User talk:Blablubbs/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Blablubbs: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Lucy Azeez / Lucy Aziz

Hi, and Happy New Years!

You were the deleting admin for Lucy Aziz. Is that article the same text as Lucy Azeez? I made the connection when reviewing the AFD created by user:Mccapra and spotted a familiar photo in one of the PR sources used in the article. This smells of undeclared paid editing, especially with the Lucy Azeez article springing forth fully formed in its initial edit. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whpq: The recreation isn't very close; the version I deleted was longer and more spammy, but also substantially better written. FWIW, I'm relatively confident (though not entirely certain) that the creator of the previous article, Togaewalls, was a sock of NagalimNE, but I see no similarities between that master and the user who recreated it. UPE seems more likely than not, probably an UpWork or freelancer.com thing. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi, would it be possible for you to put // <pre> at the top and // </pre> at the bottom of User:Blablubbs/search-shortcuts.js? That page is generating an entry in Special:WantedTemplates. You could also use <nowiki>...</nowiki> or <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>. By putting the tags inside of comments, it will not impact the functionality, but will prevent the backend software from showing your page in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:", "Template:" ).replace( ". Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Plastikspork:  Done. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A puppet on Commons only has a master on commons

The question is, do we care here, on en WP? c:User:Gazinit is the Commons puppet, and they do edit here. Is it sufficient to alert you as SPI person? If not, how on earth do I determine who the master might be? Their contribnutions log here suggests UPE. As a generalisation in Africa this seems often conducted by sock farms. I do not own admin goggles. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Overtaken by events! No further action required. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Annie Kingdom

Hello, Blablubbs,

I was surprised to see this sock block as I have interacted with this editor quite a bit over the past few weeks. There were some red flags like how quickly they assumed a leadership role, patrolling, tagging and draftifying articles. I had to correct them when they became overly enthusiastic and starting tagging too many drafts for deletion right after they were created. I think inappropriately tagging bad drafts for deletion doesn't draw the scrutiny that main space deletion tagging might bring.

But it's humbling how past knowledge of how Wikipedia operates allows sockpuppets to fool most, but obviously not all, of us. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiptoo05/Archive

Hi Blablubbs, I am just about to file a request at meta:Steward_requests/Global for 50+ sockpuppets promoting several web pages, some of them listed at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Photospam. You might want to do use local checkuser to identify further sockpuppets.

In addition to those sockpuppets who insert the spamlinks there are also other accounts like User:MikeHilltop who edit the articles right after the sockpuppets in order to cover the linkspam. [1][2][3] -- Johannnes89 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally finished the request, these are the other sockpuppets you might want to check [4] Johannnes89 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting observation: This sockpuppet in deWP claimed to work for „Anton Sidorov“ via „Upwork“ [5]. The people behind this crosswiki linkspam might have hired different freelancers via Upwork for this linkspam. Johannnes89 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Johannnes89: Apologies for the late reply; acknowledging that I've seen this, but it might take me a while until I can take a proper look. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

In conversation on User_talk:Torterra_Ketchum_5999, Itcouldbepossible made a claim that an IP editor is in fact Amkgp, even acknowledging they were blocked but edits on Wikipedia as an IP[6] to "help others". The editor, Torterra_Ketchum_5999, has been asked to either confirm or deny whether they are a paid editor which includes direct payment for article creation or simply an employee of Magic Moments Motions Pictures. That is a separate issue completely from the possible block evasion claimed. I will admit that, in both cases, the circumstantial evidence is there. @Torterra could just be a fan but they do seem to have some inside knowledge. In the case of the IP, it is possible they edit within a range of IP's but their knowledge of Wikipedia, as evidenced on User talk:Shinnosuke15, after only having 15 edits, all on Jan 10th, is alarming. The only reason I bring this here is because you have commented on User talk:Amkgp about editing while not logged so there is a history of this even before being blocked and it continued after they retired so I figured you know their behavior better and whether @Itcouldbepossible's claims are worthy of review or should be discounted. Thank you for your time. --ARoseWolf 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf and Blablubbs, to both of you I am saying, please look at the my reply on Celestina's talk page, before coming to any decision. That's what I only want to say. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@ARoseWolf: The IP is more likely them than not, but the range is super wide and rather dynamic, and they're long gone from the /64 they were on then. I don't think there's anything I can do here, sorry. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it, @Blablubbs. I appreciate your objective review. I know how difficult it is to investigate IP addresses over such a wide range. The IP has said they are not the blocked editor and, assuming good faith, I think @Itcouldbepossible should apologize to the IP for accusing them without definitive proof. Apparently @Itcouldbepossible doesn't understand the severity of making unsubstantiated claims and how it can be disruptive to the collaborative effort even going so far as to say I am being violent towards them over such a small thing. They should understand how detrimental it is as they have have been exposed to false accusations in the past themselves. I have said all I will say about the matter until further disruption occurs. Thanks again. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok Rose, I understand that it is not right of accusing someone of something, without properly knowing. Wait, but I think, I knew the fact from Blablubbs once, that this user uses the 2402:3A80 range. And he also noted that the filer of my SPI case was Amkgp. Maybe that was he, but the range is huge as Blablubbs says, so many could be editing from the same range. So maybe I am wrong, and maybe I am right. I don't know which. I can be right because, the IP filed my SPI case, when I sent one of Amkgp's article to deletion, saying that it was created by a sock. So, at that time, the IP filed the case against me. Though it can be a coincidence, but it is likely that he was Amkgp, else he would not have gone crazy when I had sent it to AFD. Again I maybe wrong. And moreover, if you can believe him, then I think you can also believe me. Otherwise don't believe either. It is the best thing to do. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's Elementary

Thanks for the copyedit. I see that the correct source for it being the first such film was removed at some point. I will hopefully be able to find it again when I get home from work. SL93 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I now see that it was cited to the correct book until you started editing the article. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Never mind. It was changed earlier. So annoying. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting RevDel

Hello @Blablubbs: I want to request RevDel to Revision 1065751733 (Diff) at User talk:MerelyPumpkin for the criterion RD2 and RD3 because i see that the material inserted by this IP (70.40.135.204) seems like a Personal attack to MerelyPumpkin containing offensive and disruptive materials. Vitaium (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Vitaium: I've gone ahead and revision deleted that 🙂 best to get those sorts of things done asap -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Vitaium (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Vitaium — Just so you know, you might want to do that via email or other private methods next time, so as to avoid triggering the Streisand effect. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pampelonne/Archive

Hi Blablubbs, we did a follow-up CUA in deWP regarding meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Linkspam online casinos et. al. [7] and identified further sockpuppets related to this crosswiki SEO-Spam.

I detected user AntoniaSunni and SybellInge in enWP as likely sockpuppets, looking at the linkreports [8][9] related to those we identified in deWP. You might want to do a follow-up CUA in enWP to check if there are more sockpuppets. -- Johannnes89 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johannnes89: Danke. Handled here, let's hope CU has something useful. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Johannnes89: Results are in; one additional account found – RonjaBurgh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked that one too. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I asked for all new accounts to be globally locked [10] -- Johannnes89 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
... and COIBot just identified another account at thWP [11] showing the same edit pattern as RonjaBurgh, which I also reported. Have a good evening -- Johannnes89 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Replied – sorry for the delay. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries mate. I found your response to be very helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Glucken123

Blablubbs, thank you for your hard work investigating the Glucken123 situation. I'm fairly disappointed to see my worst suspicions confirmed. I do want to check that you noticed one thing: Mightberightorwrong, one of the socks, was the one who brought Yannis Assael to AfD the first time. This pattern where one sock proposes deletion, while others work on the article, is suggestive of a fairly low flavor of WP:UPE. (But I guess it could also just be someone connected to Assael trying to game the system in a somewhat-tricky way.) Anyway, I'm probably telling you something that you already know. Thanks again! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Yeah, the first AfD is a head-scratcher for me – I also noticed that Mightberightorwrong COI-tagged the previous iteration of the article; that's the reason AntoniadK remains untagged. My theory (and it really is little more than that) is that it's not UPE, but that we're dealing with two connected individuals that each have some non-UPE type of COI; I'm near-certain AntoniadK has one (though I can't publicly say why), at least. I can come up with a couple of conspiracy theories, but I doubt I'll ever figure out what precisely is going on. Whatever the case may be, I don't believe that this is the first rodeo for any of the users in play, and whatever is going on is clearly highly dodgy. Thanks for catching this. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Russ Woodroofe, you might find this interesting. Weird case. Spicy (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

, please no worries or rush, although it’s sonewhat of an urgent matter, I equally understand how extremely busy you are, so please take your time. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Replied . --Blablubbs (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I found that extremely helpful, thank you very much. :) Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Sorbo page IP is back again

Hi Blablubbs.

I noticed that you page protected the Kevin Sorbo page in October over an IP that uses multiple accounts and evades the block. They are back. I reverted the twice already. I have asked for a more extensive page protection on the page protection request page [12]. Would yo be able to do a more extensive page protection?Ramos1990 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: Ugh, they certainly were quick to return after it expired. I protected it for another year, maybe they'll get bored by then. Thanks for reporting. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate it very much! Hopefully it dissuades them this time.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I promise, I owe you a bottle of beer (or 2) for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


Thankyou for blocking the IP

Please suggest how to deal with this particular IP who is showing hostility to me. Thanks again... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Blablubbs,

I'm having encounters with a new editor Captain Falcon Likes The Letter C and I could have sworn there was a SPI cases focused on an editor who used names like this but I can't recall the sockmaster to file a new incident in an existing SPI case. If you or any talk page stalkers are familiar with this editor, maybe you can jog my memory. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

They repeated the edit of another blocked editor, User:Patrick MaGomez but they weren't blocked for sockpuppetry. I've given the Captain a short block for disruptive editing but if the name rings a bell, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Liz – sorry, nothing immediately comes to mind, though the editing pattern does feel familiar. Spicy might know? They have a far better memory than me when it comes to things like this. --Blablubbs (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Liz figured it out via Patrick MaGomez – this is James8333. I've indeffed. --Blablubbs (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, thanks, mystery solved! Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nordbayern.de

I have been doing a lot of research on a Germany-related topic, but I was struggling to find a website that talked about exactly what I wanted it to. The only website I was able to find that went into detail on that topic was Nordbayern.de. I noticed that it is a tabloid, which is obviously a red flag. Are there any situations where I can use this site as a source? i don't know German at all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: It looks like Nordbayern.de shares a newsroom with a number of fairly major news outlets, including Nürnberger Nachrichten. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with any of them – from a skim I'd say that while mildly tabloidy, I'd consider it at least usable for basic facts. I hope this helps. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Knocking on Armageddon's Door

Hello, Blablubbs,

Just a head's up if you help out more at WP:REFUND, but when you restore an expired draft page, deleted via CSD G13, you need to make an edit to the page to "restart the clock" or it shows up as eligible for deletion again. Many admins who patrol requests at REFUND use User:SD0001/RFUD-helper for their work, as it will make these minor edits for you and you don't have to remember. Thank you for all of the work you do! Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Ugh, I should've realised that. Thanks for the message – RFUD-helper is going in my common.js right away. :) All the best, --Blablubbs (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Small question about banned sock

Hello, thank you for blocking Captain Falcon Likes The Letter C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would it be appropriate for a non-administrator such as me to copy the sockpuppet template as seen on User:CaptainFalconTheWrecker to Letter C's page, seeing as you have confirmed it was a sockpuppet? 93 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @93, thanks for reaching out. It is almost always best to leave the decision of whether or not to tag to administrators and SPI clerks and reaching out if you think an account was mistakenly left untagged. In this case, I deliberately did not tag since I felt that the benefit of "cataloguing" the account wasn't big enough to outweigh WP:DENY concerns (specifically because these are vandalism-only accounts that can be indeffed whether they are socks or not). As a sidenote, "confirmed" would not be the right tag to use, since that refers only to situation where CheckUser was used; I'm not a CU, so this block was based solely on behaviour. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarification and your insight into the process. 93 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallab Bhattacharyya

Greetings. I saw you reverted the last comment on the discussion. How about the one before that, which is also from a blocked, recently created user? Different underlying concerns? Onel5969 TT me 12:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Those two (and GeezGod are part of same sock group joe-jobbing NeverTry4Me; I had just blocked that one and reverted from contribs instead of striking since their !vote was extremely recent, but I didn't read through the entire AfD. Feel free to strike the other !votes from the socks. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Will look through the AfD later. Onel5969 TT me 12:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA IP is again back

@Blablubbs: See this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1072811134 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Zee_TV

Also see this discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%A5%A8_%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0_%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%80#LTA_IP_is_again_back 2409:4060:2E12:DBBE:0:0:58C8:EA02 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Just an LTA"

So a single person can make the AIV backlog look like that? Might not be a good thing. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Continued from talk page of Sro23

Hello Blablubbs

Following on from this remark, I first wish to thank you for not going the full nine yards and blocking that IP as well as the User:Mirko je OK account. Any admin whatsoever is well within is rights to do so. As you can also tell from this edit, I am not so much "IP hopping" as I am crossing borders. It happens my paternal family traverse all three sides of the Croatian-Bosnian & Herz-Montenegrin tripoint. So your assumption was absolutely spot on. I am in my homeland region visiting - not so much family - but friends. Many of my relations have passed away and I am not so close to the younger generations for reasons that are not relevant for this post, but for the record, this is a trip home. I make many throughout the year. Because of the other nonsense (which I am not seeing today), I prefer not to disclose when I return to Great Britain. Having spent considerable time reviewing what has been going on, I am increasingly of the opinion that certain accounts believed to be "Evlekis" were so because the account creator confessed to being another "sock", for example here with "Max Pumpkin". Looking at "Max Pumpkin", I see very few contributions, but there is an 18,000+ character message ([13]) which has been censored. I would hedge my bets that somewhere in the middle of some protracted message that blurted out offensive remarks, this person claimed to be "Evlekis". Unless there is another "presumed connection".

One confession. I was obviously being economical with the truth when saying I have not edited since late 2018. I have not edited much since late 2018, and where I have, it has all been anonymous through IPs - but never a scintilla of vandalism. I'll explain more in the emails to the checkusers. So notwithstanding the plain Slovenia-based edits last one day ago, I will not be making edits for the time being from this account or any other. I don't wish to breach the rules but my main concern is cleansing my own identity from the puerile garbage that has tarnished my account name (which I have used on other projects).

This has been a courtesy post. I'll leave you to deal with it as you so choose. Meanwhile if we should encounter one another when someone responds to me, then all the better.

Take it steady. --89.111.237.25 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix!

I threw that change in the abuse filter this morning, and didn't notice that I put in a blank OR condition when I pasted it. I was alerted to a bunch of false positives a bit ago, and after debugging and finding no issues, I looked at the history and saw that you already fixed it! Thank you, and a big thanks to LuK3 as well! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'm glad if I could help (and relieved to hear that I didn't accidentally break everything)! --Blablubbs (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It was me that broke everything! You were the one who found and fixed it! I was in meetings today, and I started noticing a bunch of false positives. By the time I was investigating, I found out that the deed was done. Thanks again! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
SN54129 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You've got a draft (sort of)

Have you seen Draft:Bubbleblabber? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:E.Imanoff

Hello. The recent lock request of this user has been denied and the steward requested this user to be unblocked. SummerKrut (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@SummerKrut: Thanks for the note, though if I am reading Vermont's comments correctly, I don't think they are recommending a local unblock on enwiki. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, by no means was I recommending an unblock here or anywhere. I declined the global lock because the user is apparently an editor in good-ish standing (I.e. recently unblocked) on at least one project in which they are active. Vermont (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Vermont: I suppose I misunderstood what you said. Thanks for clearing it up. SummerKrut (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Account Creation Barnstar
For your works at ACC and being a master maestro in dealing with open proxies. Furthermore for being one of my first teachers at ACC and teaching me how things work and its interesting complexities. Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about reliable source

Is this news site a reliable source ? [www.georgeherald.com]2409:4060:2D8B:F8B0:0:0:5888:4E10 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For your recent SPI block of an established editor. You have made some excellent blocks recently. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent 2603:8000:3300:7b00:1070:c7d2:232a:8252 block and likely necessary range block from more pages

2603:8000:3300:7b00:1070:c7d2:232a:8252 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Thank you for blocking this IP from Gerard Arpey! Very helpful and I appreciate it. But I think the disruption might go further. (pay particular attention to the /64 contribs). This IP has violated BLP standards on a few different biographical articles including:

Other disruptive edits:

  • [14]
  • [15] [16] [17] [18] (advocating for Citizen Free Press article keep after creation (a noted conspiracy mill))

You blocked them for 6 months from Gerard Arpey but I think this likely goes further. Shouldn't this /64 range be rangeblocked at least temporarily? Their conspiracy-laden fact-free contributions have no place on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I pblocked because I saw the vandalism on Gerald Arpey and thought this was likely going to be the least invasive solution – /64 blocks will likely be ineffective because they seem to be bouncing around on a substantially larger underlying range. I didn't go with a sitewide block because there seem to be some good-faith editors on the range, and the edits come in fairly large intervals so I'm not sure I can justify the collateral at this point. I see Ponyo has protected Darse Crandall in the meantime, so I'm hoping that will work for the time being. As for the third edit, I don't think it's necessarily them; a /32 is very wide and fairly likely to be used by a whole bunch of people. I'm currently on my phone and can't review the entire situation in as much depth as I would like, but my current inclination is to leave the block as is, and bump it to sitewide if there is more disruption down the road. Regards, --Blablubbs (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
That all makes sense, thank you! I'm not sure there's a lot of legitimate editing on the /40 range, but your point is still well-taken. Hitting the targets with page protection is probably more effective given the persistent nature of vandalism on those pages. Thanks for the thoughtful reply! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

IP hopper is at it yet again

He's at it again after the range block and page protection ended.[19] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another Sock

Another Sock User:Aviram7 is an sock of blocked user User:Princepratap1234 doing cross wiki edits .Block this user globally. 117.227.20.151 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User banned for paid editing, investigations?

Hello, it came to my attention that User:Swankeyy who's edited Ryan Kavanaugh in the past, an article I've been involved with for a while now, has been banned for paid editing and abusing multiple accounts. I went ahead and added a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the talk page. I've tried to retrace any investigation or rationale to link to in the template but can't find any. What I did find is that the user created Jeff Gross (poker player), which was later deleted as a result of several sockpuppet investigations connected to Wikiprofessionals Inc. but the user doesn't seem to be included in any of the investigations.

Could you point me to the investigation that directly connects this specific user to the organization? That way I can link to the investigation and possibly also add the organization to the template as employer. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: There was no documented on-wiki investigation, I made the block in an "individual" capacity. I'm hesitant to disclose the specific connection in detail unless I absolutely have to because I don't want to give them ideas and I think their editing pattern is essentially evidence enough that they're a paid spammer. Their edits to Ryan Kavanaugh all seem to have been already reverted, so I think it probably doesn't make that much of a difference going forward. Apologies that I can't be more helpful. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
That's totally fine. I just thought it might be helpful information for anyone reading the article considering the circumstances. That being said, I understand that you can't give any further details. Thanks for your response. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


Ply.T

User is requesting unblock - might want to take a look seen as you closed the SPI. Zippybonzo | talk 12:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dorthyellow Block

Hi Blablubbs. Regarding User:Dorthyyellow, I thought that they were blocked as per User:Firefly's comment here. Was I mistaken? It would be best to see the Dorthyellow account listed among the sockpuppets of Zongqi over at the "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zongqi" category, if possible, to make people aware of that fact if they encounter Dorthyellow's edits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that confusion is probably my fault. I blocked the socks that Spicy request be blocked (I agree with their assessment there) - I shouldn't have used the "all socks..." template as I was only blocking a subset. firefly ( t · c ) 16:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I see firefly beat me to answering half of the question – as for why they're unblocked, we usually don't accounts that haven't been active for extended periods of time unless there is reason to suspect that they will wake up again (it's a common interpretation of policy that such blocks would violate WP:BLOCKP). I don't think tags are urgently needed in this case, and there is still a public record of the account in the SPI archive. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your response - and thanks also for helping to deal with this persistent sockpuppeteer. I doubt we've seen the last of them, sadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk help needed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBoldBald has been sitting for days; it needs a merge, can you help as a clerk? Asking in particular b/c a new SPI was opened at the ProTaylorCraft SPI page. wizzito | say hello! 00:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation

Hi, Blablubbs. Please revision-delete this – it's a clear BLP violation. Thanks a lot! :) Quandarie09:33, 2022-04-15

(talk page watcher) @Quandarie: done ~TNT (talk • she/her) 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Quandarie02:16, 2022-04-16

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. R. Friedrich

Hi Blablubbs, as I'm not very familiar with enWP sock puppet investigations: Could you take a look at de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Donausoja? We discovered the accounts to be related to de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Dr. R. Friedrich, LeviMentis which were globally locked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. R. Friedrich/Archive.

User:Ronja Mittag created de:Volker Eloesser which previously User:LeviMentis wanted to create (de:User:LeviMentis/Volker Eloesser), while User:Donausoja created de:Matthias Krön and de:Donau Soja which are identical copies of de:User:LeviMentis/Matthias Krön and de:User:LeviMentis/DonauSoja. -- Johannnes89 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johannnes89: Danke, habe alle drei gesperrt und locks angefordert. @Girth Summit: You checked Dr. R. Friedrich and LeviMentis last time around; could I bother you for a quick sleeper check to see if there are any additional accounts visible on enwiki? --Blablubbs (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Johannnes89 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Blablubbs - I had a sniff around. I was able to confirm JackyS15 and Donausoja to one another. LeviMentis and Ronja Mittag are certainly possible, to each other and to Jacky515/Donausoia - same country, same UA - but on enwiki, they've edited out of different ranges. I don't see any other accounts jumping out at me. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 05:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanyMarco

Could you please take a look at my request and comment of April 15? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Should be all done. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That was quick! Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

AWB and watchlists

Thank you for taking the time to close this thread. I have no issues with the close, but just a note about your suggestion that people can just hide AWB edits from their watchlists (WP:HIDEAWB). This can be useful, but only in limited circumstances. It's a userscript so will only work for people who already know about it (there's no easy way for editors to find out it exists). And, it works by hiding AWB edits from the already generated watchlist, it can't affect the generation of that watchlist. Watchlists have an upper limit of 500 on the number of edits displayed, so if someone makes a few hundred edits in an hour to pages you're watching, then your watchlist is effectively scuppered. – Uanfala (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's definitely not a perfect solution – I'm just hoping that some might be able to benefit from it. I'm hoping it will be solved natively at some point; we already have tag filters, and I don't really see why they can't be inverted (there might be some way that I'm simply unaware of, but I did look before my close and couldn't find anything). Might be worth opening a phab ticket, or submitting a request to this years' Community Wishlist Survey on meta. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your nicest works against sockpuppetry

Anti-Sock Sleuth Barnstar
I feel happy to award you this beautiful and unique anti-sock sleuth barnstar for your nicest works against sockpuppetry.
Best wishes, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm glad if I could be of assistance, The Aafi. I know it can be aggravating and this was covered by WP:3RRNO, but could I ask you to not continuously revert next time something like this happens, and wait for admin intervention instead? It tends to clog up the page history while not really providing better outcomes. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, and I take a note from this. Thanks for the assistance. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Blablubbs, around two months ago, (perhaps) the same sock farm was actively involved in disrupting Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi, same aspersions, calling several sources as unreliable and blogs, though them being reliable. I'd like you to have a look at this article as well. Per our policy on self-cite, there was one reference from an article that I had written about the subject in an Urdu language journal. I'd also want to hear your opinions as this article has already appeared on the main page under ITN. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

My user talk page

You reverted this edit [20], can you also strike it for me thank you. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. I was on the fence regarding this, so I raised the issue with some other admins – while the edit is certainly crass, we came to the conclusion that it doesn't quite rise to the threshold of meeting our revdel criteria. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


German help

If you have a little time, could you take a look at this user's edits? They cite a lot of German journals, and even with machine translation, I am at a loss as to whether they support the material. It doesn't help that I have to do all that European cookie stuff in a foreign language and then often am barred because the material is behind a paywall. This newish editor has been warned and blocked for their (very rapid) disruptive edits, and my instinct is that they need an indefinite block, but ... If you don't have time, I understand. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yeah, I share your concerns just from a quick look. I'm not going to bother accessing the full texts for these sources, because it seems pretty obvious that they are inappropriate just from the titles and abstracts:
  • This citation is 1797(!) a review of Immanuel Kant's de:Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre ("Metaphysical rudiments of jurisprudence").
  • This one is a translation of a 1900 Japanese law prohibiting tobacco smoking by minors.
  • This one is about central water supply in Braunschweig municipalities.
  • This one is about the "beginnings of child psychiatry at the Philipps-University of Marburg".
  • This one is an expedition report by someone who went to the Amazon to find natural rubber.
  • This one is the landing page for a university working group on ecology. No park is mentioned.
  • This one is a history of the directors of the Berlin public museums' antiquities collection.
  • This one is called "Reflections on the report 'Antrhopology in France, needs and projects'"
  • This one is about the opening of an Aldi market in Mallorca.
I'm not cherry-picking here, and I could probably go on, but it seems fairly clear to me just from the above that these edits aren't helpful. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Update: I did read this one in full as a sanity-check. It's completely unrelated to the text – doesn't even include the words "Garten" or "Park". Will block, not sure I can clean it all up right now though. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have just been going through their contributions and realising the extent of the damage they have caused in a few days. Not only adding hoax references but stupid minor edits like changing "heritage" to "heritages" and adding a sentence about a party "scheduled" for 2011. AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: I came to the same conclusion and ran mass rollback. If there was anything useful in there, anyone should of course feel free to reinstate. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, think that's for the best. There was some formatting improvements and typo fixes etc but having tried to start going through it all there was just too much damage too offset anything worthwhile. AusLondonder (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh boy. I initially meant to run that rollback selectively and hit the wrong button. I'll reinstate some of the obvious collateral, but even many of the non-citation edits are highly questionable; e.g. this link addition. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for all your work! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Blablubbs and Bbb23, I've also checked Oldhedge's contributions which were already modified by someone else, and tried to revert them, too. With very few exceptions (like this one]), all of them seem fake references and links. So there is now no further need for reverting of Oldhedge's contributions, if I haven't missed something. (I became aware of the problem because I have the river Hohlbach (Haidenaab) on my watchlist and therefore got a note when Oldhedge created these false links.) --Cyfal (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    A tangentially related Afd is here. Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Also related: I had previously made a comment(permalink) in Donald Albury's talk page, since they had previously blocked the user for 31 hours, along with some information relating to this user, before you all indef blocked them.
Perhaps some of it may still be of use. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E11F:9193:92A6:441B (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blablubbs/Archive_6&oldid=1143200358"