THC Science

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44

Response to your suggestion on my talk page[edit]

Hey man, I always ensure that I am logged in while editing, you can check the edit log & I have edited the article through my account.. Maybe its the issue where people share the IP address in question,I can assure you that I use my account to edit any article. I just have a single account named "Lord Elzai". Hope this sorts it out. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year in Advance!- LORD ELZAI

SPI check[edit]

Hello @RoySmith: I am asking you for help because you are well aware of this and you have run an SPI check previously.This editor who was until recently indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts [[1]] per spi check Crovata/MF, I am pretty sure that they used different IP addresses during their indefinite blocked phase, like this ip [[2]] example [[3]] which is correspondent with previous editing of the same editor [[4]] which means while indefinite blocked they were editing Wikipedia, note that this editor has been already 2 times indefinite blocked per SPI check [[5]] with resulting both Crovata/MF being indef blocked [[6]] but for some reason on 31.01.2022 unblocked but still it means that they were editing during that time. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 16:47, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. Could I ask that you file a new SPI report? That'll make it easier to process, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have never done it but I will try. I assume I can go on the same page. [[7]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:01, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

You should file your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata, not the archive page. The best way to do this is to enable Wikipedia:Twinkle and use the Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#ARV function. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It is my first time but I did it somehow, it looks terible [[8]] but I hope it will not be ignored.Maybe you could check it since you know them. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:49, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you anyway for your trouble, have a good day. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:41, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

Closed SPI report[edit]

Hi! Sorry for the confusion with regards to this SPI report. As I do not usually edit on the weekends and I was browsing (reading, not editing) Wiki on some other stuff, I misread your reply there and in my haste to reply you, I thought you are asking for the IP editor instead of the account (which there is no new account created but only IP editing). Based on the initial (since corrected) closing reasons for the ANI etc, I used it as a reference for this particular SPI. My apologies for the confusion caused.

After Garfield_3185's ban (see User talk:Garfield 3185), he may have taken on a few accounts (suspected) or mostly via IP editing which was observed by Seloloving and me. This lead to Seloloving's ANI report and subsequently the SPI report I raised.

I understand that SPI will not tie IP address to account but in such cases where IP editor is strongly suspected to be a sock (or block evasion), do I raise a SPI or report to ANI? Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no problem with reporting IPs to SPI. It's just that a CU won't be able to investigate it. It can still be looked at without CU help. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-07[edit]

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Buyeo and more[edit]

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zessede, what is an editor supposed to do if new accounts and anonymous users keep making the same edits? I know you said to wait before continuing the investigation, but the page keeps being attacked in the meantime.

After Zessede, Accplc1213, and Aqww did it (as we discussed at the investigation page), this new anonymous user 220.95.101.209 just removed the references and material from Buyeo. The new ones from this week (Accplc1213, Aqww, 220.95.101.209) are ignoring the attempt to discuss this on Talk:Buyeo while continuing to push their Korean nationalist stance.

Am I supposed to keep moving the page back to its original version until this person get bored and stops? Several other editors were also undoing the new Korean nationalist accounts and anonymous users for the past year. I don't mean to sound frustrated, but there must be some other way than having to go back to check the newest account ignoring everyone else to remove the academic mainstream (Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, De Gruyter, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Antiquity (journal), Asian Affairs, ...).

Thanks again for the help you have already given and any more advice that you might offer. MGetudiant (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess Esiymbro just changed it back, so Buyeo is back to normal. But regard my question above as one on general procedure on how to handle the new accounts. Should I keep changing the page back to normal until there is enough evidence to restart the investigation? MGetudiant (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@MGetudiant I'm semi-protected Buyeo which should give some relief. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me so quickly. What exactly does that mean? MGetudiant (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

To more specifically answer your question, reverting makes sense (even if it does get old pretty quickly). Once my page protection expires (in a month), keep an eye on that page. If problems persist, asking at WP:RFPP to have the protection extended will probably be a faster way to get a response than at SPI, which tends to be pretty slow. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@MGetudiant My apologies for speaking in techno-jargon. There's several different levels of protection that can be applied to a page. The lowest is what we call "semi-protection", which means to edit the page, a user need to have 10 or more edits and the account was created more than 4 days previously. If problems persist, there's stronger measures we can take, but we try to apply the lowest level of protection which will stop disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the protection did much because Aqww and Zessede can still edit war on the page. Can you take a look at the article again?

After the protection, Aqww undid 3 other editors 6 times (isn't that edit warring?), while even using the same exact words as Zessede did: [11] [12]. Then Zessede returned to undo an editor and make the same edit as Aqww: [13]. Then another new account Q1A1Z did the same: [14].

Can I restore the page? Zessede/Aqww/Q1A1Z have not addressed any of the concerns on the talk page (Zessede and Q1A1Z did just comment on it, but without addressing anything substantial while still making their edits). MGetudiant (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@MGetudiant Thanks for the note. There's been a lot more editing since I first look at this case, so I'll reopen it and take another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

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)

Tech News: 2022-08[edit]

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Feb 23: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC[edit]

February 23, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

Play media

Welcome to Wikimedia New York City!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.

Wednesday February 23 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki).

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Asrtyon[edit]

You had warned Asrtyon for socking and with this edit he has proven that he is socking. He is not even replying your message here. I think indef block should be made on both accounts and the main account (Asrtyon) should be unblocked only if he promises to adhere to not just WP:SOCK but also WP:COMMUNICATE. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I've been keeping my eye on that one, but feel free to open a new SPI report if there's some significant change in activity. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how SPI will help because checkuser was already done and there is no doubt if they are not same person. See their very recent activity here. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)