User talk:Softlemonades/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk page pointer

Hello Softlemonades. Thanks for your work on the Wikileaks article.

On the talk page, when you are quoting Burrobert and then responding to his statements, it can be made more clear by formatting the initial comments in a different color. This can be done with the template {{tq|text of the other editor you are quoting}}. It will appear as text of the other editor you are quoting. I think this will make it easier for other editors to follow the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your handling of that proxy. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 22:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

UnBlocked

Leaving this for now, will remove later since the block was quickly reversed. Not sure if it needs to stay or go right now because of the template stuff

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Chimney Sweepa per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chimney Sweepa. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Softlemonades (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Im not a sockpuppet, Ive never heard of the account Im accused of being. Ive been in good standing and made over a thousand edits. The SPI report was in bad faith and because of a proxy hopping sock puppet who has been inserting content about Cyber Anakin and involved in multiple ongoing conflicts about it, which have been reported to ANI and SPI. ANI lays out many of the issues and shows admins disapproving of IP editors behavior and agreeing the article had a lot of cruft that needed to be removed. The text was originally inserted by an admitted sock puppet IP. The IP editor has said theyll use "unlimited proxies" and left a message on someones talk page saying they should "assemble some cabal, play dirty on them so much they'll simply back off." I was given a Barnstar for my handling of it. Right after I was blocked, the IP editor left a message on the user page of the editor Ive been working with on the Cyber Anakin issues , saying "Look who I just got blocked at SPI. Might want to learn a lesson from that Sideswipe9th. I'll be watching you closely for any mistakes. The pages will be unprotected soon enough so the content can be restored. Time to back off while you still can, consider yourself warned.". Someone appeared from a new IP address to restore the Cyber Anakin content to the pages, despite the "marginally reliable" source RfC majority vote and low importance citing my SPI in the edit summary. I can talk to CU privately about anything else but the IP editors SPI request was obvious bad faith meant to intimidate and silence . Softlemonades (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below GeneralNotability (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I plan to review this unblock request this evening. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I also sent CU a note because I think I needed to anyway. I linked to this in the email, so it felt right to let you know about that message too Softlemonades (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

All right, my read of the situation for the record:

• CU does not provide a strong match between Softlemonades and Chimney Sweepa, though both appear to intermittently be using proxies so this is less "no match" and more "inconclusive". There are some technical differences that make me doubtful of the relationship, though.
• There is certainly a topic overlap between the two, but dusting off my old clerk behavioral analysis skills, their writing styles seem sufficiently different to cast doubt on the relationship.
• I have seen a pattern of attempts to discredit Softlemonades through a variety of proxy addresses, apparently centering on content disputes around the Anonymous (hacker group) topic area, especially Cyber Anakin. It has gone past "content dispute" and appears to have escalated into "harassment campaign". I believe this person (or group, I suppose) filed the original SPI and subsequently sent this rather ominous message to Sideswipe9th, who as far as I can tell is also involved in this content dispute, and so this looks to me like someone leveraging SPI to attack someone they disagree with. I am also aware of off-wiki claims that they are a state-sponsored actor and/or are one of a half-dozen sockmasters. That one sounds like "throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks".

Based on all of the above, I believe that there is not enough behavioral or technical evidence to call Softlemonades a sock of Chimney Sweepa, and further, that the initial report is severely tainted by the circumstances. I am therefore going to unblock Softlemonades. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, could you also please review the last few SPIs from this checkuser if there are any? Given this was quite clearly not a slam dunk and I could tell that from a mile away? (Struck per discussion on user talk)[Andre🚐 23:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)]20:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jóhannes Stefánsson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jóhannes Stefánsson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jóhannes Stefánsson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you see we made Taiwan News?

Greetings comrade!

Apparently we're connected to the CCP according to Taiwan News! I wonder when I'll start getting my paycheque from Beijing /s Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We should rethink the "marginally reliable" thing. This doesnt make any mistakes and passes verifiability on every detail, add it to RSP stat /s Softlemonades (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A few things

Obviously it got a lot about Wikipedia and the edit history wrong, all easy for anyone to check. But a few things stood out

1. The article says one of the images the hackers used was Yuri Gagarin
2. In the manifesto linked from the article, theres a paragraph that mentions some very off topic things

In order

1. Yuri Gagarin
2. Alan Shepard
3. John Glenn
4. FAI definitions

These all stuck out to me from the edit history of IP editors that Id looked at and reported before as suspected sock puppets most sharing an interest in Cyber Anakin and several edit warring over it. A bunch of the IP editors share these space special interests

1. 2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 made edits about Alan Shepard and FAI definitions diff, made another edit to a section about Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard and FAI definitions diff, and then made another half dozen edits about Yuri Gagarin several of them mentioning Alan Shepard and FAI definitions diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff
2. 84.54.13.148 is proxy blocked and started their editting with their only non-Cyber Anakin edit, one about the Space Age diff
3. 209.45.76.18 is proxy blocked and all their edits were on Draft:FAI definition of human spaceflight and the talk page. The draft talks about FAI definitions, Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, and a website defacement by Anonymous citing Taiwan News. That Taiwan News article was written by the same person who wrote the article that started this Section and it cites the same "Anonymous representative" Allez-opi_omi. The article said that the hackers brought up Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, John Glenn and FAI definitions which looks confirmed when I check the linked statement from the hackers. That statement also brings up an old NPOV Noticeboard archive about the space race, Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard and FAI definitions
4. 45.136.197.235 is proxy blocked and started their editing with an edit about human spaceflight programs and Alan Shepard in a section that mentioned John Glenn diff, another edit talked about Alan Shepard and FAI definitions diff
5. 23.234.252.225 is proxy blocked and started their editing with the history of spaceflight, one of them about Yuri Gagarin and FAI definitions in a section that mentions Alan Shepard and John Glenn diff
6. 193.163.116.5 started their editing with three edits about spaceflight records, two of them involving Yuri Gagarin and one being a selfrevert diff diff
7. 31.192.235.50 is proxy blocked and started their editing in spaceflight mentioning Alan Shepard and FAI definitions diff. They also brought up Yuri Gagarin on the Cyber Anakin Talk page in the same comment that said theyd use "unlimited proxies" and that "we are legion". diff We are legion is part of the Anonymous slogan

These are just a lot of really specific coincidences. I dunno what they mean, or if it means anything that an IP editor temporarily blocked for disruptive editing about Cyber Anakin also started their editing with two edits about the history of spaceflight, one in a section about Alan Shepard diff diff

I didnt see or look for any sign of bad faith in the space based edits and Im not trying to imply it. But the hackers choice of graphics and words reminded me of something really specific that I remembered seeing a lot of the IP editors from the SPI also sharing. So I looked at my old report and checked their edit histories again. And with Allez-opi_omis longterm interest in Wikipedia and the "throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks" approach to the harassment campaign GeneralNotability described before apparently escalating, I thought it was a good idea to make notes and share them. Softlemonades (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Heh. I have my suspicions for who the IP editor is, though I won't say on wiki for obvious reasons. Amusingly some of that was strengthened by the manifesto, and some off-wiki comments I've seen made by I believe the same person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sideswipe9th and Softlemonades, they have been to zh as well (zh:Special:Contributions/71.14.221.120). Mys_721tx (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article has been edited and looking at both seems to say that Cyber Anakin is one of the "team members" responsible for the new defacements and article.

Original: They claimed that the hack into China's law enforcement website and Mino Space interface had been carried out in "light mode" as one of its team members had come down with "your COVID Pro Max."

New: They claimed that defacements of China's law enforcement website and Mino Space interface were a "re-hack" in "lite mode," following a more extensive attack carried out from Feb. 28 to March 4 after "Annie" (Cyber Anakin) had come down with "your COVID Pro Max." Softlemonades (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Inquiry

Do you mind telling me which LTA these two IPs are being used by? Pinging Drmies who they also clearly have a beef with. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know. There's a longtime soccer vandal in that area of Portugal, but this is a proxy so it could be anyone. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I dunno what an LTA is or what those IPs are, sorry Softlemonades (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:LTA; for some reason they named you directly in their edit, and indirectly referenced Drmies in the last line of that section with accusations of criminal activity. That said there are a lot of LTAs out there so it can be hard to tell, guess I'll have to do source searches later to see if they spammed any other targets. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see it now. If you havent yet see also User_talk:Softlemonades#UnBlocked and User_talk:Softlemonades#Did_you_see_we_made_Taiwan_News Softlemonades (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit when I have time, probably tomorrow. I must confess, I have a habit of scrolling past all the sections on user talk pages except the ones I'm directly involved in to save time, sorry for not catching the stuff right above this earlier. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm referenced, indirectly or not, and honestly I don't really care. Those kinds of vandals, they think they're really important and they have a mission of some kind or other, but they don't matter and I'm not going to waste my time on it. If there are articles where they frequently appear, we can semi-protect them, and we can of course block the IPs those cowards use, though there's plenty of proxies in the world. At some point they may get tired of their childish games. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Alert_to_IP_posting_links_to_Taiwannews. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

As of right now, based upon insource checks for three of their preferred links there are no uses in mainspace, see [1], [2], [3]. However, until quite recently they were in use on at least List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. The removal (and prior insertion) by a proxy is consistent with past GHBH behavior by this sockmaster, and the timing suggests they are monitoring this page. I suspect more removals occurred using other proxy IPs on different pages, waiting until our attention shifts to re-add.

I took the better part of an hour this morning to do a deep dive here; I have some other things to attend to, but I'll try to post my findings when I get some time. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Break

Thanks for bearing with me Softlemonades. I've prepared this primarily for you since Drmies is quite used to dealing with internet crazy people already, though I suppose knowing an LTAs tells can still help socks get tossed into the drawer more quickly. I expect I'll be on another weeks long wikibreak soon, and so won't be of much help in the immediate future. However if even an extremely rusty old dog like myself can pick up on the scent, I doubt any of our active and practiced RCP and sockhunting types will have any trouble.

Extended content

I'm not 100% certain it's all the work of one user though it's possible, but clearly there's only a single mens rea behind this all, even if some proxy editors have been employed (Note: the sockmaster claims to have hired friends to proxy edit [4]). That aside, policy is clear that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets so it doesn't matter. The evidence that this is Bugmenot123123123 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is clear and convincing (probably not the original master, but convenient for filing purposes). Without needing to read the discussions in full, the similarity in style between old discussions (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and more recent ones (7, 8, 9, 10, 11) would be enough to raise suspicion on its own, along with similar focus on the Streisand effect see 12, and the exact same anonymous related targets. They've also been pinging and leaving {{please see}} messages on the pages of many of the same people. Long disjointed talk page posts, and edit-warring, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], are also consistent, but so many sockmasters share those last two that they don't mean much. The clear and convincing portion really comes from recent efforts to conceal discussions that didn't go their way by NOINDEXing them. See [12], [13], [14], and just recently [15]. That doesn't actually work since it doesn't hide them from our internal search engine, and archives are often accessed directly anyway, but the sockmaster clearly didn't know that (or rather won't know that until they read this discussion). See also, old attempts to remove portion of a discussion [16] and more recent ones [17] (confirmed sock doing the same thing) But what really clinches it is the use of transwiki. Transwiki is an exceedingly obscure feature that even many long-time active editors are unaware of. BMN123 was indeffed on WikiVersity (and later g-locked) for using it to bypass Wikipedia's deletion process and subsequently attempting to transwiki the content back. The current Cyber Anakin article was transwiki'd here from testwiki. The odds of two random unrelated users attempting to get the exact same niche content here using that exact same obscure feature are essentially nil. Incomplete list of the sockmasters targets, to either avoid or watchlist as you deem prudent Anonymous related Cyber Anakin Hacktivism List of security hacking incidents Timeline of events associated with Anonymous Timeline of Internet conflicts Cyberterrorism Data breach Nival (company) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Assassination of Kim Jong-nam International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Information Satellite Systems Reshetnev Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack IT Army of Ukraine Crocus City Mall Rutube Space Race related Space Race Space Age Timeline of the Space Race Timeline of space exploration Project Mercury History of spaceflight Human spaceflight programs Timeline of rocket and missile technology Timeline of astronomy Monkeys and apes in space Animals in space List of spaceflight records 1961 in spaceflight (January–June) 1961 in science 1962 in science History of aviation 1961 in aviation The space related edits sometimes have NPOV and SYNTH issues, but aren't really as much of a concern. This reddit post may be of interest in understanding the connection between the two disparate areas of focus, and was previously used as a ref, but has since correctly been removed. Canvassing is extensive, and occurs both off-wiki, and crosswiki. It seems they previously believed that disclosure made this valid (e.g. [18]) which they later attempted to hide (I spot checked three, and all had pointers left by different proxies). It's also possible they were only disclosing a fraction to give the appearance of openness which may equally apply to all the other announced canvassing in that discussion. Some invitees are perennial, others are selected because the sockmaster believes they will be supporters (in that particular case from having either previously supported the use of Taiwan News, or because of old beefs with you and Sideswipe9th which explains the invite to Cambial Yellowing given past history) other picks appear to be randomly added to conceal the actual targets of the canvassing that have been seeded in. Concealing their actual target among others is a common tactic (one that is likely to increase following this post) see for example the placement of death notices on other targets by in this sequence to try and make the connection less obvious. I read through #UnBlocked above, so I needn't warn you about their tendency to harass opponents. I'll only add that they have also been trying to impersonate you [19], [20], [21], while claiming the reverse. They've been harassing opponents for years, see [22] and [23], so I doubt their behavior will change anytime soon (but I suppose I could ask politely). There's some occasional GHBH behavior, along with periodic self-reverts to sow confusion, it's also possible that the sockmaster just loses track of which browser window is supposed to running the good hand and the bad hand. See 1, 2, 3. The sockmaster has an interest in WikiEd, has requested it's involvement in disputes [24], and earlier restored a WikiEd template after it was subst'd following a TFD [25] (note again how the sockmaster tried to conceal their target by repeating the action on other pages). The article was previously selected as WikiEd couse material, [26]. While edits are primarily through IP socks using proxies occasionally accounts are also use along with public IPs see 1, and 2 (the crosswiki edits are what confirm the second one). additional curiosities There are at present three VRTS tickets [27] where Taiwan News articles were released under an appropriate license. All three articles were written by the same author, and all three of them were released (quite promptly by VRTS standards) under a compatible license after the sockmaster had made some edits that were reverted for being copyright violations. See notices on 1, 2, and 3. A number of off-wiki accounts are attempting to increase the prominence of some articles by the same author. For a sample see [28], [29], [30], [31]. I suspect others have noticed even more. Note, allez-opi_omi has been given as the source of the Taiwan News articles. I don't want to offer any conclusions here but it is all easily confirmable public knowledge. There is a some measure of irony in the sockmaster's efforts to cover up the connection to their old accounts by noindexing, along with their employment of transwiki in an attempt to avoid scrutiny on a new article, making it possible to confirm all of this; Streisand effect indeed. I suppose in turn they can derive some satisfaction from knowing that your edits to Cyber Anakin along with those of Sideswipe9th are the only thing preventing it from being G5 eligible. I suggest you make an LTA page that can be referred to in AIV reports as otherwise this editor can be a huge timesink, and they are likely to keep targeting you as long as you edit these topics. Global blocks and locks can be requested at meta:SRG. Again that will be facilitated with an LTA page so the stewards can quickly reference to confirm lock-evasion. If this escalates further you can also always contact Trust and Safety (cawikimedia.org).

I'll conclude by pinging @Sro23 and Coltsfan: who had old dealings with this sockmaster, and @General Notability and Sideswipe9th: who've had more recent ones to see if they have anything to add. If it's any solace, having internet crazy people start to follow you around is kind of like a rite of passage for anyone doing RCP work, and most of us are just fine. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This is very thorough, and definitely lines up with much of what I know about this editor. There's some useful stuff in here that I missed on the behavioural side, and there's a couple of behavioural things I suspect you might have noticed but didn't mention. Again, I'm happy to discuss that privately with a CU if it can help us more easily deal with this editor(s) disruptions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There were a few behavioral tells I left out since the sockmaster will try to change them if I post them publicly. I can provide them privately to a functionary if requested, but I believe this should be sufficient for now. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that was my thought on leaving em out. Guess I was too vague with my vagueness! :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems really complete, thanks

Any advice on best things to do for making an LTA page? Ive never spent time there before Softlemonades (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily any one way to do it, so long as it helps the admins and stewards ID the LTA quickly. You can start by turning Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bugmenot123123123 blue. {{Infobox Wikipedia vandal}} can go at the top. Then go for a broad overview, before diving into habitual behaviors and targets. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List has many examples you can work from; as with an article, once it's off the ground you can work collaboratively with other users to finesse it, especially the sysops most familiar with the case. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Softlemonades (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Enlace Hacktivista moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Enlace Hacktivista, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It already has more than three and your decision to start suddenly patrolling my pages after I got community support to recreat one you had deleted is a bit odd Softlemonades (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Softlemonades! Your additions to Julian Assange have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont think I violated copyright but I cant see the edits youre talking about so I cant really respond. The quotes I included were quotes of people not article quotes Softlemonades (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There were some quotes, but there was also some surrounding prose that was copied. — Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It wasnt what I thought it was and youre right, it needed to be edited and rewritten more. Ill make it better

Thanks again for the CopyPatrol link. I didnt know about that, and if I make another mistake itll help me re do it the right way Softlemonades (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI about page restriction

Hi Softlemonades, and thank you for your edits at Julian Assange. In case you don't know, or it slipped your mind, the page is under both a 1RR and a consensus required restriction. I believe your second revert qualifies under the BLP exception for both, but I figured I'd drop a note in case you'd rather not be in the grey area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi thanks for saying something. I thought it was clear BLP vandalism and already decided so it would be ok and reported the IP after the second revert. Should I not? With a page like this is it better to stay out of the grey area? Softlemonades (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I might have done it myself! If you're planning on claiming an exemption, make sure to say so. See WP:3RRNO: "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Softlemonades. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit to Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Similar to the previous case. It's okay to copy brief quotations, but don't copy the surrounding prose. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julian Assange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Election interference.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Fuerzas Represivas" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fuerzas Represivas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 17 § Fuerzas Represivas until a consensus is reached. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Ratner Kunstler

User:Onel5969: "article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Italic 2A02:9B0:4069:37E3:FCBC:4670:7057:8BCD (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Your edit to Julian Assange has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa Julian Assanges essay is public domain or whatever its called, Wired is not the original source [32] [33]

It iss a blockquote that is DUE and quoted in several RS

These kinds of quotes are normal Talk:Julian_Assange#Trafigura_report_and_super-injunction Softlemonades (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

There's several problems with your statement.

• I didn't remove the block quote.
• The content I did remove is not present in the essay, but is present in the source article (at The Monthly.com). What I removed was a sentence about child pornograhy that was an exact match for the source document and was not withinin quotation marks or a block quote template. It is the sentence beginning "On the cypherpunks list he defended ..."
• The essay is not in the public domain. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright.

— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply!

I couldnt tell what you removed because the diffs are gone, so I looked at the report like you showed me before and assumed

Ok, good to know and easy fix

Ok, thank you

Thank you for being patient with me Softlemonades (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Enlace Hacktivista

Hello, Softlemonades. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Enlace Hacktivista, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Assange copyvio

Hello. "copyvio" is not cured by attribution. Without attribution it's plagiarism but on WP we still do not quote large blocks of text selected by editors. More specifically to address your edit summary however, I followed the 3 references for that section and nowhere is that text signed or attributed to Assange. It may well be his words and he may have published them for free use, but if so we need to document both those indicators before publishing it on WP. In this case, I also think it's UNDUE to quote that long bit rather than determine what the RS narrative tells us about his early thought and the ideological basis for his undertakings. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I followed the 3 references for that section and nowhere is that text signed or attributed to Assange Yes it is

In "Conspiracy as Governance," which Assange posted to his blog in December 2006, the leader of then-new WikiLeaks describes what he considered to be the most effective way to attack a conspiracy---including, as he puts it, that particular form of conspiracy known as a political party. ... And how to induce that "organisational stupor?" Foment the fear that any correspondence could leak at any time. "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive 'secrecy tax') and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation." Wired

The promise is fulfilled in a blog entry of 31 December 2006. Here he outlines finally the idea at the core of the WikiLeaks strategy.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in the leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive ‘secrecy tax’) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance. The Monthly

And IQ.org was Assanges website like you can see here [34] that also has the quote Softlemonades (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they are not his words -- I don't know. But it is not verified by the sources. It may be verified by what his followers know or believe to be true, but if so it should be easy to find RS to point our readers to the source for verification. As it stands, the quote is not verified by the sources and there's nothing to indicate much about the self-published website IQ. The other reason I gave in my edit summary is that we as WP editors should not be picking what long quote of Assange's should have the most NPOV WEIGHT on his short bio page. after all these years, there is abundant secondary and tertiary coverage and we should use the central narratives of RS to describe his early ideology and its relationship to Wikileaks' early program and undertakings. I'm surprised the editors on the article talk page don't make some effort to improve this key section rather than to repeat immaterial deflections. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The RSes attribute it to Assange, Cambial verified that Softlemonades (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you care to invest the time. i suggest you examine the cited sources yourself. They do not verify the content, and the UNDUE problem would remain even if verified. It's disappointing they would not find adequate sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If you care to invest the time. i suggest you examine the cited sources yourself. They do not verify the content I did and they do, and other editors already siad that Softlemonades (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's put a pin in that verification problem for the time being, since as I said I have no reason to believe that with better references it could be verified to be his words. That still leaves the significant issue of using an editor-selected primary extract from a lengthy manifesto that is of seminal importance to Assange's life story. That passage was added nearly 10 years ago at a time when the article was in very poor shape with editor-curated content much of which lacked NPOV WEIGHT in RS. If that is the most significant principle of Assange's early work, there will be abundant RS secondary and tertiary sourcing that establish its noteworthiness for the narrative of our WP page. I don't see anyone working on finding the central NPOV mainstream narrative as to Assange's foundational early views. Once such sources and depictions are found, the text can be improved and the other 2 issues become moot. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That still leaves the significant issue of using an editor-selected primary extract

If that is the most significant principle of Assange's early work, there will be abundant RS secondary and tertiary sourcing that establish its noteworthiness for the narrative of our WP page

The RSes highlighted and qouted the quote. One RS called it Assanges endgame Other editors have told you its fine. Make your arguments on the Assange Talk page, not here Softlemonades (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your response. I thought we had worked well together for many years -- if I had you confused with somebody else, my apologies. With all respect, however, my visit here isn't what's meant by forumshopping, and that's a loaded term that should be used wisely. Best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought we had worked well together for many years And Cambial and I have argued for the two years Ive been here but this time we agree

my visit here isn't what's meant by forumshopping No but continuing here might be, so I think we should go back to the main page especially since youre talking about NPOV and DUE WEIGHT now. We dont need to talk about it without the others Softlemonades (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Technical note

Hi Softlemonades. A brief technical note that will help other editors looking at your work. I notice that sometimes you use refnames like "author-name-year", and other times refnames like ":1". It will be helpful to page maintenance if you can change to the former type when you repeat a reference (I personally use a shortened version e.g. Smi23, Man11). This is also the guidance at WP:INLINECLUTTER: Repeated citations - To help with page maintenance, it is recommended that the text of the name have a connection to the inline citation or footnote, for example "author year page" and the how-to guide at WP:REFNAME: Try to avoid picking a name that someone else is likely to choose for a new citation, such as ":0" or "NYT".

I know visual editor initially autogenerates the ":1" type names. If you could change them when you first reuse a citation that will be helpful to identifying sources in wikitext. Thanks! Cambial — foliar❧ 11:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If you could change them when you first reuse a citation that will be helpful to identifying sources in wikitext I will try to remember. Tell me if you find a visual editor setting Softlemonades (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I know very little about visual editor but if I come across one I will. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We all have a lot to learn

Thanks for taking my comment in good faith. All of us, myself included, can always find ways to become better editors. Heck, I was only active on this account from 2008-2009, and I've been IP lurking ever since, until last month - so I have an awful lot to catch up on.

I want to be clear that I do see the concerns you have with Philomathes' behavior. I have left them a comment on their talk page about the enormity of their comment size, and I hope they will read it and think about it. Just wanted you to know that I wasn't shrugging off your concerns - merely suggesting that the analysis of behavior stay off the Teahouse thread, so that other folks aren't intimidated by it. I'm not an admin or anything, and I hope I'm not stepping over any spoken or unspoken boundaries by attempting to mediate the situation. If I am, please let me know. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Wikileaks into Reception of WikiLeaks. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I didnt even think of that. Thank you so much for pointing it out. Softlemonades (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syria Files, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WikiLeaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357

I notified everyone I mentioned when I posted the WPANI. Here's the one to Philomathes2357. [35] USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted my double notify on Philos talk page. Sorry I didnt see it. I wanted no problems with the report because of something like no user notify Softlem (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for checking. USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Did Philomathes2357 just accuse me of being stupid there? USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Philomathes2357's response is a giant wallotext and mean. Accusing me of having a fixation on them? Someone has ISSUES. USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of mentions of Wikileaks

Is there a reason you are systematically removing mentions of Wikileaks from articles? You appear to be justifying these edits by MOS:OL, but seeing how you are only removing mentions of that specific organisation, I find this suspect. Curious to hear your rational. - Skipple ☎ 03:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Lot of my edits are about Wikileaks. The United States diplomatic cables leak is a better link for the cable references and explains Wikileaks

A lot of the pages only link to Wikileaks so I am replacing those links. Some link to Wikileaks and United States diplomatic cables leak and Diplomatic cable and Classified which is obviously MOS:OL example diffs [36] [37] [38]

I am leaving links that are obviously WP:DUE Softlem (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit removing the mention of Wikileaks from Neera Tanden but leaving behind "Neera Tanden said", you created the inaccurate impression that Tanden publicly made a very controversial series of statements. This mention of Wikileaks was not UNDUE but an important part of the meaning of the sentence. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

you created the inaccurate impression that Tanden publicly made a very controversial series of statements I dont agree but will remember

This mention of Wikileaks was not UNDUE but an important part of the meaning of the sentence This mention of Wikileaks was contradicted by the source In an October 2011 email conversation with Faiz Shakir leaked to The Intercept [39] and my summary didnt say it was UNDUE Softlem (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was mistaken about that particular leaked private email coming from Wikileaks. Thanks for fixing it! I am glad you agree that the "private email" part of the sentence is an important qualifier of "Neera Tanden said." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Because its been a few days Im going to look at the other 200 times by Wikileaks and cables are close in text for links I can make better with United States diplomatic cables leak link. Ill try to explain better in edit summary and will follow BRD like with HouseOfChange Softlem (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

angela goethals

what's it going to take for wikipedia to add at angela bethany goethals's bio,

that her date of birth is may 20 1977 and that she has been married to russell soder since 2005 and that she has 2 kids?

because that is very important information that you are leaving out at her wikipedia biography, wikipedia. Robby mercier (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to supply reliable sources that prove that this is the case. Without them nothing will happen. And don't complain on every board you can find, people will just end up ignoring you. Provide reliable sources to support the information you wish to add and list them on the article talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)