no part of). It feels like every time I ask for that behavioural similarity, I am just told that me asking is itself is suspicious. Like I can't find a guideline telling me I'm doing something wrong by asking what the similar behaviour was, or by asking for ways to distance my behaviour from a now-associated user. Yamla seemed to be perfectly fine and helpful with my question and pointed me here. I'm not trying to relitigate, I'm asking what public behaviours I haven't seen that others have seen. If I'm doing something wrong by writing yet another comment, I'm fine with dispute resolution or ANI or whatever. JM2023 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I may add that various comments here can be construed as personal attacks against myself, Jargo Nautilus. Furthermore, you have to remember that the person who is responsible for causing this crisis is JM2023 himself, who was apparently engaging in contentious confrontation with Grandmaster immediately beforehand, which led to the creation of the SPI. Jargo was mostly (90%) inactive from February 2023 and onwards. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I will add that it's clear to me that the SPI was a complete farce from the beginning. Grandmaster obviously knew that we were two separate people, and he simply created the SPI in order to be intentionally irritating. Anyone who briefly skimmed over the evidence would have immediately seen that we were not the same person, and there was absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest otherwise. The SPI was created very lazily by Grandmaster, who barely even made an attempt to find credible evidence of his claims. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not get involved. I've been avoiding discussions you and others have mentioned me in because they are all so contentious and controversial. Apparently enough people still suspect us of being the same person that your behaviour combined with my questioning casts suspicion on me as well. I do not want to carry your opinions and actions around with me, and the more we interact, and the more you involve yourself, the worse and more suspicious we appear to various editors. JM2023 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence that we are the same person? If we are the same person, then how are we having this conversation? Let's not entertain the fantasies of Grandmaster; that argument has been completely nullified as of yesterday. There is not and has not ever been any evidence of us being the same person. It's a ridiculous notion. I would rather die than be mistaken for a Canadian. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop, other editors have told me this makes my situation worse because they still have suspicions. Think of the fact that your actions now make me look bad. JM2023 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have opposition to your actions. Firstly, in the SPI, you made a massive list of "evidence" to support your claims against the SPI. This was simply playing into Grandmaster's hands and accepting his SPI as reality, when in fact it was a big lie. I made absolutely no attempt to dispel the SPI claims because I knew that they had no ground to stand on. There was no necessity to challenge the fabricated fantasies. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I basically don't care about the SPI itself because I knew from the beginning that it was fake. What I do care about is Grandmaster's attempts to drag me into his conflicts which I already walked away from eight months ago. He seems to be unable to let go of a long-held grudge. I have already stopped editing contentious areas of Wikipedia a long time ago. That's in the past now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)