Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/December 2021–February 2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration



21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Rockcreed

M, are you sure that Rockcreed (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) is a sockpuppet of Heres The Dealio (Special:Permalink/1060363778)? Results from the CheckUser tool for Heres The Dealio have been not as useful as I'd like (cue calls of  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust etc), and the behavioural elements aren't the same – while this may be a case of handing, I'm not terribly convinced. HTD has used and discarded socks in quick succession, creating attack redirects. While I wouldn't have made the redirects that Rockcreed made, they aren't completely outside the bounds of reason. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Yes, I am relatively convinced that Rockcreed is a sockpuppet of Heres The Dealio. You're correct that CU results for this sockmaster have not been as conclusive as other sockmasters, and this particular account has not attacked specific individuals as previous accounts have. Nevertheless, there are several behavioral elements that are quite suspicious to me. Firstly, the account's early edits consist entirely of trivial edits (e.g. [4][5])—this is characteristic of the kind of autoconfirmed gaming that Heres The Dealio ordinarily performs in their userspace, but this time it seems like they could be putting in more effort to trying a new tactic. As soon as they made 12 edits in this fashion to become autoconfirmed, they created the following redirects:
Accordingly, I see this conforming to a similar general pattern of "gaming autoconfirmed then creating nonsensical redirects" that Heres The Dealio socks tend to follow. Creating a redirect in itself is a rather technical action on Wikipedia that I would not expect a brand new editor to be familiar with on their first day, and after I blocked Rockcreed, in their unblock request they accused me of "wikihounding", which is a rather esoteric Wikipedia term that I would not expect an innocent, brand-new editor to be familiar with. Additionally, Rockcreed shares the same IP address that Quotemeyo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) used on November 19—admittedly, the IP address is shared and could be used by multiple people, but when combined with the behavioral idiosyncrasies, I think this is suspicious enough to block. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Thank you for explaining, M. Part of me hopes that you're right, because the alternative is that an innocent person has been blocked with little chance of being unblocked: in the aftermath of the Eostrix motion, I indicated some of my scepticism with regards to our sockpuppetry blocks and how many of them are irreversible without admissions of guilt (as an aside, even Alford pleas would not work). Those redirects that Rockcreed created had come up on my radar, but they seemed to be South Park references and things more suited to RfD, which made me leave them alone.
I'm not convinced that HTD would change tack. They've been doing the same thing over and over again for over two-and-a-half years, with very little variation – creation of their userpage and talk page, then eight (and only eight, unlike this account's twelve) edits to their sandbox. They're here purely for disruption, with zero attempts to mask their actions: an effort to pull the wool over our eyes seems out of the question to me. I'm not sure what I can say for the hounding allegations or other elements, but that's how it looks to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: I appreciate you reaching out to me with your concerns. I would agree that it's generally true that users who are blocked for sockpuppetry have very little chance of being unblocked without admitting guilt, but in this case, I feel open to being persuaded. If another administrator (preferably a checkuser) reviewing the block also feels that there is insufficient evidence here to sustain the block, I would not have loud objections to an unblock. You bring up valid points about how this account's behavior does not match the typical pattern of Heres The Dealio. For me, I felt that there were too many coincidences for my comfort, but on the other hand, there is indeed a possibility that the behavioral and technical similarities are just that: coincidences. I noticed that a couple checkusers have already reviewed Rockcreed's unblock requests, but I'll see if I can ping another one tomorrow morning for another look with your thoughts in mind. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for going the extra mile, Mz7. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, Mz7 asked me to take a look at this. Technically, I'd say  Likely or better - they share an IP with an obvious HTD sock, though that IP could be fairly dynamic. Also, they have identical (reasonably common) useragents. On the surface the behavior is similar (gaming AC to make a redirect) though there are some key differences (prefer not to go into detail publicly) as well as the already-noted fact that they didn't create an attack redirect. I believe there is room for doubt as to whether they're the same person, but to be honest I probably would have made the same block on this evidence - again, shared IP, identical UA, similar behavior. It might be worth hearing an appeal from this person, but even if they aren't HTD, I have major doubts about whether there is any value in unblocking them given their obvious NOTHERE behavior. Of course, "we incorrectly blocked you as a sock but we're pretty sure you're guilty of something" isn't a great way to operate... GeneralNotability (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: Thank you both for looking (and re-looking) into the issue. To be honest, I don't think we'll be "hearing an appeal from this person" anymore. Two appeals have already been made and were rejected by different CheckUsers (as noted by Mz7 above); if a person reasonably familiar with SPI couldn't argue for their innocence, I doubt they'd make much headway (a sobering thought for me). Speaking of new accounts looking NOTHERE, it's led me to dig through my talk page history, which had an ignominious start, being reverted by ClueBot NG and getting into an edit war in the first fortnight. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

An IP sock

This IP 107.127.14.78 is a sockpuppet of this user 63.225.82.47. 68.193.199.8 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Remitbuber

Elcobbola, who doesn't appear to be around, CU-blocked Kympubs as an unidentified LTA. I'm fairly certain Kympubs is Remitbuber but it's not as obvious as I'd like. Can you check? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I found some intersection with Greta Thunberg and confirmed sock Gibra191, so I'm more satisfied now behaviorally and have blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bbb23:  Confirmed to Remitbuber. I requested a global lock. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.


This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks

Hi Mz7! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Express regret

Hello, sir. I wanted to ask a question about blocking people and users on Wikipedia. If a user on Wikipedia behaves illegally and is blocked, is there a way to fix this block? It is possible for him to make a commitment that he will no longer behave illegally and to express remorse 31.184.141.70 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For more information about requesting that blocks be lifted, please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Mz7 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Just dropping in to say hello Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Mz7, do you know this person?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No. Mz7 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thetruthisthere13 sockpuppet investiation

Hi, I recently came across this edit from Thetruthisthere13, which seems to prove that Thetruthisthere13 is indeed another sockpuppet of RK777713 / Ryan Kavanaugh, as he states that the Ryan Kavanaugh article "created a false narrative and false image of me". The account has been classified as possilikely a sockpuppet, but I believe this new evidence could classify it as confirmed. I'm not sure if it warrants reopening the investigation so I'd like to get advice from you on what to do about it, if anything at all. Thanks. --Swift502 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm only commenting here because it appears you closed the investigation. I hope it's not inappropriate. --Swift502 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Swift502, I have already blocked the Thetruthisthere13 account as a suspected sockpuppet, so I don’t think any additional action is needed. Please let me know if you identify any other accounts that may be sockpuppets. Mz7 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mz7: 👍 --Swift502 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

27.63.192.154

Am I being overly suspicious or does this IP match Phoenix man? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I agree, inquiring about a long-deleted article about an obscure topic created by a sockpuppet does indeed look suspicious. I would keep an eye on the IP, and if it becomes clearer through the behavior that this is more block evasion, we can give a block. Mz7 (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Mz7, I thought it was also weird that they did a successful ping and signed their comments. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the perm added. I appreciate it. Have a good day. Th78blue (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Impressively worded, thoughtful !vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

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

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

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)