Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive333

It used to be somewhat routine to add indefinite move=sysop to vandalized articles, especially prior to the edit filter. This has caused issues with some workflows.

There are around 2500

For those where removing move protection entirely is not indicated, is it acceptable to use extended confirmed move-protection here, as an interim step to allowing experienced non-administrators to move these pages as needed? –xeno^talk 23:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Xeno, seems like an acceptable solution. Just noting that is too bad there is no protection level for human-vetted experienced editors other than template editor and sysop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would bet most could be moved to EC without issue, and an experienced admin could likely sift through it pretty fast, as most of the ones that need to stay "Sysop move only" are BLPs. I'm guessing is a quazi poll, so I would support doing so as long as a little filtering took place. Btw, I don't remember ever doing indef move protection, I'm surprised we have that many. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither
    WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xeno^talk
    02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • While going through things at
      WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm _Talk
      02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Pre-emptive move protection was largely aimed at prolific move vandals of the time. See also Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 5#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? et al.. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is that list complete? Consider 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, indef sysop protected for Move-protecting all featured articles. Requests for (re)-semi-protection should be brought to WP:RFPP. using TW but doesn't seem to appear on either Quarry (unless I'm missing something)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm
    Cryptic has mentioned some limitations of the queries at Wikipedia:Request a query#Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. –xeno^talk
    02:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is now. I was accidentally excluding pages that weren't edit-protected at all along with ones that were edit-protected sysop. Thank you for the sanity check. —
    Cryptic
    02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks! The numbers sound about right now. I imagine many of those edit-protected sysop are also a problem (many are probably overprotected redirects), but one step at a time I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• It is better to review indefinite sysop-only edit protected pages too. I spend a lot of time cleaning up Special:LintErrors and regularly come across overprotected ancient pages. Last month I had posted a request in this noticeboard that led to unprotection of about 1,400 full protected pages in the project namespace. I have not looked much into full protected pages in other namespaces, but a cursory check of user namespace shows many wrong and obsolete protections. For example User:Kingboyk/monobook.js being under full protection is useless since it can be edited only by Interface Admins. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd not be opposed to a procedural review of every single indefinite protection site-wide (especially those from before ~2013). I recognise that it'd take quite some time, but I'd hazard a guess that at least half of our indefinitely protected articles (whether it be semi or higher) don't actually need it. I've been randomly checking in on
  GNAA etc). Further, most of these indefinitely protected redirects are there because MediaWiki duplicates protection when a page is moved. Anarchyte (talk • work
  ) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  (#discussion re: fully-protected articles moved below)

• Is there a wikipage with all of these? If not I can download the quarry as wikitext and paste it in userspace. I've found having a table useful for keeping track of the hist-merge backlog so it might be a useful asynchronous coordination tool. I'll probably poke around later today (UTC) and modify some protections if need be. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xeno^talk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I changed User:Xeno/sandbox to a table so that it's sortable and added a field for whether the link has been checked. In the edit summary at Special:Permalink/1020589579 I included the regular expressions for converting the list entries to wikitable entries if that's useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've done a quick spot-check of these pages and many do fall into the category of protection remnants left behind after a page move (effectively doubling our protected pages count). Perhaps it's time to revive the proposal to remove that feature? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  A set with the words "moved to" in the log summary is here: Special:PermanentLink/1020692908 (note newer entries). –xeno^talk 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(continued) lifting full move-protections on articles that were placed long ago

• There is currently a discussion/proposal at the village pump regarding significant changes to the protection scheme for page moves. Shouldn't this review wait until that discussion concludes? Changing the role of protection could make this review moot, or change its focus completely. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xeno^talk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be very clear as proposer, it is only partially so, i.e. there are many cases where more recent protections are problematic. I also think there may be a lack of understanding amongst parties in the conversation that the majority of RMs are closed by non-admins. Vaticidalprophet 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• In general, for pages that are only move protected, where the move protection is sysop only, where the protection is over 10 years old - I'm all for reducing these to semi page protection. Over the last 10 years we've had a lot of antivandalism improvements, including with the edit filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Xeno: I was suggesting doing it explicitly, but indeed that is superfluous as (move) permission is not currently present below autoconfirmed, so yes: just resetting the move-protection level back to '(all users)' (i.e. removing the protection entirely). Perhaps publish the list for a week or so, let any admin that wants to remove a page (either because they downgraded the production, or because they feel it should stand on a specific page) do so first. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've unprotected some of the rather old pre-emptive protections; in looking at large aged sets, here are another 1000 candidates for unprotection: Special:PermanentLink/1020342479. –xeno^talk 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2005-2008; 2009-2010; 2010; 2010-2011; 2012-2013; 2013-2015; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019 2019-2020; 2020; 2020-now, unmarked. –xeno^talk 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve unprotected all the unmarked oddities: where the protection was so old it was lost to the log, except for two (without prejudice). –xeno^talk 01:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Pallerti is a corrupt administrator on the hungarian wikipedia who undoes a TRUE edit on Lando Norris' page. I would like to have them be demoted. --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: they also undid adding Another Round to Thomas Vinterberg's page before it won an oscar.

So corrupt, even Trump would raise his hat in front of them. User: Pallerti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Hungarian Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to use whatever process they have to address your grievance. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They also blocked me for "insulting a block"? --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we cannot help you with issues there. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You have the wrong date of death. It should read April 25, 2021 not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bb10:2e20:7d41:1aa7:ac72:68dc (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not according to this obit. Do you mean another person with the same name? MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This user have been created account Hellofriend202 it's was vandalism User_talk:2405:204:858b:395d::2299:b0. It's rose gold! (T?) 06:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The article is
  WP:ANI as it's an "incident". However, even if the user's edits are inappropriate, it is premature to report a user with four article edits and whose account is less than an hour old. Ask them to seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 07:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Checkout the article Erwin Helmchen. I added corrected stats with reference and they were deleted by the user Jiho3013. That's incredible if you need more contributions. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 User talk:Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 10:40 6 Μay 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk

) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

14.231.163.204 warned more than 3 times. It's rose gold! (T?) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I did make explanation but received no reply. See talk page 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• @RoseGold1250: A lot of bad edits occur that need to be reverted, but please take more care with a revert like diff which restored "with the advantage belongs to China" in the first change. That's obviously bad text which is typical of a recent change by someone without much knowledge of English and possibly a similar disregard of sources. 14.231.163.204 (talk · contribs) should have used more edit summaries but they did start with a strong claim, namely "bad citations, info not found within sources" (diff). Particulary if you are going to report someone at a noticeboard you should investigate the details. Did you notice 14.231.163.204's two replies to your first warning at their talk (diff + diff)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I replied, I know this IP does not like "Chinese victory" because he is absolutely a Vietnamese. Solider789 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Ujjwal 20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ujjwal 20 appears to have gamed the system with repeated useless edits to obtain Extended confirmed. EC should probably be revoked until they have actually earned it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Their response to this discussion doesn't demonstrate a strong need to edit Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Their early editing history is also questionable, and they continue to have a weird obsession with non-constructive edits to Breast and in general a 80%+ reverted rate on substantive edits. Commons contribs are mostly copyvios. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, in spite of a final warning not to do so, they created yet another user page for another editor. Not a very constructive one either. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• EC revoked for
  WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk
  17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• That's it! Their actions since this discussion was started and their EC status was revoked have confirmed that they are
  WP:NOTHERE. Consequently, I have blocked them indefinitely. Favonian (talk
  ) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ujjwal 20. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings administrators,

Is there any way a page could be created for film critic Caillou Pettis? He is a multi-media writer covering film, music, television and video games and his work spans across multiple high-profile publications such as Exclaim!, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute, Film Threat, and Flickering Myth. He is also a critic on Rotten Tomatoes.

There's a couple of news articles talking about his directorial efforts as well. I noticed the page was on lock for creation, hence the request. The last time the page was attempted to be created was in 2018. In three years, his work has spanned across plenty more well-known websites and his music reviews are also featured on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. If people such as Bilge Ebiri and Alonso Duralde can have articles made with less references, then he should be able to have a page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The story starts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caillou Pettis in 2016, and there have been repeated attempts to create a new article since then. If the person is now truly notable, then I suggest writing a policy compliant draft article and then asking one of the administrators involved with this matter to accept the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply, Cullen. I have attempted to write up a draft article and later, to submit it for approval, but even a Draft article for Pettis is locked to administrators only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Coverage on the web looks underwhelming. If I were the reviewing admin, I would deny such a request. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, DrKay. What kind of articles/coverage on the web would clarify for a film critic having an article? As stated above, for example, Alonso Duralde only has three references and none of them seem to meet the guidelines. Just curious what articles meet guidelines. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There is guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Essentially, there should be multiple secondary and third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd encourage any CU who happens upon this to take a look at the history of his hundreds of socks (which are also globally locked.) TAXIDICAE💰 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

   Check declined by a checkuser. All of the SPIs related to Caillou Pettis are stale by at least three years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector There's a ton of IP data in the SPI itself, which was more my point. There's also been some more recent ones that were locked without enwiki blocks but I'll have to dig for them. TAXIDICAE💰 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There's lots of IP data there that's useless for CU, because we can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. We have no choice but to treat the IPs that others have listed in the various SPIs as purely speculative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that a YouTuber with less than 5,000 subscribers who hasn't posted anything in two years is very unlikely to meet the
  WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits
  ) 17:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector - If the general consensus is that the subject does not yet meet the guidelines, I won't bother creating a draft page. Also, I am not being paid to edit any pages here, everything I do is just for fun and to provide the general public with information on various subjects. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Account sock blocked by a CU. Doesn't seem to be a CU-based block to me however. JavaHurricane 10:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm collapsing this due to the content. Fences&Windows 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: thank you for the guidance and for taking action. The reason I was topic banned was corrected as disruptive editing in the subject area[9]. Could I ask for clarification regarding point 3? What is the consensus from the topic ban appeal? It wasn't formally closed and I see a mix of different opinions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The result was that there was a lack of consensus to unban you. --JBL (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to add that although the message above was obviously sarcastic, I never suggested and wouldn't claim that you are anti-science. While I believe I've met anti-science activists on WP, it's always difficult to tell what they really believe and the views they pushed contradicting science were in relation to specific areas of knowledge. It's also not the message I see in the comments of other editors concerning your editing on WP. —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, the mix of opinions is a reflection of how there was no consensus to lift your topic ban. If the discussion had leant more towards a consensus to lift then it might be worth further examining it and detailing the different positions, but that was not the outcome. You stated in your post that "This will be the last message I will post on this thread one way or another" and "I feel really bad that this is resulting in such a huge time loss for the community": I hope you will abide by this and respect that this discussion is closed, for now. Fences&Windows 00:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:UNBAN but nothing is specified there. I just don't know where to find those answers to understand how to appeal successfully. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A Twitter user who blogged about the controversy surrounding Turkish War of Independence has instructed their thousands of followers to submit UAA (inexplicable, really) reports about Buidhe. Since I don't think UAA can be protected, can someone throw together a quick filter to stop the disruption? Normally I wouldn't ask in such a public place but it needs quick attention. I have some other ideas for filters to prevent further disruption if an EFM wants to email me. Grogudicae👽 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

but we should encourage these reports, the disruption caused by, ah, Gaelic yellowness is immeasurable! ——Serial 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about on par with the

WP:CALIPH disruption so we may need a bit of a drastic, but temporary filter for the next day. Grogudicae👽

13:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My sources tell me that a filter is under way. Are any other pages affected? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz there is discussion on that forum I linked that is changing so I would make it broad enough that it could conceivably include ANI/AN, etc... Martin Urbanec has crafted a filter if someone wants to implement it here. Grogudicae👽 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The UAA filings are not at the filter level really. There have been a total of four such reports so far, and they have all been reverted within five minutes of being posted. I don't think any admin would block Buidhe over any of these reports, they are completely misguided and misfiled at UAA and should be easy to reject out of hand. The article and talk have been protect. Buidhe's page was protected. I would suggest protecting User talk:FDW777 and User talk:Visnelma possibly as well, as they have been targeted as well though in a secondary fashion to Buidhe.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the works and based on the number of helpees in irc-help, OTRS tickets and rants on the talk page at this time, I suspect it will continue and it's better to get ahead of it. Grogudicae👽 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this something that can be covered by an edit notice? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, no. If this is anything like the Caliphate incident, the people posting are all transmit and no receive - nothing we say will change anything, it's all because of our bias, yadda yadda yadda. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Raegan Revord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Probably time for this to be create-protected. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've salted the page for now. I'm pretty confident that it'll be removed at some point, but for the moment leaving as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RossButsy (

Backstory: RossButsy is reverting all of CoolGuyRonnie's edits because RossButsy believes that CoolGuyRonnie is a sock of KirkburnFandom/PoliceOfficer124 due to the overlap with previous socks [11][12]. No SPI was filed however. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• adding link to
  Sock Puppet Investigation for anyone so inclined, but not familiar with where to go. — Ched (talk
  ) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

CoolGuyRonnie checkuser blocked; global lock requested via email.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi I am sorry if this is the wrong place to write this but I have recieved several legal threats today due to my edits on Turkish War of Independence. How should I handle the situation? Is it possible that they can locate me? Thank you for your advices in advance.--Visnelma (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you receive these threats on Wiki? RickinBaltimore (talk)Questiuo — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Yes, I did.[13]--Visnelma (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) No one here can give you legal advice, but laws in Turkey do not extend past their borders. In terms of being found it's probably not very likely. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And on a technical level, the Turkish government can't trace the IPs of any edits that don't interact with servers they have jurisdiction over (unless they're resorting to hacking foreign ISPs or the WMF). So unless you've previously linked yourself to an IP (in which case go

thataway!), they'd have to subpoena the WMF for your IP, which would, to put it mildly, be a whole thing. Per foundation:Privacy policy: if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it. We are committed to notifying you via email at least ten (10) calendar days, when possible, before we disclose your Personal Information in response to a legal demand. However, we may only provide notice if we are not legally restrained from contacting you, there is no credible threat to life or limb that is created or increased by disclosing the request, and you have provided us with an email address. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.

04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore:--Visnelma (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user who made that edit. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the user was blocked and I concur a very good block. If you see this in the future, it's best to report it and the user will be blocked for their actions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that message be revdel'd? It doesn't strike me as appropriate to leave something like that unredacted. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma you are not alone in being targeted by that faction. There are a couple threads above this one about the same problems. Added to that I received an obnoxious email as have others. People who do that can have their email capabilities removed by admins. I know that this fact doesn't make things any less unpleasant for you I just wanted you to know that there are people here that can understand what you are dealing with and they will help when they can. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I also concur that it is a good block and was about to do it myself if 331dot hadn't already. Visnelma if they start misusing email to contact you, let us know so that we can put a stop to it. If this does happen, I would advise against responding to any contact attempts they make via email as they do not have your email address and only get it if you reply (or email them first). MarnetteD if there are any new ones abusing email to report, please do so so that a stop can be put to it. We don't tolerate abuse. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @
  WP:IAR in either case as it is against the project's goals). Pinging Visnelma for fyi. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk
  05:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone for their answers. I will take your advices into account.--Visnelma (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You must stop your inferiority psychology and Anti Turkish sentiment. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdmaf512 Are you interested in contributing to this encyclopedia, or just passing through to complain? 331dot (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

331dot Just passing through to complain. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Complained, passed through, gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

While the above "passer-by" was blocked by FPaS per "not here", I wonder whether it should be logged that it's a likely sock of the other blocked user. And whether the original WP:NLT-blocked user's contributions to ANI should likewise be revdel'd. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdmaf512 is 12345wsa, and there's a fair chance that they're both Tarik289. I'll request global locks for all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I brought folks up to speed about this at the Foundation level (prompt response), as well. So now there's also a T&S case log number for this in their records. El_C 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I am glad to hear that. Thank you for doing that. @NinjaRobotPirate: ty. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: What about Badi_Bani? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Badi Bani is Bayramoviç, who is unrelated to the Tarik socks. Different country. These socks remind me of a site-banned edit warrior in the same geographical area, but there isn't enough evidence to connect them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. I've updated Badi Bani's block to match (TPA and email yank) and logged at SPI pro forma. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, can you please look at the named accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus (where Bani Bani, Bayramoviç, 12345wsa, ... were already listed prior to your finding)? There are several other accounts there with similar behaviors, that CU will possibly allow to match. Some of the accounts are older (they are all low edit, but some of them edited before the dispute flared up and others edited after the talk page became AC protected which barred newly created accounts), this may reveal more information. I suspect there are two-three different sock masters there (which CU may allow to separate, it is hard based on disruption only - based on your grouping above I'd think Trkn98 is also 12345wsa (possibly Tarik289)) + some meat puppets.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 01:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

At 01:00 UTC on 4 May 2021, Kashmorwiki, a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker with just under 10,000 edits was blocked for sockpuppetry. Kashmorwiki had many questions. I started to answer them. You can see all of this on the last section of User talk:Kashmorwiki. I'm here on the noticeboard to request that Kashmorwiki's block be reviewed. It was over a year ago that this happened, and Kashmorwiki cited that as one of his reasons for unblock. I would like to know what Wikipedia's administrators think of this block and the discussion surrounding it. Chicdat (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki said this: The term sock will surely get me into trouble. Because 99.9 percent socks are for abusing here. But my case is not like that. I hope the community will understand it. Chicdat (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Since when do we entertain third party unblock requests here, especially considering their current request is still unreviewed? Grogudicae👽 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent request for comment about third party unblock requests. Chicdat (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My main question is whether Kashmorwiki is actually 3Xed – because my read of policy is that they are not. 3X requires that someone engages in CU-confirmed sockpuppetry on 2 occasions after an original indefinite block; Sulshanamoodhi was only indeffed after they were caught socking for the second time – the first block was for a week. I would not consider that eligible for a 3X ban, and at the very very least there is ambiguity here; the authoritative statement Lastly, since you have used more than three accounts, you are considered banned per WP:3X. One administrator is not enough to lift your ban. You can only get unblocked by a community consensus at WP:AN. Do you understand? strikes me as too much, too quickly, especially because 3X ban calls are usually made by blocking admins, CUs or SPI clerks. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Chicdat, they are not 3X'd - 3X is for two occasions after an indef, not two accounts, and as a rule I only consider  Confirmed CU findings to count toward 3X. Chicdat, I understand you want to help, but I think your assistance in this unblock discussion is doing more harm than good. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Until recently, I believe, Chicdat was

nac}}. They should either voluntary reinstate the ban themselves, or have it reinstated for them. ——Serial

13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at that link, I have three thoughts, two serious and one not:

1. That's pretty hard to read/understand the context of, considering it doesn't actually link to anything and so the only ones I know anything about are the ones I happen to have read.
2. It does look like a formal ban should be placed, and that there's confusion regarding the fact Chicdat was never formally banned from anything.
3. Is
   WP:Iritalk
   an admin area?

Vaticidalprophet 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I've always found Kashmorwiki to be a productive editor and would support an unblock. GiantSnowman 13:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have increasingly thought current enforcement of sockpuppetry is strange and leads to absurd outcomes. Some of
  WP:PREVENTATIVE, specifically: For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.. Haven't looked too strongly at the merits of this request however, and am not familiar with the editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk
  ) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• I just happened to notice this in my watchlist. Given that I was processing the SPI case, and Mz7 ran the CU, it might have been nice for somebody to have pinged us both. Given the extensive socking history here, I'm not inclined to have much AGF left. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the SPI link please? It would be helpful if a chronology of the socks (proven and alleged) could be set out. I assumed that there had been socking previously but nothing untoward for a year, is that not correct? GiantSnowman 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Grazie. So from a quick read there were socks in May and June 2020 but nothing after that? GiantSnowman 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shahoodu edited in December 2020. Further, they're also evading a global lock. Grogudicae👽 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. More concerning. GiantSnowman 16:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If RoySmith says they aren't inclined to AGF anymore, then they probably have a cogent reason for stating that, I didn’t meticulously look into the backstory nor the SPI case(s) as they appeared a tad bit too ambiguous/cumbersome and tbh Chicdat's participation in this case only muddied everything for me as opposed to clarifying/simplifying.

But FWIW, i have crossed path with Kashmorwiki and I believe that so far they have contributed positively and have shown interest in learning the ropes, as regards to building an encyclopedia, or at least that was my impression of them or what was deliberately being sold to me. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• The relevant context for this case is that Kashmorwiki previously edited as recently as December 2020 under the account Shahoodu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which is currently globally locked due to sockpuppetry issues on two projects: English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons. In fact, Kashmorwiki's activity overlaps with Shahoodu—before the Shahoodu account was blocked in December, the two accounts edited simultaneously on many of the same articles and talk pages. In their unblock request, Kashmorwiki has since acknowledged that they are indeed Shahoodu. I'm still reading through all of the discussion that has since taken place, but I would say this is the primary basis for my block. Mz7 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact they have admitted that this account is the sock of a globally blocked editor is alone enough to justify to me a denial of this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This comment exactly confirms why no unblock needs to be granted. I hope Mz7 and RoySmith will note this comment too. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think this editor should remain blocked, and, in general I support
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 08:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked around 1500 socks in the past (I was a clerk there for a time), and most of the time, there were disruptive. It seems a lot of folks think Kashmorwiki isn't. I think we need to consider a
  standard offer here. Mz7, the CU that blocked him, had enough faith that they authorized the block to be viewed as a standard block (on K's talk page), so it is up to us here. I would suggest a short piece of rope, including being limited to ONE account. A lot of eyes are going to be on K, so if they start drawing outside the lines, we will know pretty quick. I've always believed, for good reason, that if you don't work to rehab these kinds of situations, you just create more socks, ones with no reason to stay within the rules, so it just makes sense to work with people who are admitting their past behavior. As an ex clerk, and someone with a technical background, I know for certain that it is impossible to stop someone socking if they really want to. They could have but haven't since the block. Better to bring them into the fold with some reasonable limits. It's not even about what is "fair", it is about what is best for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  10:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Fully agree with the idea of a SO. GiantSnowman 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the idea of rehabilitation, otherwise you just create someone who doesn't care about following any of the rules. But I don't understand the point of SO in these cases, esp if they haven't misused multiple accounts in the preceding ~6 months. What are they proving: abstinence / that they're not addicted and can take a 6 month wikibreak? In one of the cases I mentioned above, you've got a user block evading for 5 years on a single static IP given a 6 month SO block, and told afterwards maybe they'll be able to "meaningfully contribute". Like actually what is the point? (Maybe

  WP:PUNISHMENT?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk

  ) 12:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's important to take into account that they were using multiple accounts while also editing as Kashmorwiki, violating WP:ILLEGIT outside of the block evasion (full EIA here). Shahoodu edited until December 30 – not because the account was abandoned, but because it was discovered and blocked, and a second sock kept editing until February, so there is more to this than just block evasion out of a desire to contribute constructively, as they did in fact use multiple accounts in the last 6 months. While I do appreciate Kashmorwiki's constructive contributions, this does make me inclined to believe that they did not take a lesson that should have been learnt after their first, very short block for socking to heart. I don't think they should remain blocked forever (no strong opinion on when the right time to unblock is from my side), but I disagree with the implication that this was draconian enforcement of our socking policies. --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear I don't think this was out of policy and have no reason to think this is draconian (in part because I've only skimmed the details), but I'm making the general point that sock policy is often enforced in a draconian way and I think the SO suggestion following block evasion in such contexts (like the example I gave with the IP) doesn't entirely make sense and some cases seem like enforcing policy for the sake of enforcing policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:PROXYING? Chicdat, are you checking the various edits yourself? CMD (talk
  ) 13:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • None of them have anything to do with the ban in this question. Please see User talk:Kashmorwiki#Blocked as a sockpuppet for more information. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Phil Bridger (talk
      ) 13:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:PROXYING. Per Phil Bridger, you should self-revert. CMD (talk
      ) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If an article looks good and sources are correct, why on earth would you want to G5 those articles? That seems somewhat aggressive. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Because not doing so would create a giant loophole - just keep creating socks and making good content until someone figures out you're another sock. I also noticed Chicdat restoring Kashmorwiki's edits and I strongly disagree with that, hopefully they will self-revert. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer I was under the impression that Chicdat was still under a voluntary ban from administrative and non-content areas. What happened to that? YODADICAE👽 14:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Who has verified that the articles are correct? According to the SPI, previous sockpuppets did not follow appropriate guidelines and carried out some vandalism. G5 means we don't have to waste time with sockpuppet creations, who are often blocked for content-related reasons. CMD (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I thought I saw the bot restore the removed comments, anyway, I thought there are a lot of articles from what I saw. Looks like a lot of work to sort out. I thought Kashmorwiki was a good editor... :/ Govvy (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have given second opinions on AFC reviews in the past, never noticed any issues. GiantSnowman 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Someone (didn't pay much attention to who) was also apparently blanket-reverting a bunch of AfD relists Kashmorwiki made, which annoyed me when it was one I'd made the AfD for, because it resulted in it appearing in a screwed-up/confusing way on the daily list. The AfD in question shouldn't have been relisted in the first place, strictly speaking, but I don't behoove people forgetting
  WP:PROXYING: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. It's perfectly acceptable, per policy, for Chicdat to of his own accord and for his own reasons restore and take responsibility for Kashmorwiki's work on the encyclopedia. There is perhaps an argument to be made, considering the backstory here, that Chicdat doesn't know what he's signing up for on that front, but "do you really want to take responsibility for those edits?" is a different argument to "you can't take responsibility for those edits". Vaticidalprophet
  16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  This. As an SPI regular, I have no problem using G5/rollback on sock edits, but if someone contests them, I am generally happy to restore the deleted material/revert the rollbacks/etc. on the understanding that the contesting editor is taking at least a small measure of responsibility for the reverted material, at a minimum "I've read their editsand think it's okay" (though I am generally reluctant to do this for socks that we've identified as paid editors/editing firms). Whether Chicdat actually has looked into the edits that much or is just blanket reverting/contesting, I couldn't tell you. SubjectiveNotability _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) There's a right and a wrong way of taking responsibility for a blocked/banned user's edits. I venture to suggest that I was following the right way here and in a bunch of similar edits that I performed yesterday with no communication with Kashmorwiki (at least I have received no complaints), but that saying in edit summaries "Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor" is the wrong way.

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  As you have partially bolded, policy requires that the edits are good "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I even specifically asked Chicdat above if they were checking the edits themselves above, and they replied only that the edits don't "have anything to do with the ban in this question". That is not taking responsibility for the edits in question. CMD (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per my conversation with
  gaming the system to a whole new level which I find extremely reprehensible and an archetypical example of NOTHERE. Celestina007 (talk
  ) 17:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked at the edits in question and am not about to, as I think the editors here will be able able to tell better if the edits were good or not. It seems that they don't really understand what Wikipedia is and think that it is some sort of game. In fact, I would argue that they initially thought that Cyclone Owen was a picture/article, that they thought would be put straight on the fridge/made into a GA/FA. could show off by putting on the firdge That is partially why the so-called ban from administrative areas was introduced, except it wasn't a ban but more of a suggestion from @Jasper Deng: as they were getting into a lot of unintentional trouble.Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand your point about Chicdat's early behavior, but I would argue that he has mostly improved it, and this is just a small mistake that should not be penalized just yet. ( It appears that he mainly just misinterpreted the result of an RFC to allow third party appeals in exceptional circumstances and thought it applied here, but the misstaken 3X advice is concerning. )Note that Chicdat did finally get Cyclone Owen promoted recently, showing their growth with help from a mentor. I think that the right choice here would be to keep the unofficial ban in place for now, but with an official warning that any more missteps in administrative areas would result in a formal indefinite topic ban without further warning, as they do seem willing to improve. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Jackattack1597: I would like to point out that Owen only got promoted to GA because MarioJump83 significantly improved and expanded it. Otherwise, it would still be in poor condition. Noah^Talk 00:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Can an admin block Salamaashu (talk · contribs)? They're obviously someone's sock who just registered and immediately involved themselves with this case. It seems like someone doing a poor job of trying to joe job Kashmorwiki. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done, DanCherek. I saw your note on their talk when I went to warn them about an edit to a page on my watchlist. As this unwinds, any admin free to alter this if needed. StarM 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    hello admins i was wondering if you could look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention as it is filing up. thanks Td^hello 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As a note

I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. Chicdat (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It is important to note that Wikipedia in these days are far more different than Wikipedia of the past. The bar is way higher than it was back in the day. MarioJump83! 07:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, is there any chance that a sysop could finalise this case as soon as possible, please? 256Drg is continuing to be disruptive and given that fifteen or more editors are calling for him to be indef blocked, the case does need early attention. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, user has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There are several other threads that are still awaiting further comments — the simplest of these is likely this report about an apparent LTA from Smyrna, Georgia. The report in the previous section was archived by a bot without adequate resolution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• Consensus was found in a previous RfC
  for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Lots of vandalism but some good edits from this range, not sure what to do. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:SlimVirgin#RIP. My understanding is there is some double checking that needs to be done but as it stands this is a tragic loss to the project. MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting this. I don't know the protocol and am honestly shaking at the moment because I posted to her page shortly after reading the email. Anyone can email me and I can verify. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is devastating news. I knew Sarah had a long-term illness and some recent emails indicated things had badly deteriorated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. She asked me reach out to her family if I didn't hear from her, which I did this evening and received the reply that she'd passed. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Victoria: This is sad news. Please extend my condolences to her family and friends. I hope they know how much of an impact she had on this community. I've performed some account security steps. –xeno^talk 00:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Very sad to hear this. Thank you for alerting the community. Arrangements are in process to globally lock her account. Risker (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Risker and Xeno for taking care of the paperwork. I'll send the link to her user page on to her family. Victoria (tk) 01:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)