This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yamla. 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.
Hi Yamla, did anyone check My Other Wiki Is Magic? In their ranting unblock request (reverted by me), they claimed, among other things, to be an administrator. If that's true (seems very dubious) and they are an active administrator, that should pop up in a check, unless they are intentionally using proxies to obfuscate matters. Doug Weller and Bishonen thought the user was a sock, but I don't know if Doug ran a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to run a CU as two others have. What a bizarre claim from that user. Sounds like someone reading what The-symbiant was posting. Presumably some sort of LTA. --Yamla (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Yamla, after the user disclosed 3 IPs they evaded their block with, you responded "This list is nowhere near complete." After I pushed the user, they responded to your comment "It is complete, if I knew more I would have told."
My main reason for opposing their unblock request has to do with editing with IPs, both WP:LOUTSOCK before the block and evasion after. I am not asking you to - and I know you can't - disclose the IPs you alluded to in your comment. I'd like to get a handle on how many more IPs (just a number) the user failed to disclose, about how many edits they made, and how much of the IP use was ante-block and how much was post-block. Is that possible? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
They disclosed 3 IP addresses and assured us this list was complete. I believe they've subsequently admitted the list is not complete. As to IP used specifically for WP:LOUTSOCK, this list is less than half the IP addresses they've used. There's also Confirmed socks, Sewy12 and Bloxorz12, albeit with no edits. See also this edit, which Pinzunski subsequently took ownership for; that IP address is not one of the ones they list. To be as clear as I'm permitted, there's unambiguously been WP:LOUTSOCK much in excess of the set of three IP addresses provided by that user, prior to the block on the account, and a very small number of edits made after the block on the account. Additionally, the technical data strongly indicates WP:LOUTSOCK was not accidental, prior to the block. You are free to copy this over to the user's talk page or to the SPI if it would be helpful. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Yamla, that's all very helpful. I didn't notice the block evasion by IP 145.44.96.12 on November 4, and generally I don't buy user claims of "accidental" editing without logging in. The system gives you a rather strong and visible warning that you are about to edit as an IP, at least it does if you're not editing from the mobile platform (and this editor doesn't seem to edit with a mobile). At this point, I'm not going to copy this discussion over to the user's Talk page. I'm okay with creating a pro forma report at SPI if you think that would be useful. Despite the 0 edits, do you object to my tagging the master and two confirmed accounts Drmies blocked above? Frankly, because of the user's fairly apparent deceit, I'm inclined to point to this discussion on the user's Talk page and revoke TPA. I wouldn't even consider the standard offer unless the user is honest with us.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with you tagging the socks. As to the SPI, I suppose it's mostly a question of if they'll continue evading the block. Hard to predict the future, but it's probably worth the few minutes it'll take to create. Ping me there and I'll add my comments. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to recall how I got in here. I think I ran CU because a. I saw your block (Bbb23) and because I thought it was the Portuguese soccer socker. Carry on with this vexatious user, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
If you have reason to believe they are, please file a case in WP:SPI and I (or another checkuser) will be happy to take a look! Feel free to ping me if you create a sockpuppet investigation. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't sure I had enough evidence to go on, but my gut was telling me something might be off. So I thought I try you first. Govvy (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Aside from reading CHATbot stuff, I assume this finds you doing as well as can be expected.😜 Don't know what to do with Angelic Devil. I've gone numb from reading their tickets. Unblock? Restore TPA? WP:AN? Decline? (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been reading the requests. I think six months of non-trivial, problem free editing elsewhere (perhaps, 500 non-trivial edits over at least six months) and a demonstrated understanding of WP:RSand a topic ban on enthnography and origins, broadly construed, may be enough. I'm unsure, though. I mean, basically everything this user has ever done on Wikipedia was troublesome. I definitely think there's nothing in the current unblock request that indicates we should lift the block. All of this paragraph is an opinion which you are free to ignore if you see fit. :) In other news, we've seen some astoundingly bad chatbot requests recently. It doesn't give me hope for our new AI overlords, that's for sure. :( --Yamla (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
So, specifically I'm advocating for declining the unblock request but giving them the above path forward, just in case I wasn't clear enough. I think that would be enough for me to support an unblock request in the future. Not a guarantee, of course, but a significant step toward that. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful guidance. I will wait till the ANI discussion archives and, if no objections are received, will then post the wording I suggested at 19:02 to the article to conclude the matter. 31.55.242.67 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
You haven't even stopped talking about editing the article. But now you've also been told not to make those specific edits to the article. I want to be clear. You won't get another warning. LEAVE THIS ALONE, WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Yamla (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeap. Blocked the sock master for a month, blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. Hopefully they take the lesson. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Lol. And here I am, accepting CU findings from other language projects. Thanks for letting me know. I don't imagine fr admins will want to get involved with en.wiki (just as we don't with their project). --Yamla (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC):
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I saw you had taken a glance at ThatChemist25. I ended up there after they crossed Sergecross's path. I've glanced at logs and I'm seeing a lot of behavioral evidence this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eluike, with the focus on bad GA reviewing. Maybe you already expected this and was waiting for them to prove it though, as the reviews came after you were involved. -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes. I've been watching and that's what I've been seeing, too. I really appreciate you bringing this to me, I wasn't certain but with your opinion matching mine, I'll go revoke IPBE and block them. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Talesbeda et al.
Thanks! The other admins were not revoking TPA, and post-block these accounts created havoc. Worse, they knew enough how pings work to ping me repeatedly and rapidly. And then of course the revdeletion afterward. If you haven't already run a check, could you do so - to find sleeper accounts and block them before they make any edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm used to being a target of abuse, but it is unusual to pair me with Risker. Truth be told, we're not even "buddies", let alone...well, what he said.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Just stopping by to agree with what Bbb23 said, especially the last part... Thank you to those who have examined this and taken action. Risker (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Lol. I just assume none of it is my business. :) More seriously, though, at least it's a decent tell. I wonder if we'll figure out which LTA it is. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Oh, that one. Your answer. There's a lot of non-recorded data, such as previous harassment and that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ business. You can probably dig in more with the backlinks. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
First, I was right - you do know the answer. Second, I've never heard of that LTA, at least not by the master's username. Third, very few of them are tagged, making it harder for idiots like me. As for "digging in", probably not, too tired, and not sure if I'd retain what I learned anyway. Thanks, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course you're right :) There's not much to say about this one. Apart from the ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ account, most of it is just teenage-level gender- and sex-obsessed harassment, which no one needs to retain. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same Gustin Kelly. I don't think an SPI will yield much additional fruit. Checkusers are, as they say, aware, and no doubt at least one or more CU has probably already eyed up some range blocks. I've always thought that in a lot of circumstances it's a bit pointless to pile on a CU block, especially where the user is never going to be unblocked anyway, but re-blocking or tagging is of course your prerogative. -- zzuuzz(talk)12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Do Canadians play cricket? I'm an expert on cricket based on Downton Abbey, a reliable source for all things.
Pharaoh496 (created in August 2023) and Ipad4444 (created last month). Compare identical edits: [2] (Pharaoh) with [3] (Ipad); and [4] (Ipad) with [5] (Pharaoh). The only other edit by Ipad was an interaction with User talk:Blue Square Thing, similar to interactions by Pharaoh with BST, both on BST's Talk page and Pharaoh's Talk page. Behaviorally it's pretty obvious, and if Ipad had more edits, I'd block without technical corroboration, but... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look later today or early tomorrow, stepping out soon. And by the way, I hold dual citizenship, UK and Canadian, so know lots about cricket. Well, probably more accurate to say I know a very small amount about cricket. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: good eye. I blocked the Confirmed sockpuppet account indefinitely and blocked the master for one month. Let's hope that's an end of it. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I blocked Sergent Salt, a WP:SPA with a WP:COI at Mammography, on November 22 for one week for edit-warring and other disruption. After expiration of his block, I came close to reblocking as he reinstated his version of the article, but he was warned by another editor and since has stayed on the Talk page. Today, a brand new editor, Dhermiz87 reinstated SS's version, their only edit. It's possible the new account is a sock, but they could also be meat or a joe-job. If they are in fact a sock, I would indef both the master and the sock given the master's WP:NOTHERE-type history, namely promoting their own work in a rather aggressive style. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, both for the check and the SPI filing. I'm watching the article, so we'll see whether Dhermiz87 loses interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
UTRS
Hey. Sorry for stealing the ticket from you. I got pinged on IRC to handle it, had a blonde moment and forgot you were a CU and didn't see your comment till after I refreshed the ticket and had already done things. That said, I would still like originating CU to review and i've messaged them. I agree it's low risk, but want to be sure given context. Again sorry for swiping your thunder there. -- Amanda (she/her)22:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem at all. Happy to watch how it plays out. I thought I had grabbed the UTRS ticket but it looks like I didn't hit the button. --Yamla (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
You defs did reserve it - which should be logged slightly better from the system's side. I pulled it so the user wouldn't get a response from you as I was talking with them on IRC and asked them to file it pro-forma. -- Amanda (she/her)23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yamla. I do not know what the issue is with this user but he removes well sourced information with citations and when he does not like the information, he tries to revert by accusing me of some banned user. User needs to understand that not everyone from same state is a banned user and needs to stop using as a vindictive accusation to revert changes. 205.182.133.63 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Part of his regular trolling which also included impersonating an admin [11] and saying that the various block evading IPs were his friends and not him-[12]. There's only one person from that state that has been tendentiously editing various religion related pages and hounding me and my edits. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Still no idea what or who this user is talking about but my edits has not been based on any religion pages but on various topics as can be seen by my IP contribution. Wikipedia encourages good sources and information to improve the encyclopedia. Yamla, you can witness my recent change and see if there is any problem with it. I do not want to entertain this user’s vindications anymore. 205.182.133.63 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
No. You have provided no evidence to support your accusation. You can provide that evidence in the SPI that you file. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for the email, Yamla. I really appreciate it. Take care.
Hey Yamla, I just blocked Sulfound as a sock of WaftCinematic, a user blocked by Kuru last month for undisclosed paid editing and some other things. After reviewing Sulfound's creations for WP:G5 eligibility, I noticed two other masters that seem likely (WaftCinematic was not a "pre-existing" master): Sorufx1, whom I'm not familiar with, and Amansharma111, whom I know some. Finally, I noticed SimonLoverWiki, a newer user who's made only a handful of edits, intersecting with Sulfound and Sorufx1 (deleted edits). I have not blocked SLW. Could you look into this? I'd like to tidy it up if possible. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Will do! And thanks for reviewing the old unblock requests. I hope to do a pass on those before the end of the year. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I've developed a habit which seems to show up around holiday season: I go through CAT:RFU in chronological order, looking for reasons to unblock (as opposed to the much easier looking for reasons not to.) Usually the reason reduces to WP:AGF. The practice has backfired once or twice, unblocked users later showing they deserved to be blocked, but on the whole, either the unblocked users haven't bothered returning, or they've been well-behaved enough for me not to notice. In any case, it reduces the queue. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
Hello, on the British Armed Forces page the number of reserve personnel in the British Armed Forces was recently changed by someone to read 924,000. This seems incorrect as the British goverment webpage that is cited as a refrence indicates a total of only 33,210 personnel in all of the services as of July 1, 2023. Greenwood10 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This one is best taken to WP:AIV. I'd rather avoid touching that if I can possibly avoid it. To be clear, I think you are correct that they are being disruptive, I'm only saying they didn't react at all well to my recent intervention (and that of multiple other admins). --Yamla (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Seasonal greetings!!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello Yamla, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿08:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I've got a question. Prior to unblock I was under suspicion of Sockpuppetry thanks to a shared IP. I've cleared the notice on my user page as I assume I am trusted since I've been unblocked however my actual legitimate alt account (which was never used on this wiki during my block) is still blocked. I would want to use it for editing and creating templates so such edits don't clutter up the contribs on my main account. I was wondering if you could unblock it for when I need it, after the fact I will off course disclose the account on my user page and follow all protocal regarding a legitimate alt account. Also is the category:sockpuppets of N1TH Music going to remain because it kinda gives off a negative impression because after all it was a shared IP, I never did those edits and the account was never used for socking. So please just inform me on what you can do about the situation, thank you N1TH Music (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's too soon for you to be using multiple accounts. Please stick to one account for now. If you are able to go six months without significant problems, I'm happy to reevaluate. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I've skimmed through the page and I don't see any explanations on how exactly to declare it, should I put a sentence declaring that the account exists on my user page or where else? N1TH Music (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeap, definitely a proxy. I didn't run CU to see if this is HaughtonBrit but I agree it looks like them. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Yamla, can you check Finmas and Swellingtom? I filed a SPI againt Finmas before but it apparently turned up as unrelated. And then this happens [17]- at this point it's undeniable that they're the same person. HaughtonBrit has been absolutely obsessed with trying to get revenge against me and pushing a religious nationalist agenda on Wikipedia and will leave no stone unturned in trying to achieve that.
Regarding Swellingtom, he's clearly behind the 199* IP. You can see that this IP edited the page Battle of Balakot, making the same exact edits as IPs such as this [18] and [19]. Both of these IPs/proxies have an ISP of FedEx, which is the same ISP of his former IP socks-[20] and [21]. On top of that, he is also using non proxy IPs that geolocate to Pittsbugh to tendentiously edit pages at the same time-[22]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to thank you because you looked into this matter, I really hate the shared IP blocks, I need a suggestion that how could I prevent myself from getting blocked in future because of other person's bad intutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsnope (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another one
I intend to block Ovsk as a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:DE, and probable sock, but before I do, I wanted to make sure that one or more CUs have already run a check. A similar thing happened with ASmallMapleLeaf, and no one could find evidence of socking. I did not block that user, but Ovsk's "proposal" at WP:AN regarding Koavf is far more disruptive that what ASML did.
Wikipedia's tolerance for this sort of thing is much higher than (I think) it should be. I reverted the user's initial edits last night, but I figured it wouldn't end there, and I woke up to an extended discussion at AN and a discussion on the user's Talk page with Bishonen and Ritchie333 questioning the user's legitimacy. You might want to look at the discussion there, in particular Ritchie's comment about OvskMendov1, which I recall seeing around somewhere recently but can't remember where.
I'm going to take the liberty of pinging a couple of other CUs who may or not be available: @Zzuuzz and Blablubbs:.
Checkuser data is not helpful in this case. Yamla, am I correct in assuming that OH is using proxies? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, 100% of their edits are from proxies. I'll note these are "call-back proxy networks" according to spur.us. That said, what little I can tease out of the CU data does indicate a deliberate attempt to use proxies, rather than simply being an innocent user of them, as is unfortunately the case in some areas of the world. --Yamla (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I've heard the term many times and know it's short for peer-to-peer, but that does not mean I understand technically how it works or, perhaps more important, how to distinguish it from other proxies (there are too many flavors) for the purpose of understanding when proxy use is "deliberate" or "innocent" (nor do I understand what "innocent" means in this context).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
(Talk page watchers, feel free to correct any details) Something like NordVPN is a straight-forward case. A user chooses to use NordVPN and can switch it off at any time. NordVPN rents servers across the world. This is "deliberate". Then we have something like the Apple iCloud private relay service. Again, "deliberate" proxying, though often users aren't aware this is what it means. Then we have some VPN software that uses your own residential IP address. Your traffic is routed through some other person's residential IP who is running the same software. This is an example of a p2p (peer to peer) VPN. Perhaps the user at this IP address is the person living in that residence, or perhaps it's someone proxying through that IP. We can't tell. So, mostly "deliberate". The confusing thing, though, is some ISPs do this themselves. So, you the end user may have purchased residential internet access through your ISP and not have installed any proxy software at all. The end user may be completely innocent. But their ISP is nonetheless selling proxy services through that IP address. After all, they can make a little extra money. Who cares if this is frequently used by spammers or people sending death threats? This is particularly common these days in certain African countries and, I think, some central Asian countries. It used to happen in Canada, though I haven't seen it here in years. So, the end user is innocent and the blame is on the ISP. Finally, we have countries like the UK, where essentially everyone's IP address is dynamic and good luck with that. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
HI, I am User Mondschein. I have been blocked since moving to California because, apparently, my "IP address range belongs to Forcepoint Cloud Services"... What does that mean? and what is so bad about "Forcepoint Cloud Services"? Isn't that new name of "Websense"? I get my Internet connection directly from Xfinity/Comcast... I bought a Router at Best Buy in order to have WiFi and direct the signal to all the rooms in the house both upstairs and downstairs... What gives? Can you please help me understand?
Forcepoint Cloud Services functions as a proxy. You need to disable your proxy and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Note this IP address, 2601:644:8E80:73FA:0:0:0:69, is not owned by Forcepoint. This IP address is not blocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
