User talk:Golden/Archive 3

(talk page watcher) Yamla I'd say it's quite possibly likely. If we take a look at the contributions of CuriousGolden on the Russian Wikipedia, there seems to be a lot of overlap with corresponding English language articles edited by Omarwithaschwa.

CuriousGolden created the images that are currently on the Karabakh Economic Region and Baku Economic Region articles and placed both of them on the Russian Wikipedia articles on August 20th.[1][2]

Omarwithaschwa created both the Karabakh Economic Region and Baku Economic Region articles on the English Wikipedia on September 26th.[3][4] Both creations use the images that CuriousGolden created.[5][6]

Omarwithaschwa also seems to be interested in the Lankaran-Astara Economic Region article, which CuriousGolden has also edited multiple times and uploaded different reversions of the image on.

CuriousGolden has a history of spreading images he created to as many different languages Wikipedias as possible, such as he did with this one.

They both also made several edits on the Economic regions of Azerbaijan article, CuriousGolden on the Russian Wikipedia[7][8] and Omarwithaschwa on the English Wikipedia.[9][10][11]

The reviewing admin should also note that User:Oshwah has suspected CuriousGolden uses a VPN.

And there's also a habitual similarity between CuriousGolden and Omarwithaschwa that I noticed, which I can email evidence of to any admin and/or checkuser. I'd prefer not to mention it publicly, so CuriousGolden won't know to avoid it with any possible future socks. --Steverci (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not qualified enough to make a comment about the socking, but I will say that if Omarwithaschwa is a sock of CuriousGolden, then that has some implications for Az.wiki as well since they both are editors there. With the previous sock,

☖

04:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, the admin I contacted has not gotten back to me. I've taken a look at things myself, and I do see some minor similarities which probably could be attested to the fact the two live in the same general area. Let me elaborate on the similarity with diffs:

• Interest in Azerbaijani topics[12][13] including its economic regions.[14][15][16][17][18]

Okay, so over on az.wiki, it's a bit of a different story. Over there, Omar has 212 edits and CG has 197 edits. I would've expected at least some overlap there, but this is the Interaction Timeline between the two.

Further differences, include:

• Omar's interest in LGBT topics[19] and South Korea.[20][21][22][23][24] (Also accounting once on enwiki)
• CG uses advanced scripts and tools like AutoEd, JWB, Twinkle, and Hot Default Sort.

Okay, so for me the ultimate test would be to see if among CuriousGolden's 12,238 edits are any mainspace edits on enwiki related to South Korea. I went through them all manually, and I couldn't find a single one. This was the closest I got. To be honest, there were maybe like 100 edits (at most) that didn't directly relate to the Caucuses. I'm pretty sure if there was an article about sneezing in Azerbaijan that CuriousGolden would've edited it at some point.

I've spoken with CuriousGolden in private about it, and while CG has lied about socking before, from everything I was able to find in the last hour or so I compiled this all, I am decently confident this isn't their sock. –

☖

20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm pretty sure if there was an article about sneezing in Azerbaijan that CuriousGolden would've edited it at some point. – The Economic regions of Azerbaijan (where CG edited in the corresponding ru-wiki article [25], [26]) has only 7 edits, 3 of which are done by the potential sock account. If CG edits in most/all Az articles as you say, this will only confirm things. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@

☖

05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you're trying to say since Omarwithaschwa edited it, then that's evidence.. No, I really don't think so. Omarwithaschwa already demonstrated interest in the economic districts. That really isn't new information, and it would follow that Omar would edit the new parent article.

If Omarwithaschwa was really acting like CG, then we would expect a bunch of edits at random villages of Armenian/Azeri origins. That has not been seen in Omar's edits. –

☖

06:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For some unknown to me reason, both CG (in ru-wiki because of his/her ban) and that new account suddenly started to edit in economic regions of Azerbaijan, given also as you pointed out the wide range of interest in Az articles CG has. I can't comment about off-wiki stuff, but I noticed CG started to delete some of his/her reddit comments when

WP:COI evidence. Terrific editor, ZaniGiovanni (talk

) 06:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@

☖

22:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressing Steverci's concerns/arguments: I was approached by a Commons user on 7 July to update my already existing Azerbaijan economic region maps as the Azerbaijani government had made changes to the regions. At this time, I was still on a full break from Wikimedia. I saw the comment around 20 days later when I updated the region maps (and uploaded new maps of the new regions) as my first action following a full 4-month break. These maps were and still are the most used (and to my knowledge, the only) maps of the individual economic regions and they're used on all language Wikipedias that have articles about these individual regions (e.g. Persian Wiki).

The user Omarwithaschwa started translating articles of the new economic regions from other languages into English in late September. One of Steverci's arguments is that this user used the maps I have created. This ignores the fact that these maps were the only maps used on all language Wikipedias on these regions' articles, so naturally, Omarwithaschwa used the same map they saw from the other language Wikipedia they were translating from (which seems to be the Azerbaijani Wikipedia as they've been translated word-to-word, e.g. this article's Azeri version vs English version).

Another one of Steverci's arguments is that Omarwithaschwa edited the

(T·C)

20:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• @
  WP:AN, rather than handling as a sole unblock or a string of procedural closes Nosebagbear (talk
  ) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the checkuser evidence is not conclusive in this case, as far as I saw. I concur, I think WP:AN is the right location for this. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  How about we take this to Arbcom since this involves potential offwiki evidence and is under a ds regime? I don't think WP:AN will probably be able to uncomplicate this in any easy manner. –

  ☖

  21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  (talk page watcher) I was also going to note that AN is quite likely to generate tension and partisan involvement along the normal AA2 lines, and maybe isn't the best way to illuminate/resolve the situation. Jr8825 • Talk 22:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  ArbCom may well take the case if we encourage it. Yamla, thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I emailed you the sufficiently strong private evidence. --Steverci (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was the clerk who processed the Golden SPI. I'm not convinced of a link to Omarwithaschwa (talk · contribs). To be clear, I can't exclude it entirely based on the limited number of enwiki edits to compare, but I would be far from willing to sanction anyone based on what I'm seeing and a {{possible}} CU result. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add my 2 cents. I don't find claims of sockpuppetry to be compelling. No strong CU evidence, and behavioral evidence is also not convincing. I think CG should be given a second chance. We have done it before for other editors in Armenia-Azerbaijan area who were caught socking, and they continue editing. CuriousGolden is a prolific and useful contributor, who improved existing and created new articles, and if he promises to never make the same mistakes again and strictly abide by the rules, I think he should be allowed back. Grandmaster 10:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your flattery lacks some major context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci:, if he's willing, could you send your evidence to @Blablubbs: as well - I've had a look at it, but tbh, given the nature of this dispute, would prefer someone in that field who is here took a look - I believe at the time they've only reviewed the en-wiki state of affairs, which certainly isn't conclusive imo Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Since I am something vaguely resembling a blocking admin here (the "real" one being Cabayi of course), I suppose I should leave some more detailed thoughts:
  • The private evidence emailed to Nosebagbear and then to me fails to demonstrate any clear connection to Omarwithaschwa (talk · contribs), as does what I have seen on-wiki.
  • If I recall correctly (I was the person who initially requested oversight), the now-oversighted content in the history of this talk page did also not prove any on-wiki misconduct, continued sockpuppetry, or similar.
  • What the off-wiki evidence does suggest is that CuriousGolden has voiced opinions on
    ARBAA
    -related matters in off-wiki fora, and that said opinions are partisan. This is unsurprising, and not sanctionable on its own.
  • It also shows that Golden has encouraged other
    netizens
    with similar ideological convictions to edit Wikipedia in order to address perceived biases and underrepresentation of specific groups of editors. I did not see calls to edit any specific page or insert specific content. Whether this rises to the level of sanctionable off-wiki canvassing given the partisan audience is probably a matter of interpretation; I will note that things like this are the rule more than the exception in contentious topic areas.
  • I do not believe that, at this current juncture, arbcom has jurisdiction over this specific block since it is based solely on on-wiki misconduct. If it is desired that this block is reviewed privately and against the backdrop of private evidence, then this should become a CU-, Oversight- or arbcomblock, which would transfer block review responsibility to functionaries and the committee.
  • I requested administrative action against Golden because they were blatantly manipulating consensus; I did not review the general quality of their contributions in the ARBAA topic area: Case outcome would have been the same if they had votestacked to promote their point of view regarding kittens, frying pans or automobiles.
    • With the narrow focus on a) the factors that led to this block and b) the on-wiki happenings that unfolded after it, I believe that asking for a
      standard offer
      unblock is reasonable; the answer to the question whether continued evasion took place is, at best, inconclusive, and the evidence is insufficient to reset the SO timer, at least in my view.
    • Of course, this does not preclude a discussion about the broader nature of Golden's edits; however, the unblock discussion here has mostly seen editors with conflicting convictions voicing radically different opinions on whether Golden should be unblocked; this is a frequent issue in politically charged topic-areas, and considering the people commenting in the first place are likely ones with a vested interest in Golden either staying blocked or getting unblocked, I don't think this is the best venue to generate a robust community consensus for or against an unblock.
    • The broader questions of a) whether Golden has engaged in sanctionable conduct off-wiki, and b) whether the substantive nature of their contributions in the ARBAA area is such that an unblock would be a net negative to the encyclopaedia, are not ones I am qualified or prepared to address.
• I think it is reasonable for a functionary to re-block based on private evidence and defer to the committee, reasonable to unblock (potentially with a TBAN), and reasonable to defer to AN given the apparent contentiousness of the unblock. I am personally neutral and I would not object to anyone doing any of those things. Continued debate here strikes me as unlikely to move things along in a productive direction, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since the majority of the problems here seem to be in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area: CuriousGolden, would you accept a conditional unblock with a

  "Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted"? GeneralNotability (talk

  ) 13:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm very thankful for your offer, however, my primary topic area is AA2 and a TBAN would inhibit me from contributing positively in that subject.

  I would like to re-iterate that I was completely in the wrong for socking to manipulate consensus. It was a disservice to Wikipedia's mission to provide an open platform where all are equal.

  However, I do want to resume editing again. I've had time to grow as a person since my ban and I believe I can do better to uphold

  WP:NPOV

  better than I previously had.

  If required, I'm willing to appeal to

  (T·C)

  19:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Having spoken to some users about this situation offwiki, I've come to the conclusion that the simplest solution would be for you to take

  ☖

  21:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If that's so, then I'm willing to accept the AA2 topic ban until I can prove myself as a capable editor again. Thanks for your assistance. —

  (T·C)

  21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Very well. I will unblock you under the aforementioned terms. So that there is no room for confusion: you are indefinitely

  Arbitration Enforcement topic ban since, frankly, I think the appeal process there is a lot more straightforward. Technically you may appeal at any time, but I would strongly recommend getting at least three months (preferably six) of productive editing in other areas. And a reminder, indefinite does not mean infinite; what I am hoping for is that you will show you can be a productive editor in other areas in order to show us that you can be trusted editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area. GeneralNotability (talk

  ) 00:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @
  (T·C)
  20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related conflicts.

You have been sanctioned per the unblock discussion above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GeneralNotability (talk

) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

hay mate, how's going? i'm glad to see that you could make it out of block, i would check daily on you when i myself requested an unblock (because you know, i was blocked too) anyway let me know if you need anything. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@

(T·C)

11:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, please don't stub tag a disambiguation page. [27] Curbon7 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, missed it while doing an AWB run. —

call me maybe?

09:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It's not a big problem, but if in the voice [28] there's a {{WIP}} it's better to not do edit it, see instructions in Template:In use Bye. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Curious Golden, I wanted to make sure that you know I'm not trying to vandalize that article. Please see this edit where Kuru first uncovered that Ugochukwu75 might be a paid editor. Today I discovered an account, Binaza, that I think might be the same person. I left a lot of detail about this on Kuru's talk page, in this edit. Short version: Binaza only edited a handful of pages, but somehow, most of their edits are articles that were created or heavily edited by Ugochukwu75. Just seems fishy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I don't see any confirmation of either accounts being paid editors. As another editor suggested, Kuru should take this to WP:COIN or WP:ANI to confirm whether Ugochukwu75 is a paid editor or not. When it comes to

call me maybe?

16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "blank" the article based on suspicions, I reverted it to the redirect that was already there long before. The recent added "reference" was this piece, attributed to "Agencies" and it's clearly a press release. Is that a reliable source? Does it not make you the least bit suspicious that multiple people have asked the main editor of the article about his paid editing (on several articles!) and this puff piece shows up mere days after I restored the redirect? Or that the editor in question has another account named Binaza that has ONLY edited articles that Ugochukwu75 is creating, editing, and/or voting "keep" after a deletion nomination? Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The article currently has 7 references, most of which seem acceptable at first glance. One bad source doesn't mean all others are also bad. "suspicion" is not a reason enough to revert/blank a user's edits/articles and spreading such information about editors to other users without proof could be

call me maybe?

21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through those sources 1 by 1. They are clearly all created by either the subject of the article or someone being paid by him. I'm analyzing each of them, and when I discover what they are, I'm including the reasoning for removing them from the article in my edit summary. I hope this is satisfactory. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And if you plan on removing all/most sources or think the article doesn't meet

call me maybe?

21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the guidance. I'm thinking that if I analyze the sources and put that in my summaries, that will save other editors some time later, rather than having everyone do all the same investigating that I'm doing right now. In any case, they can more easily verify what I'm saying if I leave those comments. I can see that just blanking the page could leave the impression that I hadn't done all the searching already, but I really did. I'm just doing it more thoroughly now. I would appreciate it greatly if you could step in if the paid editor attempts to restore all that nonsense, but I understand if you're too busy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist. —

call me maybe?

21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sentences in Wikipedia should contain verbs.--Grahame (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@

call me maybe?

11:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry completely misdirected. I was referring to Henry John King, which was actually User:Tradimus's work. Must be tired.--Grahame (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's alright. Have a good day! —

call me maybe?

11:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
  talk
  ) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article
  talk
  ) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

On 20 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Fourteen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 14 top art students in the Russian Empire revolted and quit their academy because of a competition theme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Fourteen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Revolt of the Fourteen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,420 views (451.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Revolt of the Fourteen‎ at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you.. I had totally forgotten to update it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For making minor edits to a few articles on my watchlist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk

The article

The article Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello sir , Isn't the official source of Government Press release useful? Cinzia007 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with the topic. I only added an Orphan tag to the article (diff) because no other article currently links to List of Sahitya Akademi Translation Prize winners for Kashmiri. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Golden. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon from a sunny, but wee bit cold Scotland. I see that you marked

Yuxaridaki metni qaraqoyunlu seyfesine elave ede bilersiz ? Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kitaplar bunlardir : https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2035

https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2065

https://t.me/irs_azerbaijan/2156 Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)