User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2020/October

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.

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)

Grandpallama, thanks, that definitely looks like them. Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And another new one here. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, thanks, blocked. Since this is an ongoing "thing" I've filed this as a proper SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewfrench. Recommend filing future socks under that case. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Grandpallama (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

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)

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, that's true, I missed that they had added her to RedFM. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

chatter • paw trail

) 14:52, 16 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.

SMB99thx, thanks, handled. GeneralNotability (talk

) 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks!

9thx my edits

23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes through SP Investigations. Thank you for your hard work! ^_^ :) chatter • paw trail ) 14:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You're too fast!

...or I'm too slow (likely the latter). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acalitri1600/Archive needs to be moved/merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcalitri4 to reflect the correct master.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 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)

Ponyo, dealt with, thanks for the nudge (and no, I wasn't walking the dog that whole time!) GeneralNotability (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear @GeneralNotability, Is it possible for you to endorse my recent SPI case for CU? Thank you so much for your time in this. Best regards.

AngusMEOW, I will review the case tonight or tomorrow. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

chatter • paw trail

) 22:20, 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+Talk 13:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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 {{

ygm

}} template.

Minorax (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Minorax (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:AN. GeneralNotability (talk

) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

DannyS712, sure, done. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 26 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)

Don't forget the bug tracker, the kanban board, the API key manager, the log file indexer, and the social network feed :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Or phabricator board - if you want to track bugs in phabricator, I can create a tag. There is precedent - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/4297/ was for my global watchlist user script DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, nah, I don't think it's a big enough thing to merit phabricator. Appreciate the offer, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability. The {{

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)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A
  draftification
  is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The
  2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process
  has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

FYI, that's a sock of Kingshowman. Imitating user names and screwing around with AfDs are part of his standard repertoire. Favonian (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The collection includes User:GeneralNotobility and User:GererelNotobility – as well as User:Favunien. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Favonian, figured as much. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

My duck's antennae are twitching. An interesting selection of newbie edits. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 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)

GeneralNotability, I have a very special duck 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 01:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at

Hi, GeneralNotability It would be really helpful if you can help regarding the case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abarmada if interested. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, I'm not a CU, just a clerk, but taken care of. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Some code I wrote failed to parse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcelano/Archive. Looking closer, I see the heading formats are different from what I'm used to. For example:

======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

vs

====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

Do you know if the formatting has changed over the years, or is this just a case of somebody adlibbing it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, I've never seen that formatting before...not sure which of your possibilities it is. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the thread on

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)

No it isn't the right thing to do. I will continue to edit COVID-19 articles, particularly as many of them have been written or substantially contributed to by a paid editor to the CDC, and the CDC is directly interfered with from officials in the Trump administration. I'm happy for anyone to scrutinise my edits, in fact I have asked for confirmation of my wording in a community wide RfC. And there are valid reasons for having an account like this. --Investigatory (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also a jerk about it and making a pain of himself is not

WP:CIVIL which I have been the whole time. --Investigatory (talk

) 09:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BADSOCK, and that you're complying. —valereee (talk

) 10:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A member of the arbitration committee knows what my identity is. --Investigatory (talk) 10:33, 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)

Investigatory, but now you've requested your user page with that notice be speedied? —valereee (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I dont think I should have to disclose it other than what I already have. This has become completely about me. The CDC's paid editor is engaged in tendentious editing, quite literally changing the preexisting wording to the CDC's exact wording of the time. It's quite obvious. --Investigatory (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

privacy socks are explicitly not permitted in project space. GeneralNotability (talk

) 12:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability , thank you for volunteering at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Electoral Commission. While not required unless you are selected, I suggest you start the confidentiality agreement with WMF right away. The directions to do so are here: meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. The reason why is that should you be selected for EC, the appointment will be on hold until this gets completed and is reflected on the list here: meta:meta:ID. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, acknowledged, thanks. I've submitted it. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:44, 8 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.

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))

Oh yes it's them. GSS ^💬 12:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GSS, good spot! I'll take care of the paperwork here. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Predictions of the end of Wikipedia—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

• (
  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)

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 Chair 14:20, 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)

I'm also talking to luK3 about the loser guy. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:39, 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)

Hi GeneralNotability,

Sorry to bother you... I'm in need of a little help.

Would you mind publicly publicly nullifying that warning? I don't want Jammo85 to feel threatened, nor think the warning is appropriate (

Of course, wouldn't mind if you took a look at my report in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Addicted4517_reported_by_User:Walwal20_(Result:_), but this would likely by a longer job :P

Thanks in advance, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Ok, makes sense, thanks. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the CU cleared Cranberrie.sauce and pointed instead to two accounts socking. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 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)

I probably have used those words myself! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2020 (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: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Can you block 68.132.30.66 for disruptive editing on Vme Kids? E789999 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC) E789999

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 {{

ygm

}} template.

S0091 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes sense. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

SMB99thx, thanks, handled. GeneralNotability (talk

) 03:15, 17 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you closed that discussion way too early at the admin noticeboard. Just wanted to point that out Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. Your appeal had effectively zero chance of success, multiple experienced editors already explained why. GeneralNotability (talk

) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please look at User:WCU UCM? The name indicates a likely role account (Western Carolina University‎ University Communications and Marketing). Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo,  Done. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please fix this page move by this user (and possibly block), Atlanmusic needs to be moved back to Atlan, they've also created a self-bio page at ATLAN. Dylsss (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by GirthSummit. Dylsss (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

[[24]]

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.

I have never unfairly attacked others first. Please understand me. Bablos939 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

According to this rule: " But the use of additional accounts for some disruptive or otherwise deceptive purpose is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sockpuppetry)

He was clearly using the two IP for deceptive purpose to create a fake concesus.Vamlos (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do some of the edits from Safi Bhatti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) & co. look a lot like some of the edits from Sissiyao313 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) & co.?

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)

The two masters are  Unrelated to each other. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Well, thanks for checking. :) Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 23:24, 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)

Celestina007, thanks, I'll be keeping an eye out. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Mustafa Bey Barmada was created by his sock, now recreated by Abarmada. This doesn't seem right. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I'm not sure I understand - what's the issue? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 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 Weller talk 19:25, 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)

No, they're very different. I guess I'll just have to ignore it. We all have better things to do! Doug Weller talk 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that this was a case where the Original Poster's

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)

Can you extend your block please on this sock account? They've just forked

Captain Calm, yup, indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GeneralNotability I would like you to help regarding a new sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RejsHajredini95. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Given this, what's the best way to proceed? Just ignore the meatpuppetry unless they get more active? --JBL (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Sounds good, thanks. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)