This is an archive of past discussions with User:GeneralNotability. 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.
Disruptive Editing
There was an editor hopping across IPs a while ago to make disruptive edits to the same articles repeatedly, the most recent of which you blocked here. They've now returned as a user, evading the block, to push back in their edits at all the same articles. Could you have a look, please? If their edit summaries from today are to be taken at face value, this may be a very young editor. Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Amkgp, that's a little weird, but I don't see anything that makes me suspicious enough to call them sleepers. Probably worth keeping an eye on their edits for a little while, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding KZSZ
You said this in SPI "KZSZ has edited the page in question once, there isn't a ton of behavioral evidence there. I note they also edited the University College London Student Union page, which does tie them to some other editors here." but upon closer inspection, you can see that this user added "Aliza Ayaz" into the UCL page and the RedFM page, so this user is also related, so I don't think these were all good-faith edits, moreover I contacted the student union at UCL no such team exists to write Wikipedian articles for Alumni. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 20:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Four days ago, i have filed another (and thus far, third SPI) against Bedriczwaleta here. I believe it matches what you can expect from a possible Bedriczwaleta sock (IP geolocates to Argentina, interest on COVID-19 pandemic templates). When i filed that SPI, i remember this quote Drmies made to the Nicholas Vasquez about these IPs: When semi-protection runs out we'll re-evaluate. If the editor shifts IPs (you can easily check whether they've been disrupting other templates) we'll see what we can do. While the IP didn't try to edit that template again as of today, that editor definitely shifted IPs, as Drmies said above.
By the way, when i filed the SPI the IP has not edited for three days, but recently they are editing again. Since they are still active and not blocked yet, would you like to take a look on it? About shared Polish usage, this IP is not as obvious as other suspected IP socks but it looks pretty suspicious to me. Otherwise, thanks a lot. SMB99thxmy edits13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes through SP Investigations. Thank you for your hard work! ^_^ :) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 14:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo, ha, no, I probably should have waited more than a minute after closing before archiving. I'm about to take the dog for a walk, but I'll deal with it when I get back. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be a pain, and to get my knickers in a twist, but just for the record could you quickly cast your eyes over this reversion (diff) by the AfD nominator about their own behaviour at WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Ayaz? I shan't contest its removal, and apologize for adding and cross-posting it. Anyhow, thankfully I have some proofreading to take my mind off Wikipedia. Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk13:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, GeneralNotability/Archives/2020. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:49, 20 September 2020 (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.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new tag for reverted edits. For example you can see it in the recent changes feed or in the article history. It is added to edits when they have been undone, rollbacked or manually reverted to an older version of the page. [1][2]
Changes later this week
The number of times you can do something in a period of time on wiki is limited. This could be the number of edits per minute or the number of users you email in a day. Some users are not affected by all limits because of their user rights. They could soon see the limit even if it does not affect them. [3]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 September. It will be on all wikis from 24 September (calendar).
@GeneralNotability: I have a question regarding your preemptive extension today of ECP "based on the fact that we had to semi the talk page, I don't think the BLP issues are going to end anytime soon." WP:ECP directs: Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings. I am fully aware of disruption at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, where my 182 edits constitute nearly 18% of total edits to the page. But I don't understand how that contentious history—which in my opinion has been exacerbated by overprotective editors seeking to micromanage the discussion in order to privilege themselves over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes—justifies your lengthy preemptive protection of Sushant Singh Rajput. Please be so kind as to explain this to me. NedFausa (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa, of course. First, for the sake of transparency, I did the same extension at Rhea Chakraborty (I skipped Death of Sushant Singh Rajput because El_C has it protected until February); the three articles have generally been getting the same protection. I extended the protection because I strongly believe believe the problems which led to the original protection of the page (violations of BLP policies and edit-warring over cause of death) are going to resume as soon as the protection expires (which it was set to do in two weeks). Now, since the talk page has so many drive-by editors protesting the cause of death that it was semi-protected, I consider that a pretty clear indication that as soon as the protection drops the disruption will resume. I believe that protecting the article from poorly-sourced claims about a recently deceased person overcomes the concerns about privileging some editors over others. If the locus of dispute is resolved in the future (i.e. we're not getting a thread a day from an IP or new account demanding the cause of death be changed), I will gladly lower the protection. If you are unsatisfied with my response, you are of course welcome to escalate this to WP:AN. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes to spihelper
Hi. I wanted to include the changes to spihelper in the next edition of Wikipedia:Scripts++, but wasn't quite sure what the changes were (I don't use the script, nor have I studied the code too closely) - would you be willing to provide a summary? You can add it directly to Wikipedia:Scripts++/Next, or just let me know and I can put it in. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your edit comment here, yeah, it's always one of the inflection points in any software project when it become clear you actually do need an automated release process :-) -- RoySmith(talk)01:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, I have half a mind to slap together a CI pipeline of some sort to autodeploy and actually put spihelper in version control...this is why I knew I shouldn't start writing scripts :) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Editors are automatically added to some user groups. For example editors are added to autoconfirmed users when they have edited enough times and long enough. Abuse filters can hinder users from automatically getting user rights for a period of time. They can also remove rights user have. Wikis can now ask to change how long this period of time is for their wiki in Phabricator. It is currently five days. [5]
Problems
Last year some abuse filters stopped working because of a new change. If they tried to use variables that were unavailable for that action they would fail. This has now been fixed. [6]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 September. It will be on all wikis from 1 October (calendar).
Future changes
You can't see the language links to other language versions from the talk page or history page. They are also not shown when you edit an article. This could change. It is not decided if for example the history page should link to another history page or to the article. You can take part in the discussion in Phabricator.
The link colours could change. This is to make the difference between links and other text more clear. You can read more in Phabricator.
In your preferences you can choose to get different notifications on the web or by email. You will see Apps as one of the alternatives later this week. This is because the Android and iOS Wikipedia apps will use push notifications for those who want them. You can see the preferences on the test wiki. The goal is to have push notifications on Android in October and on iOS in early 2021. [7]
You can soon put pages on your watchlist for a limited time. This could be useful if you want to watch something for a shorter time but don't want it on your watchlist forever. It now works on mediawiki.org and will come to more wikis later. You can read more and see when it will come to other wikis.
Hi GeneralNotability. The {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} templates you added to some of the non-free logos being used in this article have been removed. I guess you could (particularly since you're an admin) try and re-add them, but technically they weren't removed by the uploader and a good-faith reason does seem to have been given for removing the tags. I'm not saying that the reason given addresses your concerns, but only that the removal wasn't a case of random editing or vandalism. So, it might be better to treat this a bit like a WP:DEPROD and start a discussion about the files at WP:FFD if you still have non-free use concerns for the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly Thanks for the heads up. I'll consider FfD, but I'll probably go ask someone more experienced for a second opinion since NFCC isn't one of my stronger areas (so I could definitely be the one in the wrong here). GeneralNotability (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk ·contribs) thank you for expeditiously resolving the SPI filed against Swamiblue. I was reading through WP:SOCKSTRIKE, and it states that a sock’s edits to articles should be reverted while talk page comments should be striked through. In the time that it took to identify Kevpopz (talk ·contribs) as a sock, they were successful in incorporating a significant amount of dubious edits into multiple pages. My thought is that if they are not all reverted, it will just encourage him to continue making new sock puppets and continue his disruptive editing. But given Kevpopz’s considerable edits to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article, I just wanted to confirm that it would be appropriate to remove their edits and cross out their talkpage posts?
Interestingly, a user by the name of GunatitSamaj1966 has reappeared immediately after the socks were banned and has started making disruptive edits [1] on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. I do not think the timely emergence of this editor is a coincidence. Can you review this editor’s behavior as a potential sock as well?
Based on my investigation, this most recent sockpuppet instance is the 8th time the user has attempted to disrupt articles going back to 2013 [2]. When Callanecc (talk ·contribs) blocked Applebutter221 (talk ·contribs) in August 2020, Callanecc (talk ·contribs) suggested page protection as the only strategy to prevent this behavior long term [3] and offered to enact article protection [4]. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya article was then semi-protected until November 5, 2020, but it did not deter this user with a history of long term abuse. In fact, after creating the new sock, Kevpopz (talk ·contribs), he simply made 11 edits to other pages to circumvent the page protection before beginning his disruptive edits on Swaminarayan-related topics [5]. Portland21 (talk ·contribs) was also making similar edits. The previous sock, Applebutter221 (talk ·contribs), had also indicated interest in disrupting another similarly themed article [6].
Gaming the system in this way is unfortunate, especially for editors who would rather be constructively editing on Wikipedia rather than constantly dealing with a sock’s motivated and disruptive edits. Would it be possible to grant extended confirmed protection to all the pages this user has edited disruptively? I spent some time reviewing the edit history of Swamiblue (talk ·contribs) (and associated socks) and identified pages this user and his sock puppets have disruptively edited in the past. As this has been a recurring issue, would you be able to add and/or increase the protection on the pages of interest so they are all granted extended confirmed protection? I’ve listed a handful of the articles (with the number of edits) that the sock has targeted on my sandbox here. They all seem to pertain to one Wiki Category as observed by another editor previously [7]. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Harshmellow717! You are welcome to undo edits by confirmed sockpuppets. If you suspect that GunatitSamaj is a sock, it is better to file an SPI so that other clerks and checkusers can deal with it if I'm not around. As for page protection, I have upped Swaminarayan_Sampradaya to ECP and have semi-protected some of his other targets - I don't feel comfortable applying extended-confirmed protection to pages which haven't had much sockpuppetry. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent, I wasn't aware ducks had antennae ;) Your instincts are correct - I've blocked as suspected UPE. I see interactions with a couple of blocked editors/sockfarms, so my guess is this is straight up UPE to get things out of draftspace - I've reverted all moves out of draftspace (and move-locked Draft:Ham Group of Companies to extended-confirmed since I see several attempts to sneak it out of draftspace), deleted a couple things, tagged a couple others as UPE. Nice spot! GeneralNotability (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new tool where you can see which home wiki users have in discussions on Meta. This can help show which communities are not part of the discussion on wikis where we make decisions that affect many other wikis.
You can now thank users for file uploads or for changing the language of a page. [8]
Problems
There were many errors with the new MediaWiki version last week. The new version was rolled back. Updates that should have happened last week are late. [9]
Everyone was logged out. This was because a user reported being logged in to someone else's account. The problem should be fixed now. [10]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 October. It will be on all wikis from 8 October (calendar).
Letters immediately after a link are shown as part of the link. For example the entire word in [[Child]]ren is linked. On Arabic wikis this works at both the start and end of a word. Previously on Arabic wikis numbers and other non-letter Unicode characters were shown as part of the link at the start of a word but not at the end. Now only Latin and Arabic letters will extend links on Arabic wikis. [11]
Future changes
You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on 27 October around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [12]
Conflict of interest editing by User:John_P._Sadowski_(NIOSH)
Regarding the thread on WP:COIN that you closed, I have some concerns. To be sure, Investigatory is ranting, overreacting, making a pain of himself, and is probably a sock. But, once you ignore all that stuff, I think he has a valid point. I'm not sure shutting him down with threats of blocking is really the right approach there. -- RoySmith(talk)01:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, all right. As I said in the close, I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that Sadowski is acting as a mouthpiece for the CDC. He may certainly be influenced by working for them as with any COI editor, but Investigatory's accusation (as I read it) is that Sadowski is actively pushing the CDC agenda as a political effort and intentionally excluding other views. That is a) a serious accusation which I do not believe is supported by the evidence, and b) a really dumb way to do things (you and I both know that when someone wants their covert agenda advanced they're not going to declare a paid relationship first). If you believe that this close was premature, however, I won't object to you reversing it. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of that. I'm just not sure we should be so fast to block somebody just because they're being a jerk about it. -- RoySmith(talk)01:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Investigatory, there are valid reasons, but I would suggest you disclose on your user page that this is an alternate account that you use for a specific editing purpose for privacy reasons, that you're aware of WP:BADSOCK, and that you're complying. —valereee (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Which is fine, but to other editors encountering you who don't have that knowledge, without that disclosure, you look like an experienced SPA, which means you look like you might be here to RGW, which can turn into a time-waster for other editors as we've seen with the multiple people who have commented at the various RfCs you've opened -- I've seen at least three -- about the other editor and their work. Thanks for adding that to your user page. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate that it is your right as an administrator to lock the ability to edit a page due to your belief of there existing a conflict of interest, but I would really appreciate if you could point to precise examples of my editing of the Rufus (Software) page, where you assert that there is clear conflict.
All of my recent edits after being notified of the potential for conflict have been to revert clear vandalism or provide some factual data regarding a new release of the sofware. I believe I have been exceedingly careful not to add any edit to the page that can be construed as opinion, so I am very concerned about my being blocked for editing the page, as I am confident that this will only play to the hand of the person vandalizing the page to point to their non-official site. I would therefore appreciate if you could review the ban, or, at the very least, point to edits of mine that you consider as clear instances of conflict of interest, i.e, where my editing appears to be biased rather than factual. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBatard (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
PBatard, you're absolutely right, you have not made any promotional edits to that page since you were warned about COI. I was too quick to act - I have dealt with several similar cases recently where someone was being exclusively promotional on a page they were clearly related to, so I jumped too quickly to assuming that you were doing the same. That was wrong of me, and I apologize. I will remove the block and make it clear in the block log that it was incorrect. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, thank you! I fully understand that it's much better to be cautious with COI than too permissive and I certainly try to stay away from editing the page for my software as much as possible, due to the obvious potential for COI editing. However, as you may understand. it's difficult not to try to revert vandalism as soon as it happens or point out to a new version that I have just published. I do try be receptive to advice from Wikipedia administrators though, so if you or any other Wikipedia power user believes that I am flirting with COI, don't hesitate to let me know. And thanks again for spending time looking into whether the ban was warranted and reverting it.
Arshifakhan61 sock?
Isn't user BOWLING a sock of Arshifakhan61? They were registered in 2017 under "Khan138", the first edit was "Hey this is Jiv, New writer in wikipedi" and after years of inactivity they first requested that their account be renamed and then blanked their user page. GSS 💬11:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (updated 12:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Because of the problems with the MediaWiki version two weeks ago last week's updates are also late. [13][14][15]
Changes later this week
Live previews didn't show the templates used in the preview if you just edited a section. This has now been fixed. You can also test CSS and JavaScript pages even if you have the live preview enabled. Previously this didn't work well. [16][17]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 October. It will be on all wikis from 15 October (calendar).
Future changes
A new stable version of Pywikibot is coming soon. [18]
hey there, I'm a little new to wiki and still not sure how things work, I saw you helped fix my mistakes on my sock puppet investigation, and I would like to thank you for that, but than you closed it, I was just wondering why did you close it? Didn't he just admit to sock puppeting? I'm just a little confused, if you could help me understand a little better, I would appreciate that, thank you in advance -- Toby Mitches (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Toby Mitches, if someone edits by accident while logged out, that's not sock puppetry. As for the other IP, it last edited in 2012 while Vamlos didn't even register an account until 2020, and editing logged out followed by creating an account also isn't sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry requires that the use of multiple accounts be intentional (so not editing while logged out) and deceptive in some way (such as creating a new account to evade some kind of punishment or using multiple accounts to make it look like an idea has more support than it actually does). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense, but if 82. IP did belong to him, he would have abused the clean start rule, and I see your unconvinced but you quickly put my edit into the archives within a couple days and I feel as if there has been no discussion, am I still able to discuss with you here? How do I go back and reply to your comment if its already in the archives? Am I even allowed to? -- Toby Mitches (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)WP:ILLEGIT provides a good summary of how to differentiate true socking from other behaviors. Sometimes our policies digress into subtle and arcane, and this is no exception, but ILLEGIT is a good place to start to understand it. -- RoySmith(talk)14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
​Agreed, that helped me see the rules more clearer, like if he is truly behind the 82. IP he would have abused the clean start rule, but they haven't edited enough on the 77. IP do to much to break the rules, anyway thanks for the link! -- Toby Mitches (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Darknessitselfflames
Hello GeneralNotability. You blocked this user for a period of 31 hours. However, they have continued making personal attacks on Isabelle Belato's talk page using different IP addresses: [19] and [20]. They have also threatened that they will keep doing this with more IP addresses: [21]. I wasn't sure where to report or what to do about it so I thought I should come to you. Best. — The Most Comfortable Chair14:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Those ips are separate people, or darknessintofire would have already called us all losers. There is a ani thread i'm on about those ips. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The case of me operating multiple accounts, or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia is simply coincidental since I recently have started using my friend's laptop, who had an account on Wikipedia. He assured me that his account is blocked from editing, so nothing to worry about.
I love making contributions on Wikipedia since I find it a great way of increasing one's knowledge. I make credible edits and enjoy the process as well, so please don't take this platform away from me. Fedderlloyds (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Little help
Hi GeneralNotability,
Sorry to bother you... I'm in need of a little help.
User talk:Jammo85 has just been warned by another user, who thinks they are the truth owner. So far, the other party is "outnumbered" per WP:CONSENSUS.
Would you mind publicly publicly nullifying that warning? I don't want Jammo85 to feel threatened, nor think the warning is appropriate (WP:CANVAS).
Hi Walwal20, I'm reluctant to remove another editor's warning unless it was clearly vandalism. I think that you commenting on that editor's talk page to dispute the warning will make it clear that the warning may not have been appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, you missed me using a variety of swear words when I read that message. Cranberrie sauce was indeed cleared, I must have accidentally left their name on the list of accounts to block. Fixed, user apologized to. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, GeneralNotability/Archives/2020. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:55, 10 October 2020 (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.
Hi! It's been one month since the *static* IP 190.246.118.103 have been blocked, and that IP quickly returned to editing once the block expired. I'm requesting a 6 month block, since this is a static IP. Would you like to take a look at the case? By the way, in my opinion, whatever person who controlled that account (Bedriczwaleta) is not going to be unblocked anytime soon, even from standard ticket with repeated IP editing since August. SMB99thxmy edits23:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello GeneralNotability. Thank you for volunteering to be an election commissioner for the 2020 Arbitration Committee Election. Following the community RfC, you have been appointed as an election commissioner! While you have certain responsibilities - you are not in this alone, along with the other appointed commissioners other community members have volunteers to assist as coordinators. Best of luck with the election this year. — xaosfluxTalk00:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 October. It will be on all wikis from 22 October (calendar).
Future changes
You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on 27 October around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [22]
In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function will be updated soon so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [23]
Some gadgets and user-scripts use the HTML div with the ID #jump-to-nav. This div will be removed soon. Maintainers should replace these uses with either #siteSub or #mw-content-text. A list of affected scripts is at the top of phab:T265373.
I don't know how to use another IP. I don't know how to use Virtual private network.
Vamlos claimed to have tracked down IP. He claims that everyone who opposes him is Korean.
But I clicked 'cross-wiki contribs'.
but '220.117.225.165' is an ordinary Chinese wiki user.[[25]]
It doesn't matter to me. I lost many other debates in the beginning. But I've never cheated.
I'm an ordinary user who doesn't like arguments. But under the attack of many sock dolls, I was involved in many things.
He would have kept repeatingly trying to cheat the system by using one single purpose accounts to stack up votes had I not been aware of and file a sockpuppet investigation against him. The other two IP's never edited again after such a long time because they were there to give him fake support.
On the one hand, they have different areas of focus, and Sissiyao appears significantly more competent. On the other hand, if you look at File:Wikipedia-website.png, there's some things there that make me think that Bhatti might be a touch more competent than they let on, especially when it comes to English fluency. (Only reason I haven't nominated that file for G5 is that I linked to it in a Commons thread regarding cross-wiki socking, and I figured I'd wait for at least one admin there to take a look.)
Similarities include: Bizarre Talk-Page Messages in Sentence Case, both on their own pages (Bhatti · Sissi) and others' (Bhatti · Sissi); interaction with User:Wikipedia (Bhatti · Sissi); use of the wikilove feature (Bhatti · see previous Sissi diff); and referencing the details of previous editors who took action against them (Bhatti [see also bookmarking the Commons userpage of someone who got an image of theirs deleted] · Sissi). I could go on, but those are the biggest things that leap out.
Or maybe I'm reading too much into this. But since I haven't regularly edited Wikipedia in years, figured I'd solicit the perspective of someone more familiar with things.Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi.22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Following this & their apology, I think they operate more than two accounts, & are still deliberately socking via a third account. I’ve begun cross referencing their edit pattern with whom I believe is the third account & would open an SPI this weekend. Good job on the swift nab. Celestina007 (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Abarmada creates a sock who creates an article. I deleted the article as G5 (a different version had already been deleted at AfD]. Then the sockmaster, Abarmada, recreates it. So his use of a sock was successful. Doug Wellertalk19:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I suppose so. I only temporarily blocked the master since I considered this "dumb socking." If Abarmada's version is similar to the deleted version, though, couldn't you just G4 it? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It appears that this was a case where the Original Poster's filibuster was making it difficult for the community to deal with him, and where a single administrator had to take unilateral action. Actually, my most recent offer to mediate had expired, but if anyone comes back to DRN, I will try to see what can be done, which will probably be an RFC but could be moderated discussion. And if anyone comes to my talk page, I will help them with an RFC. I think that progress at this point is more likely to be by RFC. Also, I think it is likely that there will be disruption again on 29 October when he comes off block, but then the only real question will be what new sanction (new block, partial block, topic ban), not whether to impose a sanction. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, happy to help - and sorry, didn't realize your offer to moderate had expired. Agree that we'll see disruption again once they come off unblock, but I wanted to try giving them one chance before going straight to indefinite sanctions. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I'm willing either to lead moderated discussion to see if that works, or to facilitate a discussion of the issues for one or more RFCs. As I said, I think that you were right in dealing with 021120x unilaterally because it seemed that they had the community tied up in knots. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on October 27 around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [26]
Last week, links to "diffs" from mobile watchlists and recentchanges were linking to page-revisions instead of diffs. This has now been fixed. [27]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
Since the introduction of the interface administrators user group in 2018, administrators couldn’t view the deleted history of CSS/JS pages. Now they can. [28]
There was a problem with the Change Tags. The software would apply the "Reverted" tag to any page actions such as page-protection changes if they came directly after a reverted edit. This has now been fixed for new edits. [29]
The Reply tool will be offered as an opt-in Beta Feature on most Wikipedias in November. Another announcement will be made once the date is finalized. [30]
JayBeeEll, pretty much (I'm surprised by that outcome too). If they're just one-off meatpuppets, then its not worth the block. If they continue obvious tag-teaming or start becoming actively disruptive, let me know and I can reevaluate the case. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
