This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beccaynr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
UPE sock rings
Hi, thanks for the heads-up on my Talk. I am pretty new to SPI, and not sure what tools the average person who watches SPI but isn't a checkuser, clerk or other technical cognocento has at their disposal. My method has been to open about a dozen tabs and start collecting diffs manually. By the time I'm finished, I'm not only mentally exhausted but also totally confused. Yet some blocks have resulted from my efforts. Am I missing anything from my toolkit other than brain synapses?
Second note: In my opinion, all 5 or so of the !KEEP voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotique acted exactly like a UPE sock, repeating the 2 familiar lines of "Ayurveda is a big thing now" and "Look at all the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS links I just found". That a !KEEP was the first response to the AfD nomination was also telling. Is nobody else noticing? It's quite blatant. These "editors" are ineffective liars and my WP:AGF is not capable of stretching to encompass any of their edits or opinions. Shouldn't that whole pack, who have effectively outed themselves recently at AfD/Biotique, be put under a magnifying glass? I'd do it, but not manually. I'd need a 6-page screen and some sort of organized modus operandi. There ought to be a flowchart for SPI (for amateurs); oddly, I haven't noticed any WP:flowcharts on Wikipedia in 15 years of editing. Thanks.-- Quisqualis (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Cheers Quisqualis, I wanted to be sure you knew that you are not alone in your concerns and challenges with developing a case. My SPI focus tends to be on AfD disruption (which tends to overlap with UPE issues), and I would also like to figure out how to file more effective reports. There are some useful tools that can be used by non-admins to help discern patterns, but that doesn't necessarily address the larger challenge.
I don't have much experience with SPI, but I tend review the WP:SIGNS essay to help sort evidence, and there is also the WP:GOODSPI guidance for filing cases that I found while looking for a source for the guidance below, which I copied out of an SPI case earlier today but can no longer find, although it is occasionally stated, e.g. [1], [2], [3] when Additional information needed:
· At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
· At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
· In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.
However, I also think participation at AfD by editors identifying spam/promo articles with analysis of sources and the P&Gs can sometimes help develop documentation, because those AfDs may draw out UPE meat and/or socks, and then a record ends up getting created in the normal course of AfD. Even when an SPI is not feasible due to the limits of the CU tool or challenges determining which case to file under, there are other ways for admins to handle disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for putting together this guide. It should prevent me from trying to reinvent the wheel. I've copied the relevant parts to my Sandbox for ongoing reference. Cheers!-- Quisqualis (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Female gender draft
Hi, as there's not much interest in contributing to Draft:Female (gender) and it has been over 6 months, I'm just checking in. You've contributed more than anyone so far, so how do you think we should proceed? Also pinging @Newimpartial, since they were one of the biggest proponents during the AfD. The void century (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi The void century, thank you for following up - I think substantial progress was made fairly recently with the updated lead for the Gender article, but I also think it is probably best to keep discussion about what to do about the draft at the draft Talk page. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Beccaynr. I think you got the information from the lead wrong. The subject is an English novel and just had a translation in Malayalam. That is what the article content and the reference says. Why would the subject then be categorised as a Malayalam novel then? Just to give you an example, Hamlet has translations in hundreds of languages including Malayalam. Would the article include all those hundreds of categories? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
My COI is disclosed (on my userpage and the Talk pages of those articles), and WP:COIEDIT states you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. If there are concerns about edits that have been made, please let me know. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a COI on Weiner if a direct member of the family, although that even depends on how close a family member, and there have been no complaints about past edits. But I see no COI on the Chicago Seven pages unless editing Weiner material (there were seven other defendents). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
fwiw, I have sought admin assistance for some edits to the Lee Weiner article, e.g. in 2021 [4], and the Lee Weiner article generally in 2014 [5]. I can also try to respond further to any specific concerns. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kryn, I am wondering if you are interested in reviewing the Lee Weiner article according to the tag at the top of the article - the tag documentation notes Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article, but no discussion has been started. The documentation also states, Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor and This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found. My COI is disclosed on my userpage and the Talk page of that article, and I would prefer to not be more specific about it on-wiki. As general background, this article is where I first began basic editing, including learning how to format citations, and I reviewed articles such as Abbie Hoffman, including the Media section, for guidance on structure. Going forward, I do not plan to make more than uncontroversial edits to the article, and I can use the Talk page to request other edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for the alert. I haven't kept up with all the doings at the page. Have removed the COI tag solely because, as you pointed out, no discussion has been opened and the tag requires it. Thanks for keeping up with this and other pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I had reviewed sources to try to find support for the specific statement but had not found this: "Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”". I will adjust the article to make the attribution more clear. Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I am contacting you as you seem to be involved in SPI and I am hoping you can help check these concerns below to see if they are worthy of further SPI research.
Please check this LINK. These seem to be UPE and/or sock/meatpuppets focusing on negative editing on Andrew Tate and Ryan Kavanaugh pages among others while also focusing on positive edits for pages: Hila Klein, H3h3Productions. These editors are not adhering to WP:NPOV. Some of their edits may look fine, such as removing unsourced material, but they are not doing it with a neutral point of view and their intention may be to provoke the subjects.
Much information has been removed from the Andrew Tate page. Also, the negative content has been disproportionately emphasized, by adding more info about it and placing it in multiple locations within an article.
Ryan Kavanaugh's page has been vandalized between 3/2021 - 12/2022 which coincides with legal battles between Ethan Klein (Owner of H3h3Productions) and Ryan, and related pages to the subject have also been attacked: Relativity Media and Triller (app). This collection of editors have reverted most positive edits other editors have attempted to make. They refuse to allow Ryan to be referred to as a “producer,“ when his own article outlines his producer credits, and nearly all the sources in the article demonstrate he is a producer. See the TALK page. There are a bunch of editors that look suspicious. These two are the most obvious and do the most vandalism to pages of Ethan Klein’s enemies. 66.207.177.62 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP, a couple things: 1) the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here and should not be used as a general description for edits that are not vandalism; 2) if a person has concerns about how they are described in any Wikipedia article, there are several venues available for help; 3) I am not an administrator and I do not have access to the CheckUser tool, and my experience with SPI is limited. You can review the SPI guide to filing cases information page for more information about how to present concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261
