User talk:Yamla/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Reverting some of your recent reverts

Good day Yamla! I noticed that a few of your most recent reverts of content, which appeared to be cleaning up after one specific IP user, had actually been good edits which were reversing vandalism (they removed the insertion of "woke" into a TV show description and "Communist" to refer to California gun laws).

I reverted the two instances I've described but I didn't want to snoop further into your reversions of this IP's edits, because it's mostly talk page stuff that I don't really have context for and I don't want to seem to be stalking you.

I've lurked the various noticeboards a bit to help wrap my head around the many, many rules and guidelines in play on en.wiki, and I definitely recall seeing your username crop up doing important stuff far beyond my understanding, so I'm sure you had a very good reason for reverting the overall batch of contributions there. Just wanted to explain why I reverted your reverts in these two cases, and that it might be good to review the others if time allows, to see if any of those were legitimate edits as well. Again, I won't look further into it out of respect for your privacy, and my overdue bedtime!

Thanks for your time in reading, I'm actually watching the show "From" which one of the pages in question was about, saw the "woke" joke crop up in the first sentence, and put on my library science cap. Once I saw it had been reinstated by such a familiar name, I went sleuthing a bit further, and wanted to make sure I didn't overstep any boundaries! Have a great day and thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Chiselinccc (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reach out to me. My reverts of edits from Special:Contributions/85.101.217.58 are because that is a banned vandal, AudiGuy-1204, so I was acting under the terms of WP:RBI. You are very welcome to reintroduce the changes, after verifying the changes are worth reintroducing. That would be a helpful and kind thing for you to do and I appreciate it! --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RicardoMontano2323

Hi, after I blocked the listed suspected sock, I had second thoughts about whether it was as straightforward as I had thought. I was wondering if you could run a check, both to confirm and to look for others. If I had it to do over again, I believe I would have requested a CU for those reasons. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look and respond there! --Yamla (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking, and I will now feel guilty for mishandling the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

After you blocked Hthtjthrtt, note that the new user Jrhfhrjrj undid 7 of your reverts. SilverLocust 💬 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty blatant. Thanks for pointing it out, already blocked by another admin. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Note

Please check few latest edits i had to make over a vandal user you already know, this time attacking indian football formats and correct info. Im editing these topics for long with similar ip, clearing after local vandals at time. Any next block appreciated if possible. 93.140.87.249 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about Indian football. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

HappyAppy10

Are you sure their unblock request was AI-generated? It doesn't really give off the "vibe" of AI-generated text to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It was, according to zerogpt.com. --Yamla (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AI detectors aren't very accurate. Certainly not reliable enough to decline an unblock request with. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that the detection tools aren't perfect. I often ignore the results, particularly when the certainty is well below 100%. In this case, though, I disagree with your opinion about the "vibe". To me, it sounded very, very much like an AI-generated output. Lots of text, no real content. I'll note that the user didn't subsequently deny this, which of course is not the same as acknowledging it. If you prefer, though, I'll avoid denying on this basis in the future. I do plan on denying on lack-of-meaningful-content and noting the possibility of AI-generation, but I also want to be clear that I'm not meaning this to be the end of the discussion with you. Happy to hear your opinions on what I've said and on suggestions from you. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lack of substance is definitely a valid reason to decline, but I think in this case that HappyAppy's unblock request did address the reasons for their block - an apology and a commitment to control their attitude and respond on their talk page, which was what I was looking for. Of course it's possible that they used AI to generate it, but it's not suspicious enough that I'd decline on that basis. Some unblock requests, like this one, are very obviously ChatGPT-generated - "Dear Wikipedia Support Team" and "I hope this message finds you well" in particular are dead giveaways, but in HappyAppy's case I don't see anything that clearly indicates it's AI-written. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

B-Fab, Future of Honor, Ashante Adonis

Voxypri is now submitting drafts to recreate these titles that you and others had cut down to redirects, and you locked the redirects. I should have gone to bed three hours ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sock

Since you took care of this[1] could you also take a look at @Ibnquhis? The removal of the link under the Jewish community section did it for me as it is a recurring disruption by sock Kurdiyate352. Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Henrywwelch/sandbox

How do I put this. Google Jelqing. 'Jess Edging Jelquing' and a few other things gave it away. Knitsey (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh. That's... I mean, what are they trying to accomplish there? I'm happy to speedy-delete it, but it also looks like a bunch of sockpuppetry going on. What are your thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 3 of them editing it. All new users. There was one yesterday (I've lost the link now) with another made up story. Do I use CSD? Knitsey (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll go speedy-delete it. I think I'll do a WP:SPI, too, and block as appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was tempted to let it go on but the backlog for new articles is already huge. Knitsey (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

All done. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrywwelch. --Yamla (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Knitsey (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet query

Hello, Yamla,

User:Photofox2 just recreated Adrenaline Rush (professional wrestling) (since CSD G4 deleted) and I noticed that you had deleted the draft version, Draft:Adrenaline Rush (professional wrestling) several times for being the work of a block evading editor (User:Jdhfox) so I thought I'd ask you about this latest article creation. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice when they make it so obvious. The article was already deleted and I've gone and blocked the sockpuppet. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Stolitz and TheCurrencyGuy

Hi Yamla, I noticed your CU comment at Stolitz's Talk page. There have been a rash of TCG socks recently, and this user had many of the earmarks of another one. But there were behavioral differences, and if the only thing this user shares in common with blocked socks is their geolocation, which per the archive is in England, I'm inclined to unblock, especially because given the user's edits, being from England is quite logical. You don't say why the technical data indicates only possible, and I'm not asking you to confirm the location, but I believe you are permitted to say that Stolitz and TCG are editing from the same geographical area. Thanks for any help. P.S. I don't see how a new user could make that many edits in such a short time, e.g., sometimes multiple edits to different articles in the same minute and tripping the filter a huge number of times because of it, but I suppose anything's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Stolitz and TCG are editing from the same geographic area. There's nothing else I saw that tied the two accounts together from a technical point of view. Any other weirdness I saw was specifically unrelated to anything I saw on any of the other accounts. I looked hard for anything stronger than "possible" here and couldn't find it. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user, but I'm not sure I understand your comment about weirdness. Are you saying that you believe they are behaviorally unrelated, or are you talking about some technical weirdness?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on their behaviour, only discussing technical weirdness. But the technical weirdness didn't match up with anything from TheCurrencyGuy. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• ScottishFinnishRadish just blocked Stolitz as a sock of TCG. I must say I noticed that Stolitz behaviorally began editing pages much closer to those of TCG socks, and much more in the manner of TCG socks, so I completely understand the block. That said, I was wondering if another check might reveal technical evidence more similar to previous socks. He's edited quite a bit since your last check, so you'd have more data.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely worth checking. I'll take a look shortly (after coffee, hooray for coffee). --Yamla (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about procedural decline of unblocking request

Hi - thanks for commenting on my unblocking request. I'm quite unhappy about this incident and I'd like to know, if and when you have time, what your action would have been if the block hadn't already expired.

I was warned for something I didn't do, ie introduce an unreferenced piece of information. I was then blocked for this also. Another user introduced this content and a link, not me. So the reason for both warning and eventual block was not me. This is unequivocal.

I then pointed out the link was in fact referenced. Each time the moderator referred me to Wikipedia good practice, I was able to find quotes in it supporting my position, suggesting they themselves hadn't even read or understood the good practice.

They subsequently edited the page to make an inaccurate heading, solely to justify deleting my addition to the first user's referenced link.

I get that people do this work for free but it is so obvious this is someone using false justification based on their personal opinion.

I was blocked for something someone else did - what happens the the moderator who made that decision? What stops them doing that again? This is supposed to be an open platform.

They simply refused to engage once it became clear they had made a mistake. 2A00:23C7:2B37:DF01:4178:E53:DBE4:C498 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AARV is probably the correct forum, if you believe the administrative action was incorrect. I'm sorry, it's a bit too in-depth for me to dig in to today. --Yamla (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

your block of user:Toshko Vihrenski

You actually left a partial block on this CU block: Special:BlockList/User:Toshko_Vihrenski Meters (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to ask about this. You've done a CU block on them, but it's limited solely to the Sex differences in human physiology article. Not sure if you meant this to be a full block or not. Was that intentional? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing. I'm pretty sure the block was meant to be sitewide, but I'd better not make the change in the log, not being a CU. At least, if I should see the user editing all over, I'll block until Yamla can take care of it, but so far they've only made one edit to their userpage. I've declined the most recent unblock request, though. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC).

The block was meant to be site-wide. Sorry, that's what I get for blocking late in the day. ScottishFinnishRadish corrected it already. :) --Yamla (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Chumbahway

You do realize i was the one adding the second unblock request, not Chumbahway right? Trade (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

311dot didn't decline the block simply because of the wrong template for the username, they simply noted the user needed to provide one for any proper appeal. The appeal itself is flawed on many levels. It would be best not to resubmit appeals for a user, since you posted their already declined appeal: There was no possible outcome but another decline. Any confusion on Yamla's part that it was an earnest second appeal is your fault, which reflects poorly on the appellee. Please don't do this. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I was told the only way for Chumbahway to request a rename was to include it along with his unblock request. Since the unblock request had already been done i could not see any other way to do it Trade (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make unblock requests on behalf of other editors. --Yamla (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The answer is "You don't." You let them do it when they can, after they address the rest of 311dot's decline. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I have seen several times that I need to sign in to my account to request an unblock but I do not have access to it any longer. What are the steps I should take from that point if I can't log in... 2607:FEA8:2900:E2E0:B812:9D01:7BB:652B (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What specifically do you mean when you say you can not log in? --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll go one better--- what account? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

sigh

He also is weak in the "what to do instead of insulting outbursts" department. Just a few more questions. I'd have done this via UTRS, but the system kept locking him out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there's always the possibility they'll turn things around. Though... I'm not optimistic. :( --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you told him his copyvio answer was poor. I did not want to be accused of coaching. I think there's one question left . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No. He won't. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A request for an opinion on a block

I have received an email from an editor questioning a block I placed on what I described as a "vandalism-only account". The editor has raised two objections to my block: the edits may have been made in good faith, and there had been no edits since a level two templated warning. I have decided to seek opinions about the block from two independent administrators. Are you willing to look at the case, and say what you think of the block? The blocked account is Alexandre137. JBW (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@JBW My unsolicited talk-page-watcher opinion: These are purely disruptive edits that I would see as vandalism, regardless of how the editor may have felt they were justified, and blocks do not require 4 strikes and you're out. Good block. The editor can always appeal and explain themselves. -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yamla, thanks to Ferret's unsolicited contribution, I have now had the two independent admin opinions that I wanted, so if you choose not to bother to follow this up it will be fine. JBW (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict, lol) I'll explain my thinking and give a summary at the end. Note there's also WP:AARV.

I see no deleted edits and no filtered edits. Taking a look at the three edits, not one of them were made in good faith, they were straight-forward vandalism. WP:POINT may apply (in fact... may be... on point... sorry). These edits were deliberately disruptive, but could optimistically have been made to prove a point. In this case, the point being that the user believes there's a problem with the school, rather than (more usually with WP:POINT) a problem with Wikipedia policies. I suppose I should point out which policies the edits in question violated but... meh, there's little point, they are blatant vandalism.

Okay, what about warnings. In my timezone, the user made three edits today, at 6:34:40, 6:37:17, and 6:50:49. They actually only received a single warning in that time frame, at 6:44:40. The next warning came afterwards, at 6:51:22. Still, the edits were so obviously inappropriate that it'd have been reasonable to block with no warnings, in my opinion. On the other hand, I can imagine a reasonable unblock request from this user, acknowledging they were deliberately vandalising and demonstrating they planned to contribute constructively, could result in an unblock.

You could have opted to go for a block of limited duration, going for a longer (or indefinite) block if they resumed vandalism after the initial block. It's an option, albeit one that imposes a cost on you rather than the user, as you'd (probably) need to monitor contributions. At any given time, I have 10 - 30 users whose contributions I'm watching and it's a pain. But, an option. The other option would be to go for a level 4 warning. That could be justified in that the user had not made an edit in more than three hours before your block. Or even, no warning at all and just monitor to see if they knock it off. But, this user was deliberately harming Wikipedia, clearly not editing in good faith, and an indefinite block (with the possibility of unblocking) is reasonable.

Summary: Edits were purely disruptive. Edits were not made in good faith. An indefinite block with the possibility of unblocking is reasonable. It's not mandatory in a case specifically like this, but pretty commonplace. I see nothing unusual with your block. --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What you have said is largely in agreement with my thoughts. I was close to the borderline on whether to block or to just give a warning of a likely block if the same kind of editing continued. As you know, I went for the block, but but I might not have done so. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to look at this and give me your thoughts about it. JBW (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

IP TPA

I've revoked talk page access for User:50.244.129.65, and extended the block to a year from now. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good call. --Yamla (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A request for an opinion on a block

Sir, I appealed against my block, I feel my block was too quick and without proper justification. I kindly request you to please look into my talk page for detail and provide your overall opinion.

However, I raised a unblock appeal and you have kindly responded to it. Let me know what is the action required from my end to get it unblock and i assure i will follow the guidelines going ahead and not repeat the mistake that may have happened from my end. I am willing to abide by the guidelines required. Kindly reply. waiting.Sh fom (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to bring the discussion here, it's already happening on your talk page with other editors. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A request to take appeal of block to Wikiquote

Can you take this to Wikiquote for me? {{unblock|I wish to edit on Wikiquote again. I was blocked and not given a reason. Somebody thought I was a sockpuppet for SoulEaterFan and I don't even know what being a sockpuppet means. I'm a young man with [[autism]] and I was putting accurate quotes on movies I've lost on Netflix. I'd like to be unblocked and because I don't understand why I was blocked in the first place. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/174.95.37.253|174.95.37.253]] ([[User talk:174.95.37.253#top|talk]]) 16:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)}} 174.95.37.253 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No. --Yamla (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please? I have accurate quotes to add. 174.95.37.253 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No. I'm not active on wikiquote, an entirely separate project from en.wikipedia, and it's inappropriate of you to ask me. --Yamla (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yamla, at Wikiquote, editors keep reverting the IP calling them "SoulEaterFan". Do you have any idea whom they're talking about?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't. As they (both the IP address and SoulEaterFan are not blocked here, I have no reason to run a checkuser on them and have not done so. I'm not remotely convinced Wikiquote is even talking about SoulEaterFan given that I think this user only has an en.wikipedia account (see CentralAuth, which you've probably already seen. I couldn't immediately find any other likely account, but didn't look too hard. My only interest would be blocking 174.95.37.253 here on en.wikipedia if they were evading a block here. If you find more information, I'm happy to hear it. --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I've already spent way too much time fruitlessly sleuthing - twice! :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Narayanan Iyengar

Hi. Thanks for declining the above user's request for unblocking. There's another user who seems to have started where this person left. Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I took a look as part of the SPI and noted  Unlikely. This does not preclude a block based on WP:MEAT, if appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

St. Peter’s Church Germany

I have a question about the article St. Peter’s church in Germany, and was wondering why that needed edited? It looked ok, and I checked it. But was wondering there are so many articles for me to edit, and I checked how many articles I needed to edit. Can u plz explain how to do the St. Peter’s church one, and I was a little stumped when it said it needed more info. Dandielayla (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no information on this. Please check the article itself, which explains what's needed at the top of the article. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, and I will check the article items. Thank u, and I appreciate the help. Dandielayla (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Dandielayla now indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sock Puppet account

Hello, there is a user who has been block for disruptive editing/sock puppetry yet they always find a way to come back. I just learned that user EmeraldWicket9947/Friendlyhelper9949 is now back under three new accounts. "BeDefining", "Walkesu" and "Setuis". In an response to another user on Christina Milian's So Amazin' article EmeraldWicket9947/Friendlyhelper9949 under the screen name "BeDefining" stated, "i’m never gonna stop coming back". OkIGetIt20 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:SPI. --Yamla (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla I just happen to have looked at this case very recently, independently, so I've dug in. These are all confirmed. Blocking and tagging. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks, ferrett. And OkIGetIt20, good eyes, nice catch! --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for knowledge on blocked user that created Template:2023-24 Summit League men's basketball standings

Hello,

I noticed that the 2023-24 Summit League men's basketball standings template was recently deleted due to it being created by a blocked or banned user. Are you able to tell me who that user was? Just trying to cover bases here, as it will be eventually recreated and I don't want to violate any rules when doing so.

Thanks, natethegreat4226 natethegreat4226 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It was created by Brownsbuckeyescavs, a sock of NateDawg652. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that info. natethegreat4226 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

IP Block Account Creation

You blocked a range of IP addresses from creating new accounts, but you seem to have unwittingly blocked a majority of the Verizon Wireless users on the eastern seaboard from creating accounts. In the future, do not block account creation on a range of IPs. 2601:188:CA00:34C0:A1F9:5330:38D4:B329 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not specific enough to respond to. --Yamla (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

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

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Seeking Clarification Regarding My Block on Wikipedia

Dear @Yamla

My name is Kodosbs, and I have been an active Wikipedia editor for a significant period of time. I recently encountered an issue with my account, which I believe is related to an open proxy block. I am writing to you in the hope of gaining a better understanding of the situation and to potentially address any concerns that led to this block.

I received a notification that my unblock request had been reviewed and subsequently declined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kodosbs#) , citing that my IP address, 190.108.77.148, had been confirmed as a peer-to-peer (p2p) proxy. I must express my confusion and concern regarding this classification, as I have no knowledge or intention of using a proxy to edit Wikipedia. I have always followed Wikipedia's guidelines and policies diligently, and my editing history reflects my commitment to maintaining the quality and integrity of the platform.

To provide some context, I use this specific IP address for my internet connection, and I would like to understand how it has been associated with a p2p proxy. If there are any technical details or information that I should be aware of regarding my IP address, I would greatly appreciate your assistance in clarifying this matter.

Furthermore, I kindly request that you provide me with any relevant information or details that can help me communicate with my internet service provider. It is essential for me to have accurate information to share with them so that they can investigate and potentially resolve any issues related to this IP address, ensuring that it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines.

My primary objective is to resolve this issue so that I can continue contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. If there are any steps I need to take to address the concerns or if you could guide me on how to verify the status of my IP address, I am more than willing to cooperate.

I hold Wikipedia's mission and community guidelines in high regard and am committed to maintaining a positive and collaborative editing environment. I kindly request your assistance in understanding the reasons behind this block and, if possible, resolving it so that I can continue contributing to Wikipedia's valuable content.

Kodosbs (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Template:Blocked p2p proxy. It's very likely that your ISP itself, rather than you, is selling proxy access to the IP addresses it hands out. --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yamla , I don´t understand this "It's very likely that your ISP itself, rather than you, is selling proxy access to the IP addresses it hands out" can you explain me more. I have a call with my internet provider for more than an hour and we can´t find any p2p proxy. How can I receive more information? Kodosbs (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

See the Spur report. I have no additional information to share, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #79537

shocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, not that shocked. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the verification process is malfunctioning. I fixed it as soon as the instructions came in. There is no link pointing to a disambiguation page. When I realized that the link was invalid. I fixed it as soon as I received the instructions

Disambiguation link notification for September 16 I understand why I was blocked. I also confirm that I made the edits as soon as I was notified, by September 16, 2023, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I think the automatic process Check Me is malfunctioning. I fixed it as soon as the instructions came in. You can check. There was no link pointing to the Balmain disambiguation page on Patrick Nattawat Finkler when I learned that the link was incorrect. I fixed it as soon as I received the instructions. Please check carefully before blocking me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175623763 The evidence that I had corrected as soon as I received the instructions was a very long time ago. Why did you block and warn me? When there is no link pointing to a disambiguation page.

I followed the instructions by correcting them immediately. It's been a very long time. But the automatic system still warns me. If you check and can't find what I did. You can delete the message. My request was rejected because I misunderstood that I was blocked for another reason. But now I understand the correct reasoning. I edited the blog for this reason immediately and have proof that it was done according to the guidelines.

Please check carefully again that I fixed the disambiguation link as soon as I received the notification. As of September 16, 2023, I automatically provided evidence and an explanation of why it was blocked. Maybe I didn't check that I made the changes according to the notification. Thank you MeetHoneyBee (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are saying. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oof.. As far as I can tell, the user received a standard disambiguation message from DLP bot. At some point after that, due to using a proxy, they were hit by an underlying IP block. You (correctly) declined their appeal. They now believe you blocked them explicitly for using a disambiguation link. -- ferret (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, MeetHoneyBee, note that I didn't block you at all. I reviewed an unblock request from you, but that's the extent of my interaction with you. --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt

@Yamla Hi, is there a way you can have that page protected? Because it looks like Dandielayla is back under an IP putting up the DOB with crappy sources. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address. Let me know if they come back with a different address or account and I'll protect the page itself. --Yamla (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Info

Hey there, for my unblock request. I understood your first sentence, but the second one I don't. What do you mean by, "Second, your absolutely ludicrous claim that your block was unconstitutional." ? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You said, "I hold the believe that my namespace was an unconstitutional block". This is utter nonsense. There's nothing unconstitutional about your block and it severely harms your request by making such an obviously false claim. --Yamla (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Yamla,

Dan K. Morhaim was a hotbed of editing by new editors in late September, several of whom were subsequently blocked and at least one of which, User:LEWISSIT, was identified as a sockpuppet. These brand new editors were thoughtful enough to leave edit summaries which is not a habit I come across much with newbie editors. I've looked over this article and can not find anything newsworthy that has happened over the past few months that would suddenly be drawing attention to this subject's article.

I'm hoping you can use your spidey sense and see if you can see anything suspicious going on with this article. I realize that checkusing can't be used for "fishing" but this sudden rise of editing on this article by new accounts seems beyond coincidental and, definitely, "fishy". Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: yeah, it's weird. There's almost certainly some paid editing going on (for example, Sagar Samaya Digital), but on the other hand, editors such as Dandielayla appear to simply be... not all that constructive. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why anyone cares about that particular article. I mean, no offense to Morhaim who I'm sure is great and certainly worthy of an article, but he doesn't appear to have done anything Wikipedia-notable for several years. What are your thoughts? I'm not quite sure what to suggest here. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Ilovejames5

User:Ilovejames5, who you checkuserblocked, is back editing under a whole series of IP addresses (or else someone claims to be him and deserves to be blocked for impersonation and time wasting). See the recent history of User talk:Example6 and some of the other User:Example(number) talkpages. Fram (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on IP addresses, but you are correct, the anonymous editor is claiming to be the blocked user, Example6 so that alone is enough to block. It's possible they are lying and could be a different user, I suppose, but either way, time to shut it down. I'll hand out some blocks. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

So, these ranges belong to a Greek cell network (based on public whois information), so not much point blocking. I've protected the user talk page, though. WP:UTRS is available for Ilovejames5, though not until 2024-03-19. I think that wraps it up, not much more I can do (or say :) ). --Yamla (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Technical Finding SPI question

Hi, I see that Bbb23 moved my comment on my SPI (apparently I put it in the wrong place, oh well). They've expressed that they want it archived, implying they don't want anyone to comment any further there, so I will ask my question to you here directly instead (feel free to inform me if I'm not supposed to do this or something, but I would appreciate figuring out exactly my situation from someone "in the know"):

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

In particular I don't want to be behaviourally associated with Jargo Nautilus in other users' minds since he and I seem to be mostly of opposite opinions and conduct; I don't want to be dragging his baggage around. JM2023 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a very limited amount of information I'm permitted to share with you. WP:CHECKUSER goes into some details. Essentially, it's a comparison of IP addresses used by both accounts. I will not be able to go into more detail on this, as I am prohibited from doing so. The process that lead to that was the filing of a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jargo Nautilus. You'd have to ask {{np|Girth Summit]] what they found concerning, but note that checkuser data isn't generally used when the report is convincing. In such cases, there's no need for an investigation, the report itself is already convincing. It's when there's some amount of doubt, such as was the case here. I did a double-check of the technical data and concurred with Girth Summit's findings. I did not investigate the behavioural evidence and do not mean to tie the two accounts together behaviourally (and strongly believe I have not done so). My sole comment as to the two accounts is that they are technically "entirely  Unrelated". I strongly believe two checkusers making that statement is compelling evidence that the two accounts are unrelated. Note that there's virtually nothing else I'm allowed to say here. I hope you find what I've been able to share to be helpful. --Yamla (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. JM2023 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikivgd

Would a check user check do anything beyond satisfy my curiosity? Says he's a friend of the company's owner or whatever. Says the other editor was PAID. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)

I doubt it. I mean, we could determine if they are attempting to mislead us about the connection and we could discover sleepers. But, frankly, they aren't going to be unblocked to write about it and are essentially a self-admitted meatpuppet. I don't think it's worth the effort, not unless there's an otherwise compelling unblock request that would benefit from checkuser findings. --Yamla (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

This might help. :) UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

220.236.126.177

• 220.236.126.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I think you mistakenly blocked the IP for 3 months instead of extending the block, which is what you said on the IP's Talk page. The IP was already blocked (by me) for a year, expiring on October 2, 2024.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, math is hard in the morning, but that was _very_ wrong. Given that, there's no need to extend the block. I'll go change it back to your one year block. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Timezone changes mean I ended up shortening it by six hours, but I think an error of six hours over one year is not worth another block entry. Thanks, Bbb23. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think so either. :-) Thanks for fixing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Chompshark

Me again. You might want to look at this thread on Girth Summit's Talk page. This looks like it's more extensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Yamla (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for making quick work of vandals. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Mehedi wikibio

Hello, Yamla,

If you look at deleted edits to the constantly recreated article Draft:S M Jahid Hasan, you'll see the contributions of several now-blocked editors. I think that this editor, whose unblock request you declined, is not only guilty of self-promotion but also block evasion (the most recently blocked account is User:Madian wiki). Should I open an SPI or there is already one that exists? I've now protected the deleted draft article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at S M Jahid Hasan, which is now fully protected, it looks like User:S M Jahid Hasan1971 was the original account that started this promotional writing. Of course, the rest of the accounts could be paid editors, not sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this has been going on for rather a long time, more than a year. They are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other, so it amounts to the same thing. The benefit of an SPI in this case is we could start heading toward a WP:3X ban and we could uncover any sleeper accounts or newly set up accounts. I really don't think we need an SPI just to block the accounts, though. They are blatantly promotional and clear sock/meatpuppets of each other. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to here a little late. I trust your judgment to do whatever action you think is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

self image-automatons

For decades I identified myself by my job. So it should not surprise me that these business people cannot conceive of an identity apart from their business. Automatons of the business world, I blow them a pitying sigh.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeap. And when meeting a new person, we still often ask, "What do you do?". I just wish the spammers were a little less spammy about it all. --Yamla (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(shudder)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RfAs

Hi, Yamla, please see User talk:Ponyo#Another but different sock?. I suspect someone may already have checked the account, but just in case... One never knows when or whether Ponyo will edit, so I thought I'd run it past you. Curious username, too. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll comment over at Ponyo's page. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy

I also sent the Arbs a note, just as an FYI that he's still out and about with accounts. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading unblock requests from the various accounts gives me a headache. --Yamla (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There were some very glaring tells, that's for sure.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Block dispute

Can you please explain why this user was blocked? They did not violate 3RR and their edit history looks solid. I agree with the edit they were making on Prehistory of Australia and will discuss it there myself. Poketama (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They are a banned user, evading their ban. The block has nothing to do with the edits. --Yamla (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that their user talk page indicates the basis for the block. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies thanks for your work. Poketama (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Desisystem09 and User:Chotabheem3

Hi Yamla, I noticed you blocked this user for sock. Can you leave a comment on the investigation page for the record as well? Cheers! NM 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to do so! --Yamla (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Forgive me if I’m not following the guideline correctly, but I have some suspicion that Bingotedha (talk · contribs) might be the same account. I don’t think it has done anything disruptive so far, what should I do in this case? Wait and see? NM 00:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The IP address range these socks are operating on is hard to lock down, technically. That means socks definitely can slip through earlier checks. In this case, the account is  Possible but that's as close as I can say at this time, technically. If you think they are behaviourally the same, you should file an WP:SPI in the hopes that the combination of the two (technical and behavioural) would be enough. I think there's a good chance this is another sock, but I'm not convinced based on the technical evidence. :( --Yamla (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hi again, could you please remove the block request (and subsequent messages) from my talkpage as the block is now lifted. If possible, I don't want this to be accessible via my talkpage history.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but you are free to remove it. Note that there's nothing untoward (nothing inappropriate) about using a p2p proxy. It's very common in many areas of the world and most certainly doesn't imply you did anything wrong. --Yamla (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so. Thanks for all your assistance and patience. Keep up your good works. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)