User talk:Spicy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Hey

Just wanted to say thank you, for all the work you do at SPI. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. At the rate I'm going, I should have the backlog cleared by 2027. Spicy (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Optimistic, aren't you? Personally, I think we need tighter clerking. First, when filers request a CU, they should give a reason why. If they don't, and it's not obvious to the clerk why a CU was requested, it should be declined. AFAICT, currently, CU requests are only declined if it involves IPs or the named accounts are stale. (As a non-clerk, I am not permitted to decline CUs.) This would reduce the CU backlog. As for the open requests, I routinely close them because they are easy to dispose of; yet, many sit there, seemingly interminably. Surely, those where the the only alleged socks are IPs and the IPs haven't edited recently are easy to close for that reason. Finally, my pet peeve: the threshold for what constitutes a backlog (I think it's 50) is way too low. Except for maybe once every few years, we don't get below 50. Let's make it a realistic number. End of mini-tirade.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I used to be more aggressive about declining CU requests but when the button is there, it's easy enough just to click it, assuming the request is within policy and justifiable. There's not really a great reason to run CU on most cases, but there's not a great reason to decline it either, and sometimes you catch a few sleepers that you wouldn't have otherwise. It would help if there were more non-CUs active at SPI. I've tried to recruit a few clerks, but the people I spoke to weren't interested to begin with or lost interest quickly. I don't know why, because it's obviously a very fulfilling part of the project to work in with zero downsides.

I've wondered before if the ability to request CU should be limited to admins and clerks, but I doubt that would make a big difference. I think the main issue that leads to a backlog at SPI is that most filings clearly have some merit, but most filers aren't great at presenting the evidence in a way that makes others confident enough to block the account or run a check. So filings tend to linger until someone can convince themselves that it is actionable. Usually this requires a careful look at behaviour and I find that being a CU complicates this, because if I get a useless CU result and then decide to block based on behaviour it feels like I'm playing judge, jury and executioner. Personally, I'm holding out for Neuralink implants to become commercially available so that filers can transmit what they're seeing directly to my brain. Spicy (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Spicy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I very much appreciate your expedited resolution to my blocking problem! JohnDVandevert (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Bodiadub sockpuppet at it again

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub

Hi. Thanks for quickly taking care of the last sockpuppet for this account. Unfortunately this guy has got so many of them so he's using another one to target me as revenge for getting some of them banned. I have opened up another SPI. I know either you or one of the other checkers will get to it soon as part of the backlog but just thought I would let you know. - Imcdc Contact 12:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello! Saw you at the most recent case for Rgalo10 - it appears that this user (see Special:Diff/1209929810) is a puppet. Would it be appropriate to run a sleeper check, as he's gaming autoconfirmed here? Thanks, wasn't sure if I should open a new case with only one puppet. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh brother. See Special:Diff/1209931163. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick block, here's to hoping he's never on my talk page again. 🥂 Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Need action

Listed for nearly a month, can you issue the block for the suspected sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oriental Aristocrat? Apparently you edited the SPI before. Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499/Archive

• WP:ANI#Edit warring at Sylhet Division
• GANI7199

I've reblocked one IP and one IP range, but I've been reluctant to block GANI7199. Sometimes they agree with the IPs, but sometimes they revert them. I know you can't look at the IPs, but the master is not stale, and there's also Auritroww22e whom Yamblanter has indeffed but for some reason not blocked GANI7199, even though it's obvious he thinks they're socks of each other. Perhaps you could have a look?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• GANI7199 and Auritroww22e are  Confirmed to COLTashrif1499. Spicy (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, is it okay for me to tag?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Spicy (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:LSA7164

Before I blocked the user for vandalism, I looked through all of their contributions to find out who the master, or at least an earlier account, was. I even looked at their IPs' edits and failed there, too. Some of the pages created are so distinctive I recognized the weirdness of them but of course couldn't remember earlier accounts. So, what can you tell me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing too interesting. They're confirmed to User:IDYTAReturn29121, User:28062fo33eof457dc93eefaabbet2c3 User 1, User:User 28062F033EOF457DC93EEFAABBET2C3 and User:28062FO33EOF457DC93EEFAABBET2C3 User. I doubt any of those were the first account but that's what I have. Spicy (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I assume it's IDYTAReturn29121 that I was thinking of as I was the blocking admin on that one. I particularly dislike usernames that incorporate IP addresses in them - very misleading. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hey there. You helped out in two sockpuppet cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyle.sivvenxo/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thecheeseistalking99/Archive. I have been watching over the character lists and two users have continued to splitting characters from lists. These are: Corrie fan1245 and Geb2355 - I wondered if you could take a look? I am unsure which account they belong too but it is too convenient as this behaviour only began towards the latter part of 2023. I noticed Corrie fan1245 was created in November 2003 but behaved like a sleeper account until January 2024 when all the other socks were blocked. It was in January Geb2355 ramped up the continuation of splitting off characters from list entries. There is also Geb1235 doing the same. Rain the 1 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Raintheone, these are  Confirmed to each other:

• Corrie fan1245 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Geb2355 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Geb2356 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Geb1235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And technically  Possible to both cases - the two sockfarms are difficult to tell apart using CU data. However, I think these accounts are probably Trinitydevine as they always use the mobile web editor while Cheese doesn't. Spicy (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for promptly solving this. That was my issue - I find it difficult to figure out which group of socks they belong too, since both do the same tricks.Rain the 1 00:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think this user might be part of that group too. Account was created on the 4th using a similar username. There's also User:James sphie, who performed this edit to a list [1], followed by User:Corrie fan1245 using that same info here. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Corriefan45 is  Confirmed to the above group. James sphie didn't show up in my check, and I'm not comfortable checking that account directly. Edits like this [2] seem too unsophisticated to be the work of the sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chilmy23

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chusada25&redlink=1 Loptač01 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASuper_Hylos&redlink=1 Loptač01 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Okip in a CU block range

Could you look at this range [3] for which you placed a CU block? Okip has been working from that range recently, and we might need to make it, or a smaller range, a full block. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who may or may not be operating from that range, but I've hardened the block temporarily due to the recent IP disruption. The copypasta stuff is coming from all over the range so a smaller rangeblock won't be possible unfortunately. Spicy (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Spicy. I came here to ask you about this range, and found the above message. As far as I can see, there's a total anon-only block on the range, and yet IP edits continue to be made. What have I misunderstood? JBW (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Silly me. I just misread the date on the block, that's all. JBW (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ring a bell?

BlueberryIntoTheWild created their account 5 days ago and has already racked up 590 edits. They are obviously (to me) not a new user. They began by doing a bunch of "newcomer tasks" using an "experienced" edit summary of "ce". Then began their obsessession with adding uncategorized maintenance templates to articles. Occasionally, they interspersed "regular" edits, again displaying an impressive knowledge of Wikipedia terminology in their edit summaries, e.g., "Fixed pipe to colon with magic word" and "Edits to help remove WP:PEA". Then began (we're now at March 11) fixing wikilinks to disambig pages with the edit summary "Removed disambiguation". They then continued adding uncategorized templates to pages but now graduating to the use of {{Uncategorized}} in their edit summary. They then began installing scripts apparently to automate some of their work. Next (now March 12) was disabling cats in drafts using a script. Always continuing their uncategorized template business. By March 13 they were using AutoEd. By March 14 automated counter-vandalism.

Another thing that stands out, even before the use of automated tools, is the rapidity of their edits, enough to trip the edit filter many times.

I reviewed many of their edits trying to find a connection to an earlier account but failed. Yesterday, I left a message on their Talk page asking them about other accounts, but although they've edited since, they haven't responded.

Finally, I've seen no evidence of obvious disruption, so at least to date, if they are a sock, they're a good hand version. It's your call if this is enough to warrant a check. Either way, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23, as you suspected, it's not their first account; they're confirmed to two others, but the account use is sequential and neither is blocked or otherwise sanctioned. There's also what looks like IP editing from them (hard to be sure) that goes back a long while. I don't think there is any violation of policy here, but it's odd, especially considering the other accounts were only used for a day or two. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Spicy (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Spicy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You have brought joy into the heart of an old man.

" blocked Francisco Hirthe " -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TronFactor

Spicy, I want to follow up on your comments outside of the SPI. Both of your comments were posted at almost the exact same time of day, which is just about when I'm at my most tired, making it harder for me to understand what you're saying AND harder to express what about your comments is confusing to me.

This sockmaster is known to compromise accounts. I have no idea what that means. Normally, accounts are compromised when the account owner permits, either intentionally or unintentionally, another person to access the account, e.g., shares their password with someone or leaves their computer on at home logged in. Are you saying that with TF, the master often shares their password with someone else? I looked at the link to the UTRS appeal, which I had to machine translate, and Iamjosemom appears to be saying that someone hacked their account. What makes that sound "sincere"? Why do we care? Are you saying that Iamjosemom is not a sock in the first instance?

I'm going to stop here because otherwise I will spend too much time with "what if"s. Too bad I don't use IRC or we could have a more efficient chat. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been working night shifts - hopefully this reply is early enough. I'm a bit confused about what is confusing about my comments but I will try to clarify things. My belief that many of the accounts in that SPI are compromised is based on several factors:

• Many accounts have a lengthy editing history on unrelated subjects before suddenly switching to the sockmaster's topic area. This is typical of compromised accounts - few sockmasters are dedicated enough to "groom" their accounts for years on end.
• The switch in editing interests corresponds with a distinct change in the CU data.
• In some instances you can actually see the operator failing to log in to a number of other accounts via CU (suspected compromise attempts).

I don't believe that these users are knowingly sharing their password or having their little brother sneak on to their computer. Most likely the operator is compromising a large number of unrelated accounts through credential stuffing. My reading of the events is this:

• The original operator, let's call them "Bob", creates an account and edits uneventfully for a few years.
• The sockmaster, let's call them "Alice", compromises Bob's account.
• Bob's account is CU confirmed to other accounts operated by Alice, and is (correctly) blocked and locked.
• Bob creates a new account that Alice doesn't have access to.

So I think it is fair to treat Bob's compromised account (i.e. Iamjosemom) as a sockpuppet, but I would not consider Bob's new account (Iamjosemon) to be a sock. Wikipedia:Compromised_accounts#After_being_compromised suggests that creating a new account is a valid approach to dealing with an account compromise. People are more commonly instructed to email Trust & Safety and this might be a better approach since it could be a problem if the new account is using the same email and/or password. But I wouldn't have blocked Iamjosemon if I had gotten to the filing first. Spicy (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much time to explain. I'd never heard of credential stuffing (do they serve that at Thanksgiving?). So the master knows how to pick vulnerable accounts to compromise? Or is there an easy way to search for such accounts if you know what you're doing? Does this mean that in the future it'd be better (for me, at least) to let a CU review any socking reports for this master, or is there an easy way I can do it behaviorally (there's plenty of other SPIs I can tackle without making my life too taxing)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The sockpuppets/compromised accounts are fairly easy to identify behaviourally because they are used for anti-Qatar POV editing. Paying close attention to the POV is important because there are a few other sockfarms who edit from the opposite POV. Re. compromising accounts, it's easier than one might think and I'm aware of a few sockmasters who do it regularly. Spicy (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Enya sock follow up

Following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hzpjxewy/Archive, it looks like the sockmaster has moved on to IP editing ([4], [5]). The IPs seem somewhat dynamic and haven't concentrated on either affected page, so I'm uncertain as to whether a block, p-block, or page protection is most appropriate here, and whether there should be any change to the master's block given the communication/competence aspect of this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fulongtaiwan Official

This new User made the same edit as this sock you blocked 5 days ago. Can you check if it's a sock too? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that one showed up in my check but I usually don't bother to list or tag accounts that are already blocked (particularly if their username is a BLP violation). Spicy (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually it couldn't have been that one, must have been another one with a similar name. But you don't need CU to tell you that this is a sock. Spicy (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I assumed they were going to be blocked for the name, but since I saw that all the sock were globally locked (which one might miss at UAA), I decided to ask you, in case this one needs to be too. Nobody (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited other wikis, so I personaly wouldn't bother at this point. But if you want to, you can request a lock at m:SRG. Spicy (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hzpjxewy

Ji. You blocked Hzpjxewy, an editor who is focused on Enya related articles, for sockpuppetry at 16:07, 22 March 2024. 46.3.80.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started editing Enya related articles at 06:06, 23 March 2024. The timing looks rather suspicious. What do you think? -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

*whistles from two sections up* _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh.... missed that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP based on behaviour and reblocked the master account indefinitely. You'd think an Enya fan would be more chill. Spicy (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. "Fan" is a shortening of fanatic. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

GermanKity

Hi Spicy. Is there anything the magic 8-ball can tell me about Macbeejack vis-à-vis Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity/Archive? I was about to block on my own given [6] and [7] (among other things), and I probably still will, but since Macbeejack is an AfC reviewer who wants to be a new page reviewer, I figured due diligence meant asking if the CU data had anything useful to say. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, they are using a range previously used by socks of GermanKity, but it is an extremely wide and busy range. Use behaviour. Spicy (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Case merging request

Greetings Spicy, I write to you because I've seen that you handle the merging of archives for SPI cases. The story goes like this: back in december I opened a SPI [8] that became fairly extense and on it I found out direct evidence (mostly usernames and editing behavior) that two sockpuppeters: Ghumen[9] and HipHopVisionary[10] are actually the same person (the bulk of the evidence can be found on this diff [11]), what do you think? could they be merged? I personally find it very convincing and I think to merge both cases would make future SPI's on this editor (who is in my opinion one of the most nocive and persistent vandals there's been on Wikipedia) smoothier and faster. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pob3qu3, that's going to be a complex merge. I'd recommend posting on WT:SPI/C because I can't guarantee that I will have the time to do it in the near future. Spicy (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Spicy, I'll keep it on mind. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		You've taken to CUing like a duck to water. Much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock "over-the-horizon radar"?

RE: Block log Spicy talk contribs blocked Putorana talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(: User:Faster328) Tag: Twinkle

This is not the first time a new account pops up and starts making random edits in pages on my watchlist, only to be blocked as a sock. I am wondering, are there basic hints to identify a possible approaching sock prior to them jumping into something abusive? I didnt notice anything in this respect in WP:SOSP. - Altenmann >talk 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't see it because it's been deleted, but what tipped me off in this case was that they had references to sockpuppet investigations on their userpage - odd thing for a brand new user to do. Spicy (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for you work on the SPI backlog McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach Mach61 19:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for working on SPI backlog :) Harvici (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A Late Thank You

I just now realized I didn't say thank you for doing the unblock for me. I really appreciate your diligence on the matter. Thank you very much and I hope you are having a great Easter with friends and family if you can.

- John Vandevert JohnDVandevert (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation?

Greetings. I am messaging you with a query. I opened an SPI case a while back here [12] and after being checked by a checkuser, a closer behavior investigation seems to be needed. I was thinking you might be authorized to make that judgement? I tried to provide a lot of diffs and information. Was curious if you would perhaps be down to check the case if you have free time? --Creffel (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Belyny/Englwik

Hello, Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Datacheck5 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belyny are the same, so I think they should be merged. Arx76 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Er, I can't merge a page on a different wiki. Spicy (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Spicy.

Hope you are dong well. I see that an SPI [13] was archived by you on March 9, 2024 [14]. But an admin, Bbb23, wanted it moved and archived to the correct editor - Æo here [15], not Phoenixhill. See Bbb23's comments [16] with the moving request and link. It was not meant for Phoenixhill. I did not know a new case was made with Æo as the master. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what occurred, but, regardless, see also Drmies's comments re Ramos1990.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23's comments on the SPI and don't think it is worth expending any more effort on. Spicy (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Spicy,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MeraAwaaz

Am I doing this right? The IP was obvious and I've applied a block and closed the report. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yep, looks good to me. Spicy (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet @Dinkar 108 is back with another sockpuppet

Hey @Spicy, You need to look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkar 108. This user @Dinkar 108 is back with another sockpuppet @Prominister and making same disruptive edits with same pattern. He is also making Minor edits on different pages to fool Wikipedia CheckUsers and sockpuppet investigators. Please look into this and check his disruptive edits on pages like Kannauj , Paliwal where he removed authentic sources under context of WP:RAJ to fool admins when none of the sources removed from those articles are from british civil servants. Brahaspatya (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I reverted all the edits made to the SPI because they should not have been filed in that case. I also think that Brahaspatya is unlikely to be a new user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Brahaspatya has been globally locked for cross-wiki abuse by EPIC. I don't know if there's an earlier master. Then popped up Hemu Gupta who popped up and filed a report at the "correct" SPI (I had just told Brahaspatya to do so on their Talk page). I've blocked and tagged the new account. Probably should be globally locked as well, assuming I'm correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Brahaspatya = Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anantam tripathi and is also NobitaNobisuk and Hemu Gupta. These two groups have some kind of sock rivalry going on. Spicy (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NobitaNobisuk, which I just edited because of your comment. What about Donald567? Are they part of the Dinkar 108 "group"? --Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, they're Dinkar 108 aka Doremon9087, along with Reginald34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Mohanmeakinsenjoyer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This website is exhausting. I'm going to go cook dinner and go back to playing Zoo Tycoon (2001 video game). Spicy (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why? Don't you want to age another 20 years? Hey, I started aging more rapidly as soon as I became an admin, and when my CU privileges were yanked, I aged at least 50 years. By my calculations, I must be around 162 years old, all thanks to "this website". Bon appetit! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AungKaung932/Archive#11_March_2024

Hi! I know you said 93asif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was only a weak possible. They're continuing to edit disruptively on the pageants without actually improving the articles. Any objection to my blocking on those grounds since the technical sock evidence isn't sufficient? Thanks either way! cc @DoubleGrazing Star Mississippi 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No obje... oh, you weren't asking me. :) Carry on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I do not understand this fascination with pageants. Between that and fake Nick Jr. shows I wish we had a "Stop the horseshit" block option. Star Mississippi 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to block them for disruption, go ahead. I'm skeptical that they're a sock though. There are a lot of these beauty pageant editors and in regional topics like these it can be unwise to treat geolocation as an independent variable. Spicy (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and for sorting the SPI. I'll keep an eye on their edits but hope they've seen the light. Star Mississippi 01:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Koov returns

Danelenko-Camacho is the new account. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach?

Hi Spicy, I'm having a dickens of a time with User:2600:1009:B051:2251:3167:133E:DBFF:EDD5 and User:2600:1009:B056:AE9:C0D0:7E2A:82B5:66C6. By coincidence, the IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach/Archive were also from Ohio, making the same edits from Dave Leip's Atlas. Hey, thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with that sockmaster. Please file a report at WP:SPI. Spicy (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You made multiple edits to the socks, and blocked them this past January. That's why I contacted you. Ok, I'll file a report. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

You had a concern about a user during an SPI back in May 2023. They have popped back up with votes in deletion discussions. I have not dug too much as I wanted to reach out to you first and see if there is anything that jumps out related to this and the previous SPI. CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Spicy, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless? I think they are back. I would have requested an SPI on Bangla wiki but they got clever and didn't visited there, so no SUL account there.

(courtesy ping to @Bbb23 and Ad Orientem: as they previously dealt with this SPI)

Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

YiTuanWu

Hmmm, I'm fairly sure that YiTuanWu compromised Grandma Bob's account, also. First YiTuanWu tries this edit to Grandma Bob's UP and then the Grandma Bob account does this (note where "natural causes" links). Either that or they're same person. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I already ran a check - I think it's two people who know each other, although there could be other possibilities. Either way the autoblock will slap them on the wrist. Spicy (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Which?

Continuing the confusion (at least mine) about pairing up an account with the right master, could you please look at Siddharaja? After reviewing their edits, they appear to be restoring edits of different masters, so as soon as I think I have it nailed, I see a contradiction. I'm aware of this new account because of a ping to User talk:Siddharaja#Username. While reviewing the edits, I also noticed Wannabe Professor, an even newer account who intersected on Bhava Brihaspati, the article Siddharaja created. Wannabe added a picture to the article uploaded by Siddharaja.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even realize you blocked the accounts until just now. You didn't reply (sulking).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought you requested discreet delivery. Spicy (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "discreet delivery". Sounds vaguely like I'm ordering something illegal, or at least embarrassing. In any event, what made you think that?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Socks can be embarrassing, especially if they're worn with sandals. Just a poor attempt at humour, don't mind me. Spicy (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

It's getting real tedious. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind if Arturo posts here but yes, please leave the good doctor alone, thanks. Spicy (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For removing the egregious personal attacks at Ponyo. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Alvin1783

I recently came across this account Alvin1783, he clearly is not a legitimate new user, evident through the articles he has created. His articles are identical to another SPA's articles-[17]. They are worded, designed, sourced exactly the same way, they have the same average article length, same images, same grammatical style, same POV, same content demarcation, and both accounts used Article Wizard to create their articles. Alvin1783 is a duck quacking into a megaphone. He is also active on a page that was targeted by HaughtonBrit in the past; both pushing the same POV on the page. Would it be possible to run a check on him? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet continues

Hi Spicy, last month you banned The Penfield Homunculus for sockpuppetry. Looking at the edit history of the FC Barcelona article, this user has continued under the name "Pròssia". Both leave similar edit summaries, edit Barcelona-related articles, and copy information from other (low-quality) articles into the FC Barcelona article. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Spicy (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sligati

I was just posting a message to Ponyo asking her who the master was when I noticed you'd already dealt with it. One other thing I was going to ask her but will ask you instead: is there any easy way for me to figure out the master behaviorally?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You tagged two minutes after my block. Are you really that fast, or were you already looking at it before I blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. I checked because I thought it might be a sock of Denosio, and it wasn't; I wouldn't have figured out who it really was without the magic goggles. There are a number of topic areas that attract a lot of socking as well as a lot of unrelated users with similar behaviour and interests. These include hurricanes, Indian movies, beauty pageants, and RuPaul's Drag Race. I wouldn't have thought visa policies would be one of these topics but here we are. I saw the block on the SPI IRC feed, which logs all sock blocks, and thought it was worth a check. Spicy (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Cleo Cooper

Hello, Spicy,

Can you tell me anything about this account? They registered this account years and years ago and then suddenly became active and became a regular patroller who I ran into on a daily basis. You say the account is "compromised" but are they a sockpuppet? They seemed to know their way around the project, nominating articles for AFD discussions and tagging pages appropriately for speedy deletion. Thanks for any information you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess they must have bought that account somewhere! Can Bjorn Gulden, Nick White (comedian), Sarah Riggs and Lee O'Denat be draftified, if there is no master? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What's certain is that it's compromised. It's probably connected to the accounts mentioned here. Spicy (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Spicy,

I'm echoing Liz's question. Why were they marked as a sock but the block notes stated "compromised"? Was it a mistake? Please clarify. Thanks --- thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They were not "marked as a sock". Spicy (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Spicy: Can you please take a look at this? Blablubbs seems to be away. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)