User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 11

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishchopra778/Archive

So this entire SPI chain is filed under the name of an account who was determined to be Unrelated. Is there any way we can get a closer examination of whether this should be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive? At the very least I figure it would be best to move the case to the oldest confirmed sock from the case instead of leaving it under the name of an unrelated account. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I sent you an unrelated email. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Yep, email received and acknowledged - thanks

The Ashishchopra778 case is an annoying example of me filing a case without seeing a connection to OPP. Had I seen a link to that case, I could have simply filed under it, and we likely wouldn't have to deal with any of this. The tagging for this case is also wonky, since we found many accounts to be confirmed to OPP, as well as another group that was dual-tagged as socks of the oldest account in that group (Atifsilal) - except that Atifsilal is older than OPP. I could also support moving the case to Atifsilal. Also pinging Bbb23. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clean way to resolve this issue. I've complained for a long time that the OPP case is a mess. You have behavioral and technical issues. The behavioral issues are, of course, subjective, whereas the technical are not. Checks are requested, and I (or another CU) provides technical findings. Yet the differences in the technical findings are "overlooked" in favor of behavioral ones, causing a fair amount of dissonance. What is the next CU supposed to do? Find that accounts that edit from different countries are the same? At the end of the day, it's not clear whether we have one or more masters (I'm convinced there is more than one, but I'm not sure how many). That said, the overriding goal is to prevent socking/disruption. As long as we continue to do that, the project is well-served even if the issue of which account belongs to whom is never answered. Bottom line: do whatever you think best; I have no recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference

Hello, is the statement "generalizations are bad" a generalization, and therefore bad?

Also, April 1st is not far away. Have you considered staging a gentlemanly dispute with General Ization? Anything that ends up with a thread on a dramaboard titled "General Ization vs GeneralizationsAreBad" would be winsome. Manul ~ talk 20:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manul: Yup, it's deliberately self-referential. I try not to start fights, but I'm willing to make an exception every now and then

. Cheers, GAB^gab 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winsome is a wonderful word Manul. I have not been lucky enough to use it in conversation. I am so glad that you did. G v G - could we make that a pay-per-view event - heehee. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello GAB. Is there an LTA page for Nsmutte? I couldn't find one when the two that I reported showed up last night. That is one reason that I didn't go to AIV. Fortunately, our diligent IP did and that brought about their blocks. Also, I thought the "don't tag" applied to after the blocks not before. My apologies for tagging those two. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Not to my knowledge, but it might just be worth writing one. No worries about the tags. Best, GAB^gab 16:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. MarnetteD|Talk 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again GAB. I don't know if you've seen that the Nsmutte SPI page has become - well let's say overloaded :-) I know that part of the problem is that the socks are coming fast and furious. Some reports are closed, some are awaiting CU results and new ones are being added. If you have the time and the inclination you might give it the once over. Now I know you are busy with many things around if so if you can't get to this no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been taken care of. GAB^gab 00:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin's early 'brutal' criminality.

Yes, the word "brutal" is probably always POV..... but, for example, Stalin's 1907 Tiflis bank robbery resulted in 40 "innocent" (POV?) deaths and 50 injured people.... surely this shows a 'casual' disregard for human life and was a 'brutal' bank robbery in 99.9% of people's points of view? I can't imagine Stalin agonizing over the loss of life, but maybe he did?!?!?!

Stalin's final death count by 1953 and the manner of many of his killings (I could say 'murders') similarly entitles most civilisied people to describe him as brutal.

Disturbingly in Google you get more results for "Stalin was nice" than for either "Stalin was brutal" or for "Stalin was evil".... not very scientific as a piece of research I know, but still worrying. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/62-russians-agree-stalin-was-brutal-but-57-say-he-was-wise/story-om0DcEJ0s2pxhaPh78DuCL.html offers more comfort.

Davidbrookesland (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm no fan of Stalin, either, and these sorts of articles always pose a tricky line to walk. Nevertheless, I tend to avoid using words like "brutal" in articles. GAB^gab 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Quwwah bonaparte, GeneralizationsAreBad.

Unfortunately Adam9007 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hasty CSD tagging.

To reply, leave a comment on Adam9007's talk page.

Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

If you're around, please hop in IRC. That SPI just got way more complicated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Sorry for the delay, I'm working on configuring IRC. I've never really used it, so please bear with me... in the meanwhile, email works. Thanks! GAB^gab 22:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I thought you already went on IRC. No worries. I've decided to more-or-less ignore what I found. I found potential cross-over with an existing CheckUser blocked editor, but it's not worth the effort to try to connect across sock rings in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spi

I made some comments at [[1]]. I then realized that this will mean reopening the case. I have carefully avoided learning anything at WP that seems like a complicated or formal procedure, so I ask you to please make the necessary adjustments. See also my comments at User talk:Arunkapadia and on my own talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The comments were helpful, so I don't think reverting will be necessary here. I agree with you that we should clean up as much of this messy case as possible. GAB^gab 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brennan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti Mohan

Thanks for removing the G8 from Mukti Mohan. Looks like User:Mukti321 got upset at the csd on his autobiography at Mukti.Subedi so removed the CSD, adjusted the CSD notice on his talk page and tagged Mukti Mohan as a decoy. Sneaky little vandal. Cabayi (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI blocks

It's clear that you believe there is persuasive evidence to block the accounts in these two cases. If you were an administrator, you could do so either outside or as part of the SPI. So, unless you have a good reason not to, you should change the statuses to admin and request blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinke question

Hi! How do you get Twinkle to automatically generate reports to WP:UAA?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Just go to the Twinkle header, click "ARV," then select "UAA" from the "Select report type" box at the top. Thanks, GAB^gab 03:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've been totally missing that up until now (I thought "ARV" was for WP:AIV reporting only!)... Thanks for this! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry GAB: I was very confused by an experienced user tagging the AFD page for deletion, as I thought someone misunderstood where to place the CSD tag and how to use AFD. I've rolled back my edits now I've checked the SPI and understand what's going on. Thanks. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Triptothecottage: No problem; this particular LTA indeed has some very unusual behavioral patterns, but we're generally able to spot him these days

GAB^gab 04:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: That is a phenomenally large sock drawer alright. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Free Syrian Army-related deletion discussion

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of the recently-created article Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Free_Syrian_Army. you may want to be involved.

.Alhanuty (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPEEDY85#Suspected_sockpuppets

I do not understand. Why? I'm bored now. Do you want to remove me? Please vote for delete. I don't care.SPEEDY85 (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI procedure

Sorry for a dumb question - I'm completely new to SPI but came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Si Thu Moe Min via a CSD tag. I've blocked the sock as an obvious duck and updated the case page but I'm not sure - should I mark the case closed, or should I leave that to the clerks? Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dumb question. Please close. Thanks for helping out!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an SPI for a collection of IPs

Hello GAB, this is a question for a clerk. At the head of my talk page there is a report about a set of IPs who share a common geolocation but don't connect to any registered account. If the user persists, we could eventually have quite a collection of IPs, with scattered numerical values (not obviously in any one /16 range). In your opinion is it a good use of space at SPI to file a report there just for record-keeping? No checkuser would be needed, and it is likely that clerks wouldn't have to do much behavioral analysis, because one or more admins are already watching the situation. The alternative to an SPI is that one of us could make a subpage in our user space to list the IPs. And we could make up a Category:Suspected sockpuppets of XXX where XXX is not named in an actual case. Thanks for any opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Good question. I don't see anything wrong with either filing the case (under the oldest IP used) or just documenting this in userspace. However, I think that IP-tagging (for the category) is somewhat frowned upon. Definitely, SPI has the advantage of being more widely accessible. Thanks, GAB^gab 16:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hi Friend,

I've created that page according to WIkipedia policy  but if there is any issue let me know I would like to work in your instruction as I like to learn new thing

Thank You

About Daily Forex Diary

Please discuss with me and help me to learn new thing I hope I'll get some tips from you

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsharma1993 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rnsharma1993: Please stop removing the tag from Daily Forex Diary - as the creator of this page, you are not supposed to do this. However, if you like, you can contest deletion by clicking on the blue button reading, "Contest this speedy deletion." Thanks, GAB^gab 15:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

Hello, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested, as you've contributed to several military history articles. EyeTruth (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: Thanks, I'll take a look. It's been too long since I've done intensive content work. GAB^gab 13:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Motivação is back

one-state solution seems to be a new sock for Motivação—this user's newest edit is the most recent post at Talk:China, and this is only the third page User:one-state solution has edited from this incarnation. There is no overlap with the articles edited by the first twenty or so incarnations, but the type of edits is similar and the user name is a good match (type of phrase). — Neonorange (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This the most recent edit. This edit made a unnecessary change to phrasing that used the abbreviation U.S., right in this editor's wheelhouse. Neonorange (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]