User talk:Yamla/Archive 34

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hog Farm
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration
 * The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pcsmrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyedit (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks, blocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mohammed Foiz Uddin
This user does not seem to exist. Are you sure you created the correct page? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2603:8000:ea43:f8f5::/64
I've turned off TPA for this range, after far too much stupid pestering. I usually don't do this for ranges, and I don't have the same understanding of IPv4 and IPv6. Do you think this is problematic? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A /64 block for IPv6 normally maps to a single user. There are obviously some exceptions, just like a full IPv4 address is sometimes multiple people (or, historically, entire countries, ahem). Without going back to the technical data in this case, I think it's blatantly obvious that it's just a single person in this case. I strongly endorse your TPA revocation here and thanks for doing it! --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename my account?
Requested User: Alibino Reason- using this account more than my main because I use school WiFi OmegySock (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that username is unavailable. Please follow WP:RENAME when you've decided on a different username and someone will be happy to process your rename! --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Superfanpedia
Hi Yamla -- you've shown great patience on Superfanpedia's talk page dealing with their unblock requests. However, given this edit where the user effectively impersonated Ponyo, I believe they are WP:NOTHERE (and probably a long-term troll, though I have no direct evidence of that) and TPA should probably be revoked. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mohammed Foiz Uddin
This user does not seem to exist. Are you sure you created the correct page? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice you have deleted it already. Thanks! 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for pointing it out. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

UTRS
Sorry about that, I forgot to push something this morning. The error should be fixed. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for letting me know! --Yamla (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No imagination
= . Amazing lack of imagination. Thank you, Yamla. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Pretty much a slam-dunk. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a soft block on 152.26.0.0/16
Hello, My school IP range is hard blocked, because even with anon-only enabled, I cannot log in. Can you soften the block? Shiny edit bonjour. 14:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That IP address range is already soft-blocked. The block is "anon. only", meaning you should be able to log in and edit from it. Note that you may be affected by another range block; I'm only specifically talking about 152.26.0.0/16. --Yamla (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try when my cohort goes back. Shiny edit bonjour. 14:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A user has admitted to block evasion but an admin refuses to block because I didn't go to SPI?
Yamla, you blocked User:Greenock125 in November last year for copyright violations et al. They have continued block evading using Special:Contributions/109.157.209.225, and after I confronted them on their talk page, admitted to it (as evidenced by their replies on User talk:109.157.209.225). I brought this to Cabayi's attention, but Cabayi seems to be trying to make this about me and what I should do to keep a central record of Greenock125's actions and repeated block evasion, and so has refused to block them thus far even after their admission. I don't know if you follow this line of thinking but hopefully you don't and will block them outright. Thank you.  Ss  112   09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yamla, I've relented and filed a new report: Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125. If Cabayi has not reviewed it by the time you are online, can you please review and hopefully block accordingly at your earliest convenience? Thank you.  Ss  112   10:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by Cabayi. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

MRunco1
Yeah go for it.©Geni (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Darubrub
I've removed the Retired template you placed on the user page for them. He's trying to use "retirement" as the reason for a username change which would be contrary to global policy which requires "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct". I hope I'm not treading on toes there. Cabayi (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections. I'm curious, though. You mention a username change. Where do you see that? This user certainly shouldn't be renamed, due to recent sockpuppetry and vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's on the global rename queue at m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/73673/view - Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good rejection, and I'm disappointed in them. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It works!
My school IP works! Shiny edit bonjour. 12:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TJMSmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Page mover/delete-redirect.
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
 * There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news
 * When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
 * When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
 * There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (T275322).

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of talk page access
Hi, Yamla. A few months ago I received an email from an administrator who expressed concern about what he considered to be your excessive readiness to remove talk page access from blocked editors. At the time I didn't take much notice of the message, but since then I have on numerous occasions seen that you have removed talk page access under circumstances where I think few if any other administrators would have done so. Most recently I have seen the user account "Jargo_Nautilus", where you removed talk page access without, so far as I can see, giving any explanation other than an edit summary which said "tpa revoked. WP:CIR concerns here, in addition to WP:OUTING". The blocking policy says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page". On this occasion the editor had made three edits since being blocked, all of them being good-faith unblock requests. It is true that there were problems with those requests, not least the fact that the first two were completely off-topic because the editor had misunderstood the reason for the block, for which the blocking administrator had given barely any explanation. The editor's last post acknowledged that the previous two had been based on misunderstanding of the block reason, and did address the reason for the block, in a perfectly reasonable manner. I absolutely cannot see how that could be regarded as "continued abuse of their user talk page", nor even as abuse of their user talk page. As I have already indicated, this is not an isolated incident: you have a persistent habit of removing talk page access from editors who have not been persistently abusing talk page access. I suggest that you should carefully reconsider your practice in this matter, and perhaps be more cautious about removing talk page access. Also, it would help if you were to give clearer explanations for doing so. It may be that, at least some of the times, you do in fact have good reasons which are not obvious to me.

To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I should like to emphasise that this is not about the merits either of the block or of the unblock requests. Personally I believe that the editor has been highly disruptive and unconstructive, and should not be unblocked. However, that does not mean justify removing talk page access. JBW (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JBW, I deeply respect your opinion. I will take this to heart and not revoke TPA except in cases where the abuse is absolutely blatant (for example, posting porn or some of the actions of other long-term abusers). I'm quite happy to leave TPA revocation to the next reviewing admin in other cases. You are correct that I'm more willing to revoke TPA than others. While I think I've generally been in the right in such cases, the point is that you don't and that's a significant sign that I am simply mistaken, that I am objectively in the wrong. I'm happy to change my approach. I'm not meaning this to be the end of the discussion. If you'd like me to elaborate further, I'm happy to do so. If you think I'm missing the point, let's discuss further. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfamiliar
My brain hurts at the moment and I'm not up to my usual sock spotting abilities. You previously blocked this user as a sock of lostonmyway. I don't see much in the way of details that make it easy to spot so figured you'd be the person to ask about this. I suspect (strongly) that this is the same person based on their familiarity with the project and some crosswiki overlap. Thoughts? CUPIDICAE💕 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also since you're familiar as well. sorry, i'm on day 6 of a never ending migraine  CUPIDICAE💕  16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lostonmyway socks should edit war relentlessly over the nationality of British films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add here. I'm not sufficiently familiar with this particular user, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion
Please block - block evasion of globally locked. -- Ashley yoursmile!  17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been blocked, sorry to bother you. Ashley  yoursmile!  17:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was fast! Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

PizzaHutWadsworth
You declined this user's unblock request using the standard decline template, but given the content of the unblock request itself, this is a blatant sock of Pcgmsrich. You might want to do something about that. (I swear that LTA doesn't even try to cover their tracks). 192.196.218.211 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably correct, but what makes you think so? The pattern matches closely to prior Pcgmsrich socks, but not exactly in my memory. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, given the second now-declined unblock request, I'm even more positive this is Pcgmsrich. The content of the second unblock request, combined with the first (taken together in context) matches nearly exactly (i.e. essentially just trolling by restating the reason for the block instead of actually making an argument for unblock). As noted above, it seems that this person isn't even trying to cover up his/her/their tracks. 192.196.218.211 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail HELP needed

 * Responded via email (but not with much help, I'm afraid). :) --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Yamla, if in the future I believe there is another sock of AmericanPropagandaHunter, is there an existing SPI I should add it to or create a new report? I'm inexperienced in this area, but given the amount of socking disruption at Uyghur genocide I believe this might come up again. If it would be best if I contact you first for any reason, let me know. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  15:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's hope there's no more sockpuppetry. While the report is still open, you can add information at WP:ANI. Once that closes, please file an SPI. I'm not immediately sure who the original account was, I'm afraid. may know as they blocked  for block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible bug?
I'm thinking we might have a bug somewhere. We're suddenly seeing a lot of IPs complaining about running into range blocks that are not evident from their IPs. User talk:24.253.38.192, User talk:84.117.80.155, User talk:120.29.108.201... Got any thoughts? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I first started seeing this about... a year or so? ago. I brought it up on the noticeboards and was told it was a coincidence. It wasn't. The software added functionality that keeps you blocked for 24 hours if you attempt to edit via a proxy/vpn and then turn it off. So, you'll often see me advising people to disable their proxy/vpn and wait 24 hours, then try again. Most of the time, they've already disabled their proxy/vpn, so you see no block on the current address and get all confused. There's a way to clear the block faster, but WP:BEANS. In the case of, the IP address they list is for totalserversolutions.com, which almost certainly indicates a proxy/vpn. If you'd like more technical information, shoot me an email where I can spill the beans. Note that it's my understanding of how the code works, rather than actually looking at the source code. I don't think there's a problem right now, I think more people are using proxies/vpns. There's a few countries actively blocking Wikipedia right now, but the cases I've seen complaining about this haven't been from users in those countries. --Yamla (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird. Seems like punishment to me rather than protection. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's not clear to me that the 24 hour block is helping in any meaningful way. Then again, I suppose we wouldn't necessarily notice if it was. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why aren't you answering
don't think he has the foggiest (sigh) -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 18:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a shame. :( --Yamla (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 41528
is requesting unblock at. I'd appreciate your feedback and any insights. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 10:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Responded there. --Yamla (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sarawin Saengra
Hi Yamla, I'm ConnickyCock. I've nominated page Draft:Sarawin Saengra for speedily deletion since it redirects to Sarawin Saengra, a page that you deleted. The article, Sarawin Saengra, was deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user in violation of a block or ban. If you have any concerns, you can explain in the article's talk page. -- Connicky Cock  Discuss with Connicky  12:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

DaShita2021
Not to bother you but I wanted to point out that this user is also blocked for their user name, which it appears they were trying to change to something else. 2001:4898:80E8:36:BCF8:7BB3:45F0:823E (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they were doing so disruptively. As I indicated, they are free to make a new unblock request. If they keep on having difficulties, you or I can point them at WP:GAB. But they are not free to falsely claim they are blocked for only 20 minutes, not when doing so involves modifying someone else's comment. --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. 2001:4898:80E8:36:BCF8:7BB3:45F0:823E (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Block needed
Hello Yamla, could you please block as soon as convenient? A report at AIV's been sitting for about 30 minutes with no response. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked! --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Pahunkat (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked hard
Hello. My IP are blocked on a specific language zone. I can't even request an unlock through a unblock function, because in my language zone this is a page, and I'm can't edit it. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.28.13.208 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Different language versions of Wikipedia are different projects, I'm afraid. There's nothing I can do for you on another project. --Yamla (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion
You blocked for one year January 19, 2020 noted as a CheckUser block. A fairly obvious IPv6 DUCK making similar edits with identical ISP and geo stats has popped up as Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700::/64, currently on a 1 week block, blocking admin being unwilling to extend to match the IPv4 block as it is a checkuser block and he states you would need to make that decision. Details here. Unless I am missing something, the IPv4 and IPv6/64 are aliases of each other and somewhat random as to what the ISP allocates on connection, or both are allocated and Wiki software sees the IPv6, for a given line - basically they are the same person. I request you block the IPv6 to match the IPv4 already blocked. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll dig in later today. If I haven't responded by tomorrow, please ping me again! --Yamla (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I extended the block on the ipv6 range to one year. It's almost certainly the same person, but the checkuser evidence isn't 100% conclusive here. Still, the combination of the technical evidence and the behavioural evidence is sufficient in this case. Thanks for letting me know. --Yamla (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Righeira again
Thanks... I thought that was a bit weird! Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Atiq-ur-Rehman (Faisalabad cricketer)
Sorry, but I'm not really seeing no consensus here. Please can you elaborate? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me, that was someone impersonating me. --Yamla (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Apologies, I should have looked closer. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was entirely appropriate for you to bring it to my attention. It would have been strange for me to close the AfD and I wouldn't expect people to check to see if the signature line was faked. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Righeira (Righeira album) -- another sock?
Hi. Another newly created editor prematurely closed the AfD discussion again, see this edit. I reverted it, but you might want to block the editor. I don't think it's worth the time to bother folks over at SPI, and they seem to like parodying your username, so I figured I'd let you know.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by . Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And another: . Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked! --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this needs to be reported anywhere...
They are not threatening me, but themselves. Unsure if this should get reported. Thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 17:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:EMERGENCY. I'll report it. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Wasn't sure.  And btw, I don't think we've ever interacted before and now twice in a day!  Onel 5969  TT me 22:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting categories
Hello, Yamla,

While I understand deleting the work of a sockpuppet, that poses problems when those page creations are category pages. As you can see with Category:Safavid castles, we still have all of the articles that were assigned to this now deleted category that appear here. If you look at Special:WantedCategories, you'll see now that there are many "wanted categories" which were deleted as the work of a sockpuppet. So, now the editors that patrol the Wanted Categories page will end up recreating these categories because while they do not exist, they are still in use.

It's better to list the categories to be deleted at Categories for discussion/Working where a bot can remove all pages in a category and then delete it. It's easier than removing the category manually from hundreds of pages. Alternatively, you could ask the CFD bot operator, JJMC89, for help and he might be able to assist. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. In the future, if this ever happens again, I'll leave the Cat pages. --Yamla (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of page Fin Castle
There was nothing wrong with the content of this page that I know of. Can you please restore the content? If you don't wish to, how about if I restore the content from an archived version? Even if you won't like it, I certainly have the right as an editor in good standing, to do so. Deleting the article was over the top. Sbalfour (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting the article was entirely consistent with the enforcement of a topic ban. Additionally, there's serious concern with the articles created by this user. Rampant copyright violations. You are quite welcome to restore it from an archive or I can draftify it for you, but you will need to take responsibility for vetting it, including the use of the uploaded image, for copyright violations. That's not a threat or anything. You are indeed an editor in good standing and are welcome to do this, I'm just making sure you are clear that you would then be responsible for any resulting copyright violation (for example, by cleaning up any potential copyright violation). You are free to act immediately by restoring the content from an archived version, if you have one available, or let me know if you want me to restore it into an area where you can work on it. --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news
 * When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
 * Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.

Arbitration
 * A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

CheckUser request
Hello there, for whatever timezone you are in.

I'm looking for a CheckUser on the User:Sudipto Surjo. I very strongly suspect this is again a recurrence of the prolific block evading editor User:Aledownload. This user has been involved in sockpuppetry on multiple occassions, one of the last ones being User:Mod Terrik. Aledownload is an Italian editor who is focused on making minor (and often incorrect and disruptive) changes to scifi-franchise articles and also focused on Italian films, usually spaghetti westerns (which creates a nice little different topic overlap that is fairly obvious.) So here's my evidence.


 * Here is the Interaction analyzer for the three mentioned users, the overlaps are quite obvious
 * Both users have edited the article on T.E. Lawrence to add connections to Indiana Jones Sudipto, Ale
 * All are obsessed with overlapping areas mostly Star Wars, Dollars Trilogy, James Bond, Ready Player One film (this is their main Achilles heel, they can't stop from editing it with every sock.)
 * They don't use edit summaries 98% of the time, and don't use talk pages either
 * I've been following this editor through their various socks for a long time, I've learnt to spot them quite well now. When they edit from an IP it's from Milan, Lombardi, Italy

If you don't think this is enough for a CheckUser, then let me know and I'll dig further, but right now they're quacking quite loudly to me. The Star Wars/Ready Player One/Spaghetti western overlap is a massive indicator. Canterbury Tail talk 14:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's enough to file a WP:SPI. The concern here will be if there's any non-stale information for checkusers to take a look at. I expect, but haven't verified, that the previously established accounts are going to be too stale for checkuser here. We sometimes luck out, though, even with accounts that haven't edited in a while. And we do apparently know one of the IP addresses, so we could at least establish if it is plausible. Frankly, though, this looks like there may be enough evidence even without the checkuser info and I'd be interested to hear what an SPI clerk thinks. Might be worth a check for sleeper accounts given the specific timelines, though, plus this might leave enough evidence in the checkuser logs for next time. --Yamla (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually have a few more IP addresses I didn't tag from previous times that I can provide. Personally I'm at this point 95% happy to just go ahead and block as a suspected based off my own quack detection, as I've done previously, but it would be nice to have some more proper confirmations as then we can proceed with getting them tagged as a banned user under WP:3X. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I was Aledownload, Dr. Andrey Smislov and Mod Terrik, I'm absolutely not Sudipto Surjo, believe me! ;-). --151.36.111.104 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC).
 * I was checking that link with the pages that we both modified. It's likely someone pretending to be me. I haven't created any other accounts. --151.36.111.104 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Well thank you for admitting you're still socking, another IP to add to our list. And if you aren't that editor, how come you randomly just happened to check in here? Someone pretending to be you? Pull the other one. Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

IPBE question
I was reading the policy on the exemptions and I'm uncertain why I wouldn't qualify. If the block is intended to keep me from editing, why isn't it applied to my account? As far as I know I'm an editor in good standing. I think the copyright issue is a misunderstanding, as the only discussion about that I've had was regarding my removal of someone else's violation. As far the sock puppet allegation I emailed arbcom after Spartaz approached me and was told they would reach out if there was an issue or more was needed on my end. Right now it seems as if I'm just being prevented from editing from one location. Isn't the ip block exemption there to allow users to bypass a hard block of they are trusted and in good standing?

Please don't read this with a hostile tone, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on. As far as I can tell all of my edits have been constructive, and I do not have and have never had another account. If there are any concerns about divulging something on wiki you're welcome to email me. Thanks for your time, and I appreciate the help you've already given me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that everyone's volunteers here. It'll take some time for the IP block to be resolved one way or another; think days, though, rather than weeks. I have no additional information, as I'm not the blocking admin for that particular IP address. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Original Research in the Care.com Article
Hello, I've been looking at some of your work here and I admire your approach and commitment to dealing with bad faith editors and edits. I've discovered what I believe is a fairly severe violation of Wikipedia guidelines on original research and source reliability. I've posted about it on the article's talk page, but no other editors have responded. Since I am a paid contributor (my COI is declared on the Talk page in multiple places), I am extremely reluctant to just act unilaterally. My hope is that you would be willing to take a look at my description of the problem on the Talk page and offer up an opinion to help get the ball rolling on some type of consensus, not matter what it ends up being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Care.com

Before posting there, I described the situation to two editors I've worked with in the past, and they both agreed that this is a problem at some level. If things remain quiet, I'll also ask them to participate in the Talk page discussion as well. Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of the situation. Please also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahunt#Seeking_Input_on_Original_Research_Issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkissin/Archive_11#Seeking_Input_on_Original_Research_Issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCornelius (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Conversation
May we have a conversation, as I asked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost12345696969 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked to be unblocked, that's why I declined. If you are looking for staff, you'll have a hard time. Administrators and editors here are volunteers, not staff. For example, I am not staff. If you have specific questions, you are welcome to ask. --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay yes, but that is not what I am going to refer to. I'm talking about how you didn't answer what I said on my talk page about a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost12345696969 (talk • contribs)
 * On your talk page, you asked to be unblocked without providing a reason to be unblocked and without being blocked. If that's your question, there's nothing more I can do for you. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please
Can you please unblock me T696969nice (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not blocked. The fact that you can edit this page proves that. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m still not able to edit pages. Whenever I try it clearly states that my account is blocked. T696969nice (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll need to exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Note that a number of pages simply don't permit new users to edit them. In that case, you can follow the instructions in Template:Edit semi-protected to suggest edits on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:282:0:7E80:0:0:0:0/64
IP went right back to editing the same topics as when you CU-blocked it. I've given it another lengthier timeout, but you might want to go fishing (I neither know nor care about the original accounts that you blocked for the CU). Izno (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! I'll take a look later! I wish they'd get the hint, maybe 6 months will be enough. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 42446 aka 0Detail-Attention215
Can your magic glasses show if there is an autoblock or global lock? Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking. --Yamla (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With my magic glasses, I see they should be able to edit now as the block was recently modified by an admin with checkuser access. I'm rather limited in what I'm allowed to say, obviously. I do wish they had followed the instructions they were given, it's rather difficult to help people if they don't tell us what block applies and if their account is not blocked, as was the case here. --Yamla (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why?
Hi, Why did you delete Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 18) which was an article about a current TV series. It had hundreds of genuine edits by editors in good standing. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:G5; most of the content was from a banned user. You are welcome to recreate the article if you wish. --Yamla (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if you are willing to take on the task of cleaning up the content and monitoring to make sure no more ZestyLemonz socks come back, I'd be willing to undelete it. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, either way. I've gone and restored the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Yamla (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Registered account self-disclosing as sock
Hi Yamla, a couple of days ago you declined an unblock request from the disruptive IP user 31.187.7.220. Before being blocked, the IP said "I’m operator of Wiww51" here, and yesterday, Wiww51 said in an edit summary "operated by 31.187.7.220 (official replacement) during their 1-month-block" here. It is clear-cut enough for a block of Wiww51, I think? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's sufficient. I've extended the block on the IP address and blocked the account, both for three months. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Watch your language
Really? That's no way for an admin, let alone a CU admin, to talk. Besides, since the deleted edit seems to be the only edit to that page, why not just delete the entire page? 192.196.218.208 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit in question was grossly, and deliberately, offensive and extremely racist. --Yamla (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question as to why you didn't just delete the page, since the edit in question appears to be the only edit ever made to that page, unless something has been oversighted. 192.196.218.208 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, I can see the reason to keep the content in the history but have it redacted. Per WP:BEANS, I'll leave it at that. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 23:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an odd and obscure page to become interested in, IP. How did you come across it, and why does it matter to you if there are revision-deleted edits there - or if the page is deleted? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Confused
I am confused. I seem to have been pinged by your edit on the talk page of. It appears that you declined an unblock request by Waldron, who seems to be only here to clean up the article on a politician with a questionable record. However, I can't find any mention of myself in your message, and I don;t see any record of having edited either this user's talk page or the article or talk page about the politician. Did you intend to be notifying me of something? I don't think that I have any experience with this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings.

I assume it's probably a mistake, but Wikipedia notified me I have been mentioned in this edit, even though I don't see my name. Is this a mistake? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Responding to both and, that unblock request was a mess. I strongly suspect it's around the templates used by that user. Take a look at how the page renders prior to my review, at . I don't see why either of you should have been pinged, but you were both mentioned as of that revision. There's nothing either of you need to do there, I think it was just a confused unblock request problem with templates. The requesting user wasn't being malicious at all, just using templates in an area they shouldn't have. --Yamla (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Cupcake547
You forgot their alternative account: User:Cupcake547 (alt). I still think there's an earlier master, but, unfortunately, I can't think of who. It's always harder when there are obvious earmarks of socking but at the same time a high degree of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oooh, thanks for pointing that out. I'll go block right away. --Yamla (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Finding important articles
How can I find more important articles to start working on the Wikipedia permanently? Do the admins get paid by contributing to the Wikipedia? Achilles Davenport (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I left some information on your user talk page which should get you started. No, we aren't paid. Basically everyone is a volunteer here, including us admins. --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! I wish you luck! Achilles Davenport (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned on ANI
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
 * The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed to  . This is for technical reasons. You can comment at  if you have objections.

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Pageantopolis
Strange, huh, taking the user name of a defunct domain and inserting archived links to that domain. You think they're saving up E940 while still plugging the website? And how does a new account get a copy of a web page archived in 2005, to insert in an article that wasn't created until 2006? Drmies (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha. Update: Sockpuppet investigations/Jeniferliberman. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Muhammd Fajar
Hi, the blocked user keeps compromising their own talk page. Should something be done? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 08:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can contact the blocking admin, . Muhammd Fajar certainly isn't helping their case. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

CU
& others with the same text? Cabayi (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Responded there. --Yamla (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 - is reverting my changes
Hi,

Bbb23 is reverting all my changes made to David Hamilton's Wiki page. I have been instructed by David Hamilton himself. What do you need from me to probe that, do you want me to setup a Zoom call?
 * No. We want you to refrain from directly editing that page, as you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Once you have properly declared your conflict, you are free to suggest edits on the article's talk page, but should not directly edit the article itself. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)