User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 12

Reverting request

Hello! The Love in the Moonlight page has been semi-protected because of numerous IP sockpuppets from a blocked user that keeps on re-adding the "Philippine Reception" fancruft vandalism and the "International broadcast" section. I hope you could undo and remove it. Thanks! -112.198.73.9 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation, but I'd prefer not to get involved in making reverts, given that I do not entirely understand it. GAB^gab 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks - due to some unforeseen off-web events, I have not been active for the past couple of days. But I appreciate your directing me to this, as I would have otherwise missed it. GAB^gab 22:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PositiveEM

I really wish you wouldn't do merges. It requires an admin clerk. You did a copy/paste so that the revision history of the other SPI has now been lost. Straight moves are fine because the case doesn't exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm sorry - I'll refrain from that in the future. My apologies if this has caused difficulty in the past. GAB^gab 23:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I know you're only trying to help. If a merge request sits too long, you can always ping Vanjagenije. He's usually more than happy to do the merge.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sock farm

I think we have a sock farm.

• Autismisarealgender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Myassstillaches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Igotrapedinanalley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrGilbertRapedme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beit2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Does this behavior match any existing farms that you're aware of? Home Lander (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Think you just blocked another related to these. Home Lander (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: No, but let me find a few more. Just a minute... GAB^gab 20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Also:

• MARkgilbertIsmYdad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Autismfidgetspinner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Exploremyanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (!)

With luck, they'll get bored soon. Did the unblocked ones edit the others' page creation? Because I can't see any edits or pages they've made, and they're unblocked. Thanks, GAB^gab 20:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

All are now blocked. I'll see what I can find here. Multiple edits have already been quashed due to their content. Home Lander (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I found three of the first above batch just from the log and reported them for the usernames; I don't think they edited anything before they were blocked. If we get any more edits from other accounts I think an SPI with CU might be worth it to check for sleepers. Home Lander (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, we'll not have to deal with more vandalism from this guy. Protection ought to help. GAB^gab 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Disneylandlover2006

Can you need an awaitng administrator action to made an indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006 as a real Sockmaster but I would made me to need an administrator action for now 66.87.65.139 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. GAB^gab 00:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible SPI merge?

Can I merge Xdeluna's SPI to Bertrand's SPI per AFCR request and I know to merge to the oldest account name for this one i think to merge SPI case to Bertrand101 and I know to merge Xdeluna to Bertrand101 Thanks Gab 66.87.64.113 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're going to need to present evidence linking these two cases before I can request that. I understand that Bertrand101 has a tangled history, but could you point me to what suggests these cases are the same? Thanks, GAB^gab 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential RfA nomination

I am interested in nominating you. Can you possibly respond here to what you think the main objections/criticisms of you at your last RfA and the ORCP. Also, I'd love to hear your responses to the questions I pose at User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins. Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Much appreciated; long post incoming :)

I have a solid record of content creation (6x GA, including 1 article I created, 1x FA, 4x DYK, 2x Million Award), but I am mainly requesting the tools to facilitate my SPI clerking. This would strip away another layer of bureaucracy by allowing me to block socks, view deleted material (absolutely crucial to SPI), and merge cases properly. To answer your questions on the "Tips" page:

1. Yes, my commitment to civility is ironclad. I aspire to treat people both online and in the flesh with the dignity and courtesy that they deserve. After witnessing disturbing cases of incivility and disrespect, I realized how the mask of anonymity enables some people to justify truly disgusting behavior, thanks to this lack of accountability. If I receive the bit, I will not compromise my philosophy or let the power go to my head.

2. Yes, this is, in fact, the main reason I seek the tools. I am an SPI clerk, and also do substantial work on CSD, NPP, UAA, AIV, RFPP, etc. If given the tools, I also promise to abstain from the usual ANI/AE dramah, as I believe this would drain me and distract me from the very reason I seek adminship.

3. I work well in collaborative situations, from article work to SPI. Whenever I am wrong, I have no aversion to admitting it and apologizing as necessary. This way, I can move forward from mistakes without entrenching myself and picking fights; this, I believe, is central to so much of the argument we see on our project. For examples of intensive collaborative work in articlespace, you could see the FA process for Operation Infinite Reach, or the protracted debate surrounding No Gun Ri massacre. SPI is another good example; I often delegate authority to the reviewing admins to use their judgment in a case and proceed as necessary. It involves working with admins, CUs, other clerks, accused socks/masters, and case filers, and I enjoy collaborating with my colleagues to combat the usual rogues gallery that our project faces.

4. Certainly; my best examples of extensive content work are: Operation Barbarossa (GA), Battle of Kursk (GA, DYK), No Gun Ri massacre (GA), Carré d'As IV incident (GA, DYK), Operation Infinite Reach (GA, FA, DYK), and 1995 CIA disinformation controversy (created, GA, DYK). Some others are Walther Fischer von Weikersthal (expanded from this to this), content contributed to Hezbollah (greatly expanding the "Secret services" section), Schutzstaffel (contributing to the "escapes" section), and writing the lengthy "intelligence" section for September 11 attacks. I also did copyediting work and cleanup, examples of this being Battle of Rzhev, Summer 1942, Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Neerja, and others.

5. I take pride in my sanction-free record. I regret the circumstances of my last RFA, but I have gleaned some important lessons from it, too. I avoid edit wars, engaging in protracted disputes, and incivility.

As for the ORCP/RFA:

• One issue raised was "lack of mainspace, non-automated edits, and generally low content work." I believe that my record of content creation speaks for itself, and that I have substantial and sufficient experience in these areas. Simply put, my main focus as of now is working on SPI, and that is why I seek adminship. I also believe that automated tools enable me to contribute to our project more fully, particularly in gnomy work and admin areas, and I see them as valuable, rather than something to be shunned. I thrive when given the opportunity for intellectual stimulation and engagement, and as SPI is a great way to practice my analytic skills while aiding the encyclopedia, no surprise I've been so involved there. I do plan on more content work in the future, though. (My SPI log can be found here, and my CSD log is here).
• Another issue (rightfully) was the question of co-nom at the last RFA. I was deeply disturbed by this editor's conduct, and fully agreed with the sanctions he eventually received. Nevertheless, this tends to obscure the fact that my other co-nom, Diannaa, is one of the most respected and experienced editors (and admins) we have today. Had she not given the additional thumbs-up, I would never have elected to give it a try. Frankly, when this issue was raised in RFA, it too often became guilt by association. I am satisfied that my work complies with our core NPOV policy, and that my editing has met our rigorous quality standards.
• At the time of the RFA, experience was a significant issue raised. I get that - I wish I had waited a bit, and that is why I avoided making a run earlier this year, despite some encouragement towards that direction. Having now edited extensively for over 2 years, I believe that I have developed solid foundations of experience in a number of areas, from content work and SPI to "adminny stuff" and page curation. As specifically requested, I've expanded my PROD experience (viewable here), and taken part in AFD discussions.

Once again, thanks very much for your generous offer. I am aware that more than 2 co-noms is sometimes frowned upon (for reasons that elude me), but I have a decent sense of whom I might ask. I look forward to hearing from you. Best, GAB^gab 19:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, having seen the latest RFA, I think I've changed my mind regarding co-noms. GAB^gab 20:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, follow-up pings to @Bbb23, KrakatoaKatie, and DeltaQuad:. Since we've all worked together fairly extensively at SPI (and, if I'm not mistaken, discussed a nom for a future RFA), I would really appreciate your advice. I believe you could best vouch for how helpful adminship would be for working at SPI, and my performance there. My SPI log is here, and a few of the cases I've worked on which best demonstrate my ability are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishchopra778, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jbuffkin, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação, but others may come to mind. Thanks again, GAB^gab🐧 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Of the few thousand pages I have watched, somehow I wasn't watching this one. Thanks for the link. I do see that we've finally gotten our first oppose on the current candidate. I was getting a little excited about that 100%, but oh well. Anyway, you see the key here is to have so many co-noms that you already have 75% of the project before the RfA even starts. Pile em on I say. I look forward to casting an enthusiastic early support, and my only regret is that my own name doesn't mean enough to co nom myself. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dweller: Just to reiterate, I would be happy to begin preparations for a run, although it is crucial to hone my message a bit more. Additional ping for BU Rob13. GAB^gab 22:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

<-This all sounds good to me. Lmk when you have your nominators agreed. Incidentally, you might like to solicit some input from people who opposed you in the past, to see if there's any further development they think you need. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember your first RfA, but I think it was withdrawn before I made up my mind. I don't normally go anywhere near SPI but that doesn't mean I won't support people who do, and I was very much behind Ivanvector's RfA for instance. If you want a co-nomination, I'm happy to spend an afternoon going through your contributions and see if you're suitable. I tend to only nominate people who I think are sure fire winners, so I can't promise anything, though on initial glance, things look good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you for your help - I can't guarantee anything, but I will say that I'm in much better shape now than I was then. Also, @Dweller:, good idea - I'll reach out to some of them. Granted, any major requests ("Make 1,000 more edits to mainspace") would preclude a run in the near future. GAB^gab 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone through your contributions and I'm thinking about nominating you - you seem to tick all the boxes on User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. I've sent you an email with a whole bunch of stuff I'd like feedback on, if that's okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you - I've responded. GAB^gab 21:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added your talk page to my watchlist in the hope that your nomination goes forward. I almost never vote on RfA's, but would want to express my support of yours. I'm not suitable as a nominator (because I almost never vote on RfA's), but I've run into you from time to time and always left with a high opinion of you. If you decide not to proceed in the near future, I hope you'll consider it in the medium-term future. --Yamla (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. I'm not an optimistic person, but I'll see how things unfold. GAB^gab 23:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I am comfortable with everything, so I've created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2. One oppose voter on RfA #1 specifically said that not only would they now probably support, they added that if Dweller co-nominates, they think you have a high chance of passing. I think Bbb23 would be a good third nomination for the SPI angle, which I'm certainly not an expert on, and while I might have banged heads with them once or twice, I cannot deny that he knows his stuff when it comes to socks. I'll have a word with him now. In the meantime, have a think about how you might answer the three standard questions - feel free to email again if you want to run a draft by me first. Q3 in particular is a bit of a minefield; anything you can write here can be quoted and used against you, but if you don't put enough detail people will criticise you for trying to whitewash the truth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ummmm .... I advise you to self revert on WP:RFA and unfortunately you're probably now going to get a couple of oppose votes along the lines of "didn't answer questions" or "didn't follow procedure properly" (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pvmoutside). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I self-reverted on the RFA page. I was working on answering questions 1-3... GAB^gab 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, basically the minute you transclude it appears as a watchlist notification, and since RfA has several hundred regulars, and more casual viewers, they leap straight into what they're presented at. And if they see no co-nominations and no answers to questions, they'll respond with what they've given. I realise that the RfA instructions are non-obvious and it's only after you've done a couple that it's obvious what's going on. You can leave an RfA in the draft state for as long as you like - it's only when you formally accept the nomination, start the timer, and transclude that things kick off. Hopefully, there will be no harm done here and people will see it as a quickly-rectified mistake, as the instructions on Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#Are you ready? and the warning message on WP:RFA don't make it unambiguously obvious what to do if a third-party nominates you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to accept the nomination GAB -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's too bad this got launched before your other co-noms had a chance to chime in. (And I'm not surprised; I found the launch instructions impossible to follow.) But I believe there is precedent for adding additional noms even after the page is transcluded. Ritchie, didn't Drmies do that at yours? Anyhow I think it would be very helpful to see what User:Dweller and User:Bbb23 have to say, even if they have to shoehorn it in after the fact. (Yes, like many of us, I have been eagerly following your preparations for RfA.) Good luck and see you there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

WittyFeed

just FYI, I only declined the speedy as one had previously been declined and it survived AFC. I took it to AfD so feel free to weigh in there. StarM

@Star Mississippi: No problem; it seems that page has a history. Thanks, GAB^gab 20:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

to say the least. It may end up deleted yet. And whee, wasn't aware of that RE feature, so thanks for tip. Getting the alert > having to check TPs. StarM 03:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In general, if an article has been speedied more than three times for reasons over than vandalism, libel or copyvio, I think it's a good idea to go to AfD and cement a consensus. At the very least, you have a discussion to point to in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reporting likely sockpuppet

Hi, I don't know where to report a sock of User:Bertrand101 since the main case page is locked, but User:Pain and Powed seems suspicious. It is newly created account shortly after User:Zee Bezeze was blocked; and makes similar edits to page Korean entertainment related pages. Appreciated if you would help me file it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:E232:0:3C46:E824:8CFE:1987 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, the page is not semi-protected anymore. GAB^gab 22:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the copyedit for Whataboutism

GeneralizationsAreBad,

Thank you for taking on the copyedit for Whataboutism.

I agreed with your helpful comment, [1], and I carried out your suggestions.

I also agree with your style of multilateralism.

I think the people from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors do a fine job.

So long as the net effect keeps the references used currently in the article, and doesn't remove large chunks of sourced content, but does improve the writing quality overall, that would be phenomenal.

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, GeneralizationsAreBad, also, for saying, "Fascinating article". I've done a great deal of research and expansion effort on the article. Before link, and After LINK. So you can imagine, I really appreciate, your recognition of the current level of quality of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: No problem, I'll do what I can. I try to avoid removing content per se in copyedits, but please let me know if I've inadvertently altered the text's meaning somewhere. On an unrelated note, you seem to be interested in disinformation. Have you read Mitrokhin and Andrew's The Sword and the Shield or The World Was Going Our Way? The latter - which is especially pertinent due to its discussions of active measures - can be found here. Somewhat unrelated, but you might also be interested in this article: [2]. Cheers, GAB^gab 00:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! Yes, I find Disinformation to be fascinating, and I've improved a few articles related to the subject. You can see a few I've written on my userpage under Articles created, including for example, Disinformation (book). Sagecandor (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: This Atlantic Council report also might be of interest. GAB^gab 18:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Are you still in the midst of the copyedit? Sagecandor (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep - I'll get to the rest of the sections later this afternoon. GAB^gab 18:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:User was wrong. All the citations were already present in the article, in the paragraph, in the sentences. I've added cites after every single comma and every single sentence and every single assertion. With quotes. To back up every single fact. Now should be much more clear. Please revisit now? Sagecandor (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck

And some coffee to get you through it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks - it's a good a time as any to start drinking it! GAB^gab 15:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on your over 200 :). If you want to test out your new rev del powers, these two revisions need to be deleted per RD1 before I send the article to Afd [3] [4]:) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:  Done. GAB^gab 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the logs actually show it was G5ed as a creation of Elandroid in June. As this is more your realm, you also might be interested in that. If you don't think its related, I'll send to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I'll have a look. GAB^gab 22:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Sorry for the delay. There are definitely some distinct similarities - similar language and phrasing, idiosyncratic formatting and capitalizations. However, the user's been blocked and the article's at AFD, so I'm not sure there's much else we could do on the SPI end. Regards, GAB^gab 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought it might be worth adding to the SPI or tagging as a suspected sock: I only venture into that area when it intersects with new pages or copyvio, which are much more my cup of tea. I'll leave that to you. Thanks for your assistance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your RFA

I'm looking forward to seeing you join us on the dark side soon. Seriously, you certainly deserve the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Can I choose the color of my lightsaber? Or is red a requirement? Seriously, I've always wondered that... GAB^gab 15:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well I for one am bracing for a server crash, given the amount of edit conflicts among the folks trying to support your nomination already. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• • @Timothyjosephwood: Or oppose it. You never know... GAB^gab 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it's only a matter of time before someone digs up a typo you made two years ago and we end up with an ANI thread longer than the RfA. Thems the breaks. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Looks like I forgot to sign this 29 months ago. Ruh roh. GAB^gab 16:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck with the RFA. I believe you are ready for the task ahead. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

All nonsense aside, I am legitimately pleased to see you get such widespread support. Do the project good, as you already and for a long time have been. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The color of your lightsaber must be brown, for all the mud you have to wade through in SPI. I have to say, it's pretty impressive that even before you become an administrator, you've already developed an anti-administrator GAB fan club. See User:Oppose Generalizationsarebad's acdminship. Not that such a thing is a target, but if you develop a fan club such as that it's a pretty good indicator of doing some pretty good work around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: It was much, much worse around 1-1.5 years ago. I'm quite grateful for the reprieve. GAB^gab 20:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, then your lightsaber can be tan ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• So the real question here is, what the most supported unanimous RfA of all time? Anybody? TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• • @Timothyjosephwood: AFAIK, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth. See WP:RFX200. GAB^gab 00:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Just 137 to go. TimothyJosephWood 00:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Records are made to be broken! GAB^gab 00:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

My co-nom

Sorry, I was unavoidably offwiki yesterday (see my usertalk, it's happening quite a bit at the moment). I'm sorry I missed the chance to put in a co-nom before it went live. I think adding it now risks adding a distraction and possibly derailing it. Anyone curious about my views can see them here. I'll add a note in the support column. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: No worries, it's all good. GAB^gab 11:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

My e-mail

Did you receive it?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I did - thank you. GAB^gab 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I've replied. GAB^gab 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal Threats

In a few more days you should be able to handle that sort of thing yourself. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... can't wait... GAB^gab 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hi GAB. There is a neutral comment from a couple of days ago. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad_2#Neutral. Have you had a chance to look at it, and have you responded anywhere to the concerns raised? Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thank you for letting me know - I've replied under Q14. All the best, GAB^gab 23:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your copyediting help with the article Whataboutism. The article is much improved thanks to your copyediting efforts. I really appreciate your time stepping into this one and your general writing skill. Sagecandor (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Thanks! You had already done the heavy lifting of research and writing. GAB^gab 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the expansion was a lot of research and writing, but the copyediting was also most helpful, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for running for adminship. It's refreshing to see an RfA progressing so smoothly. North America1000 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictured here, literally everyone in the entire English speaking world

@Northamerica1000: Thank you! It's a real relief. GAB^gab 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullocks. If you don't get seven more supports in the next 15 hours I'm calling for a crat chat. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Appreciated, but we wouldn't want that to backfire... GAB^gab 00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TJW, get Mr. Fuzzybottom on the case so we can round up the stragglers and get this into WP:RFX200. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

199!? Are you serious!? TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood and Ritchie333: It's over 200! GAB^gab 11:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Huzzah! TimothyJosephWood 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If only... GAB^gab 11:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictured: That last sock GAB had blocked

Literally, what the f*ck!!!?? its 201 now :D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if we can reach my area code - or, better yet, my zip code. GAB^gab 11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

OH MY F*CKING GOD!!! this will be so great!😂 KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be even further over 200 if at least two voters had bolded supports for the bot. Which they havent't. — fortunavelut luna 11:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't have it all, I guess. GAB^gab 11:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You do realise that if 110 people turn up to oppose in the next three hours (ie: about 1 every 98 seconds) then this RfA will fail, right? I'm warning you now..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Truly nerve-racking. GAB^gab 12:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know, even if GAB were caught on national TV setting fire to the Main Page, he'd probably still pass at this point. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't some politician say that? I can't quite recall who... GAB^gab 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You've better get f*ucking caught in the media deleting the Main Page only if you dare to. ;D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Already happened..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, it's only a joke hehe ;) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll break out my sock farm. Fresh from the laundry. We'll have those opposes in no time. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I see what's going on here. The crats are just gonna leave it open until you get to 251. Well good on them. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on passing the Gauntlet (or Gantlet, if you prefer). Calls for something stronger than coffee! Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats GAB. The mop and bucket are well deserved!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The 'crats have either participated in the RfA or haven't logged on today. As soon as one of them notices the ping on WP:BN, you'll get the mop. If one more person sneaks a vote in, you'll beat Drmies :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well. I guess I shouldn't have voted to support. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	205?? Man and I thought 199 was good! Congrats on earning (and I do mean EARNING) the mop! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thank you, Rick - it's been a pleasure working with you GAB^gab 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your RFA

— xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got to say, when I kicked this RfA off, I was expecting a reasonable pass with maybe a few niggles, not a smack-the-ball-out-of-the-park WP:RFX200 result with zero opposes. Well done! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Just sorry that I couldn't give you the mop myself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Dweller: Thank you both for your help in this process, it's been real. This is where the fun begins... GAB^gab 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Successful RfA

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Please take a moment to savor this achievement... Done? Good. We have a Prod backlog with your name on it here. Welcome to the team :-). P.S. Have I mentioned how much I really hate people who coast through their RfA when some others (cough cough) endured seven days of martyrdom? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations GeneralizationsAreBad, Not gonna lie I'm extremely surprised you reached over 200 supports without any opposes!, Every single RFA has probably been opposed on and so it's very VERY rare to see one that doesn't have one oppose! - I'm genuinely so pleased for you GAB! :), –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Please take care of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scott19982. I'd especially like to see how you're going to block a user for 3-7 days. Is that what you techies call a range block? Oh, and welcome to the lonely hearts club. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Two hundred five supports and zero opposes. Amazing. Congratulations! —MRD2014 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations, sir. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! It was quite the experience. @Ad Orientem: I'll definitely have a look at the PRODs. @Bbb23: Scott's been handled; I wish I was a techie... GAB^gab 20:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm late to the party, but congrats on your WP:RFX200! Get ready for everything you do from this point on to be wrong, and welcome aboard! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Awesome, now I'll have less admin requests at SPI :-)! Well deserved, congratulations, and welcome to the admin-corps AKA "the few extra buttons". If you're like me, you'll be used to the interface change in less than a week, and being an admin will be pretty much normal after the first month or two. Of course, as I said before, if you have questions or need help with anything - my talk page is always open to you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am a little late to the congratulations but I am glad that I was one of the 205 Wikipedians who supported your RfA. Wow, good job to enter the "200 club." I am sure you will do a great job as an administrator. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your unanimous RfA! Now go forth and do good unto SPI. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Donner60 and Mz7: Thank you! I'll try... GAB^gab 15:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's a little belated, but please accept my congratulations on the successful run at the mop! The result seems to have never been in doubt and I suspect you will always be found worthy of the level of trust the community clearly has in you. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 18:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I try. GAB^gab 00:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA! It's your turn to hear the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – ten long, sordid, I'm-too-old-to-find-a-new-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'm surprised you haven't done it already.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

• Congratulations - I hope you enjoy using the mop! Good luck Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of long signatures... ;) Anyway, congrats on such a clean RfA, GAB! I think you'll find it smoother sailing at SPI now that you won't need to flag cases for admin action any longer. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie, Brookie, and DoRD: Thank you for your support - I'll do the best I can, it's all I can do GAB^gab 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of time before I go mad with power. GAB^gab 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh god. I didn't realize you had U2 lyrics on your userpage. I want a do over. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Your wish is my command. I'm considering drawing up some recall criteria. GAB^gab 21:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Furreal though, you should consider Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, because... I just think that's a thing that everyone should do. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Regular users here to congratulate you!

• Congrats on your successful adminship! I wanted to support your RFA because I notice you were handling SPI investigations very well, and I hope you continue to do so now that you have more control over cases. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: Thanks! Much appreciated. GAB^gab 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Want some 2nd-hand clothing?

Congratulations! I've got another admin T-shirt for you. Mine. It's completely worn out of course. They won't give me another unless I run at RfA again. Problem is, although I've never put a foot wrong, I've made so many enemies by just doing my job that I'll probably get 200 Opposes! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... I guess it happens to the best of us. I appreciate your support (1st !vote :) GAB^gab 00:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to do my admin job now wearing a variety of Wikimania T-shirts from 2012 through 2016, and they are beginning to get a bit threadbare too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see...

...that I won't have to patrol your {{admin assistance}} requests now! —SpacemanSpiff 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I'll make sure to ping you anyways for second opinions, if nothing else just to bother you GAB^gab 15:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

@HMSLavender: Thanks! GAB^gab 15:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations Denisarona (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No doubt badly needed after the stress of such a contentious RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Thank you! @Ad Orientem: If you like, I could always go back and add a couple of opposes. GAB^gab 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

	Happy Adminship
	Congratulation for your successful Rfa. Hope you have a superb adminship. ⮘RADICAL SODA(FORCE)⮚ 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Forceradical: Thank you! I've never had Gulab jamun before, although I really ought to try it sometime. GAB^gab 15:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA, soldier! No time to rest on your laurels now, though; you've got work to do! Here at the Admin Corps, you must absolutely remember these three rules: 1) You will delete the Main Page someday. Trust me. 2) You will block the wrong user someday. Trust me. 3) There IS no cabal!!!. But before you let the mop sweep you off your feet, sweep this cup of coffee off its feet (If coffee could ever have feet) and have some caffeine. It'll kick you right into gear! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@K6ka: What? No cabal??? I already had the business cards printed... *sobs* GAB^gab 15:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

SMcM moved the conversation to the Stateless Nation talk page and did not mention that in the edit summary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. GAB^gab 16:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thought you should know. Have an awesome Friday. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, and a suggestion

• Welcome to the cabal. I see that you have already started blocking poor innocent editors who have done nothing wrong just for the sheer pleasure of wielding arbitrary power. Keep on doing that. (I know that is what all administrators are doing every time they block anyone, because I have read quite a few messages from editors over the years saying so. Obviously, it couldn't possibly be just sour grapes from disruptive editors who won't or can't accept responsibility for their own mistakes.)

• A slightly more serious point. Purely out of interest, to see how you were getting on in your new role, I had a look at your deletion log. I noticed a blue link (not counting the ones where the log says "Deleted to make way for move", where you yourself had effectively recreated the deleted page). I checked the blue link (it was Sanjay balor) and found that the same editor had recreated the same unsuitable page, so I checked the editor's history, and decided it was time to warn of a possible block, as you can see here. The point of telling you this is just that you may like to consider checking your deletion log every now and then to look for re-creations, which often (though not always) indicate further action is needed. Obviously it's up to you whether you choose to do that or not, but I do it with my log, and I find it helpful. (It is worth saying, though, that it's only a tiny minority of deletions where there are disruptive re-creations: the vast majority of deleted pages stay deleted, and of the few that are re-created many are perfectly good re-creations.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks for the tip - I used to check my CSD log for recreations, so now I'll do the same with my deletion log. Best, GAB^gab 15:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, obviously you are already aware of the idea, so I hardly needed to point it out to you. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

oops

Sorry- I had an edit conflict, and thought I was reverting the original removal. Although it was actually you. D'oh. Sorry about that. — fortunavelut luna 16:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. GAB^gab 16:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Congratulations on your Successful RfA. Sheldopedia (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on becoming admin -- a good thing for the project. I've left, but occasionally come back to check on things I really like about WP and you were one of the users whose interactions I treasured. -- User:Mscuthbert (2017 July 18) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.54.254 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - it's very gratifying to hear. GAB^gab 23:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Europefan

Do you happen to know if there is an edit filter to deal with Europefan? He seems active lately, quickly making the same edit to multiple articles: adding "[[_Category:German inventions]]" or "[[:Category:German inventions]]" to articles. This looks like something that could easily be prevented by an edit filter. Deli nk (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deli nk: Sadly, I'm not really in the know regarding edit filters, but MusikAnimal might be able to help. GAB^gab 23:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've re-enable an old filter for this, currently in log-only. If you could provide some diffs that would help. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: See for example, the edits of 88.70.220.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Knopfschöpfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These are fairly typical socks, at least in terms of the recent activity. Deli nk (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! I'll monitor the filter and set it to disallow once I see it's working — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MEXXS

See this and feel free to add if you come across him. We've also got an ef going! ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Hoo boy. GAB^gab 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's probably a dozen or so more accounts I haven't updated yet since he's a huge xwiki vandal (mainly english wikis, oddly enough.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Yuck. Thanks for letting me know. In return, you might want to watch out for Anhinhhhd (talk · contribs · count), the tech-support and prostitute (!) phone number spammer. They've been at this for about a year and a half. I just blocked Mike267 (talk · contribs · count) as a sock for creating RUHWAK 1-800-5687-613™© Microsoft Phone Number Microsoft Number UULDA. It's really obvious when you see it, not even worth an SPI case. GAB^gab 23:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

118.180.7.30

I think you're familiar with proxies, this looks like one-- 118.180.7.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), if it is could you do a proxy block (probably resetting the one day block I gave it.) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Yeah, it's a proxy. I've reblocked it for about 2 months. Thanks, GAB^gab 18:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs-up

Hey GAB, a belated "congratulations" on the adminship. I use sarcastic quotes, because I've never seen adminship as a promotion, rather than as a community trust thing. But the true congratulations are for suffering through community scrutiny and making it out alive. May the tools simplify your workload, and if I can be of any assistance (doubtful) let me know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you! Much appreciated. GAB^gab 18:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn

Thank you. I see you have indeffed the account and suspected socks, I would like to say that prior blocks I had done some research that I would like to present. DoRD had said that MarrrMariiii is unrelated, which means that account could be from entirely other region, but yes there was still some relation. Akhiljaxxn has canvassed on-wiki[5] by casting Wikipedia:ASPERSION and you can read this, I had found this social media post from the declared Twitter(on userpage) of Akhiljaxxn.[6] It seems has been engaged in off-wiki canvassing as well, he told the person what to type, hence the writing style and POV was completely same. Although such accounts are always allowed to ask for unblock after proving that they are WP:HERE. Excelse (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Excelse: That's interesting. It's worth noting that Arbcom has ruled that "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." So I'm glad we got that cleaned up. Thanks, GAB^gab 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This one is apparently a meat puppet too, but has made numerous contributions and never edited afterwards, since this article is likely going to be deleted[7], there won't be any danger. I will have a watch though. Excelse (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Friend myself is Ranjithsiji, Admin in Malayalam Wikipedia. Recently I noticed the CheckUser block of Akhiljaxxn in english wiki. I contacted him directly and he told that he has no intention write articles for any partial views or destroying an article. As far as I know he is a good editor given a lot of contributions in English wiki and Malayalam Wiki Also [Akhiljaxxn's Contributions] says he got more than 4000 edits on various wikis. So if you take some action to revoke the block then that will be very helpful for preventing just loosing a good wikipeida editor. The situation was EdivinBabu is akhiljackson's friend and they are edited from same Android phone. That is why this looked like sock. These people are students with limited internet access. So please reconsider to revoke the block of both. I will assure that in future they will be carefull editing articles. Hoping for a positive replay and revoke the block --Ranjithsiji (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ranjithsiji: I understand. I would appreciate hearing from Salvidrim! and DoRD, who were also involved in the case. I do not object to their reversing my block if they wish to do so. Thanks, GAB^gab 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• shrugs - Considering Akhiljaxxn is not a new account (locally nor globally) and the other two are, perhaps indeffing them and lowering the master's block to not-indefinite with a "don't do it again" is justifiable, especially given to relatively plausible technical excuse. A bit of WP:ROPE. (Assuming there were no other reasons for the block than the socking) Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 01:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• so then what will be the decision. Dear Salvidrim! and DoRD please give your opinions. Will this user go to dark or can we hope for something. In my opinion if you people decide to unblock him then he will contribute more and be carefully in future. So decide for good --Ranjithsiji (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is assurance from Akhiljaxxn that this won't happen again, I have no objections to reducing their block. Ranjithsiji's ping didn't work, and for whatever reason, I cleared the earlier one from GAB without visiting this page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ranjithsiji, DoRD, and Salvidrim: I've unblocked them as per their promise not to sock and request for another chance. GAB^gab 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

GAB,Ranjithsiji,DoRD,Salvidrim! Thank you for listening to my words and helping me to revoke my block. It was a huge mistake from my side but it helped me to understand more deeply the rules of wikipedia and i promise that i will never do the same again. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

SPI query

Hi GAB, I filed an SPI where the behavioural match is very strong, but the CU came out negative. Will you be doing a behavioural evaluation even though the SPI is marked as closed? I am concerned that, if we don't catch this editor now, we might have to put up with a lot of pain later. By the way, glad to see that you are now an admin. Sorry that I missed your RfA. It would have been a pleasure to vote for you :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Looks like they're now blocked for other reasons. It always amuses me to see accounts come out of SPI unscathed, only to get blocked as socks of another master or for disruption. Karma. Cheers, GAB^gab 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That was fortuitous. But I am indeed curious about the process. Some of these socks are getting too clever for the CU. (IP hacking or behind-the-scenes collusion or whatever.) So, if I want a behavioral evaluation in addition to the CU, how should request it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You could always ping an admin/CU/clerk familiar with the case - there's a special "behavioral evidence needs evaluation" template, but unless there was a special SPI parameter added for that, it's useless. Generally, I and fellow clerks will look through checked cases and do behavioral evaluations. Regards, GAB^gab 23:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks! You deserved it. GAB^gab 22:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowingasia

GAB could you please keep an eye on Temerleen. I just noticed there's some intersection ([8]) with previous sockpuppets, plus the recreation of World University Championships. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Gotcha. Good find. I'd especially like to see them edit a talkpage or otherwise communicate with another editor, since Rowingasia's writing is distinctive. GAB^gab 00:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I've checked their contributions and, while I don't want to say too much (as per WP:BEANS; feel free to drop me an email), I'd say that there are certainly some similarities. I'll watch them, though. GAB^gab 00:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: They've edited some more - what do you think? Thanks, GAB^gab 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

They finally edited a talk page ([9]) with that same distinctive writing style. To me it looks pretty duck-ish. Sro23 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Very good. I'm blocking them and deleting their creations. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. GAB^gab 22:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Also Empteekax (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). GAB^gab 23:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Quack. Sro23 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Bernstayup. They never get tired of this. Sro23 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thanks - I miss the good ol' days when they were dormant. I'm curious if our edit-filter gurus might be able to construct some sort of edit filter, but I'm certainly no authority on that. Time for bed. GAB^gab 02:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And now there's Citolongland and Laratracy ([10]) . Sro23 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 GeneralizationsAreBad dislikes this. GAB^gab 01:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thanks for letting me know.  Blocked and tagged + Shermishan (talk · contribs · count) (he ain't Portuguese). I've deleted some stuff, but there's so much more. Could you please do me a huge favor and help remove links to the page creations so that I can delete them? I would really appreciate that. Checkuser needed to check for sleepers, since he's back to using multiple accounts simultaneously. Thanks, GAB^gab 02:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

He has a new trick for camouflaging his articles by creating redirects and then building on top of them. GAB^gab 15:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm checking, but it'll take me a bit. So far, Shermishan is  Confirmed to Laratracy and Empteekax. Katie^talk 15:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Laratracy in turn is confirmed to Citolongland and Temerleen. Katie^talk 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, every account you listed here is confirmed to Rowingasia; I don't see obvious sleepers. I put down a couple of rangeblocks. :-) Katie^talk 15:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks very much! GAB^gab 18:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Excessive archival of live sources

Greetings GAB! You recently added archives to live citations in several articles, notably some on my watchlist Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Syrian Civil War, but many others. I understand that you are using the IABot console to automate this process. However, it is not necessary to archive all sources in an article: that makes the wikitext unnecessarily large and hard to edit. In the future, please do not check the box that says "Add archives to all non-dead references" on the tool page. Many thanks for your consideration. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As I also noted on other users' pages (Elisfkc, Mramoeba), the tool is extremely useful to find archives of dead links, but I don't believe it should be standard practice to archive all links on all articles. This needs a centralized debate. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a UI improvement at User talk:cyberpower678#IABot: suggest UI clarification. — JFG ^talk 06:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that where debate is being centralised? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:BOTN#Archiving links not dead - good idea? but I think we'll need to open a global RfC to define a community guideline about archiving live sources or leaving them alone. I just don't know how to word it yet. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference

Hi, one of your edits was recently reverted [11]. I'm not sure the purpose of your edit, or what it does, or even if the reason for the revert is valid - "Please do not needlessly archive live sources". Would you mind helping me better understand it? DN (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Reverter speaking. Basically, that was a bot-assisted edit listing archives for all sources in the articles. This makes the wikitext unnecessarily heavy and hard to edit further. I think the bot tool is useful to find archives for dead sources but should not touch live sources. See above: #Excessive archival of live sources — JFG ^talk 06:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was talking GAB. - DN (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm waiting for his comments too. — JFG ^talk 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples and JFG: Ack. I'm sorry if I've caused either of you any needless frustration over this - it does indeed clutter the text. The reverts were perfectly appropriate. I've gone back and self-reverted the archiving on pages without deadlinks. I will definitely keep that box unchecked in the future :/ GAB^gab 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries GAB...DN (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Might be useful if you could pitch in at User talk:cyberpower678#IABot: suggest UI clarification to support the requested change, and possibly at WP:BOTN#Archiving links not dead - good idea? if you have an opinion on archiving live sources. — JFG ^talk 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI I fixed an article that had a couple dead links among many live ones.[12] — JFG ^talk 03:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Recreation

Hello GAB, I just found user Yogesh Khandke tried to game the system by recreating Dhinchak Pooj under different title Pooja Jain. The article was earlier speedied by you and Razer2115. Yogesh Khandke has has autopatrol rights and he is definitely not a new user who can make such mistakes by recreating an article under different title so I smell something fishy here because It's not been a long time when multiple users were trying to create Dhinchak Pooja constantly. According to the previous record I was about to draftify Pooja Jain where it actually belongs to so can you guys please take a look. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: The article was created three times - by Ritesh8040, by Wazzaaayush, and by Kharshit801. Moreover, the versions appear quite different. Kharshit801's is simply, "Pooja Popular by her Youtube name Dhinchak Pooja." Wazzaaayush's is quite lengthy, including an improperly formatted attempt at a userbox. Ritesh8040's includes a proper userbox but very little content. For viral internet stars, I think this sort of thing will be inevitable. There is probably a degree of WP:MEAT involved here, as well as some logged-out editing - people recruiting friends and the like. 1aditya3 bears watching as a potential sock of Wazzaaayush, since they appeared solely to contest deletion on their version (yet they write in a distinctly different style - thus, perhaps meat). (I'd like to hear Razer2115 weigh in, though.) I hope that this helps. GAB^gab 22:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Whatisurproblem

User:Whatisurproblem, who you blocked recently, is now making the same edits using IP addresses: original[13][14] Magic9Ball (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magic9Ball: Blocked for a month. GAB^gab 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure this[15][16] (see edit summaries) is him again. Magic9Ball (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging SPI pages

Hello, Generalizations. I am Darkknight2149. Since you are an SPI clerk, I wanted to ask if there is any way we can get the ball rolling on merging Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97.95.13.3 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VillegasD2002, per this discussion on NinjaPirateRobot's Talk Page? If you need a further diff comparison between the sock puppeteers, that can be provided. Regards, DarkKnight2149 02:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hello... Is there anybody in there? DarkKnight2149 00:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I'm sorry for the excessive delay - I've been meaning to look at this for a while. GAB^gab 16:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI merge

Can you please verify tags and move the SPI case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouadadanmp3 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouadadan the very oldest account name base Commons thanks --209.249.5.130 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. GAB^gab 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello GAB. I hope you are well. I wanted to let you know that this newb (or maybe not so new) Batisyana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting complaints regarding you on numerous talk pages. You might have already seen this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So they blanked this message GAB. May well be a WP:NOTHERE situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Update - Ponyo has blocked this sock. I hope that you are enjoying your break. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks for the update - it's a sock angry with me for deleting its work. And as for the break... I'm just trying to cram some activity in before I really go dark. Best, GAB^gab 21:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidance is required

Should I ask for a check user here[17].-Umair Aj (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: As per our checkuser policy, we are nearly never permitted to use CU to connect named accounts and IPs. We would use behavioral investigations instead. Regards, GAB^gab 22:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.-Umair Aj (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for promptly blocking Gabby's latest sock earlier... the meatball thing. Anyway, wanted to mention that we might also want to watch Loveislove2017; it was registered around the same time and follows her lovey-dovey account naming, but has not edited yet so I can't conclude that it's definitely her. Home Lander (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem! GAB^gab 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping

I don't understand why you don't see a connection because 117.193.85.42 edited Chandra Nandini and changed the casting based on Siddharth Nigam just like Snowsleeping did. I find this obvious sockpuppetry (check history of article). TheNewSMG (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Proof: Sockpuppet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.193.85.42

Proof: Sockmaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794897167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewSMG (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Asian-Pacific Astronomy Olympiad

As I see, the article "Asian-Pacific Astronom Olympiad" was created by splitting text of "International Astronomy Olympiad" into two articles. By deleting the article "Asian-Pacific Astronom Olympiad" you de facto removed information from "International Astronomy Olympiad". Please, restore information in "International Astronomy Olympiad" that you deleted in frames of "Asian-Pacific Astronom Olympiad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.110.187 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

April 2016 socks

Hi, congratulations on your RFA.

I was checking links to a renamed category and found a trail of accounts that were patently socking in April 2016, including Ricecake112 (talk · contribs), Hlw35 (talk · contribs), Mnwinter15 (talk · contribs), KTDC15 (talk · contribs), Akwoody34 (talk · contribs), EpJ99 (talk · contribs), Coeurdefleur (talk · contribs), Evergreen123456789 (talk · contribs). The editor created quite a few articles. Is it worth following the trail, or might we just as well ignore it as these are no longer active? – Fayenatic London 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, here's a similar bunch from October-November 2015, probably the same editor again: ER2522 (talk · contribs), kat.hos238 (talk · contribs), bham 1993 (talk · contribs), Crazedkoala (talk · contribs), E.gasca (talk · contribs), fivestardancer10 (talk · contribs), kmsouk (talk · contribs), Gatorgirl2015 (talk · contribs), kjlytle (talk · contribs), NeartheN (talk · contribs), Lib397 (talk · contribs), Klkaktrkmom (talk · contribs), Malou28 (talk · contribs), Jmbuzzy (talk · contribs), MKristine23 (talk · contribs), AKro123 (talk · contribs), AmH1960 (talk · contribs)... Ellieanna (talk · contribs) (blocked for spam)... KrisL2015 (talk · contribs), 16banana (talk · contribs), Moraca14 (talk · contribs), bld1396 (talk · contribs), AND722 (talk · contribs), Smgreen5 (talk · contribs), LilyAngel777 (talk · contribs), Zdock44 (talk · contribs), ChiefLoganator (talk · contribs), Pspeck15 (talk · contribs), Mrah14 (talk · contribs), Bluesaxophone12 (talk · contribs), Karah.Liz (talk · contribs), Ml3097916 (talk · contribs), Sunnyjoy0912 (talk · contribs), AuburndaleGrad14 (talk · contribs), Skp15 (talk · contribs)... and more.

Ah, at last: user:Tbc32 connects both sets, and was still active last month. Never yet investigated at SPI. I'll build a case. – Fayenatic London 00:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbc32. The lists just grew and grew. Moreover, Tbc32's deleted contribs show another batch in Marxh 2015. Now I wonder if perhaps I misread student group exercises as socking. Do you think I should withdraw it? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: I'm sorry for the delay - I've been on break. It looks like all of these accounts are very old, so I'm afraid that there's not very much we could do on the SPI side - we can't conduct a check, and blocking them would probably not be worthwhile. May I ask what led you to believe that this was a student group? GAB^gab 16:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem re delay. If they were socks, surely sanctions would be appropriate against the sockmaster? But the lead editor's user page states that s/he is Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls; if the editing bursts are class exercises, this would explain in good faith (i) registering so many accounts in a short period, (ii) the pattern of them collaborating almost exclusively on each other's new pages. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I see your point - we should consider contacting them and informing them of our formal classroom programs. That would probably help stop further disruption and leave everyone happy. Even if this was a mismanaged group project (it happens), a block at this point would seem a bit punitive. GAB^gab 23:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate - please do. I wasn't previously aware that there were formal Wikipedia arrangements for classes. Meanwhile, should I withdraw the SPI? One of us could archive it, or delete it under WP:G7? – Fayenatic London 15:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. GAB^gab 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Cleaner880

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad, I believe that Cleaner880 who was recently blocked by you after a sockpuppet investigation is back as Parashurama007. His edits seem to correspond as that of Cleaner880. (N0n3up (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC))

this is absurd accusations (WP:Bite) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parashurama007 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see that there's an SPI filed with a CU request, so I think it's best to let things play out there. GAB^gab 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Failed attempt to login

Hi,
Around 18 hours ago from, there were five (failed) attempts to log in my account (I have the notifications turned on). Fortunately, my password is very long string of random characters. I didn't know what to do, so I am contacting you. I was going to consult Bbb23, but he seems to been inactive since last few days. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Usernamekiran: Not much you can do about that I'm afraid - as long as you've got a strong password you'll be fine. If you're very concerned, you can enable two-factor authentication (as a non-admin you'll need to contact a steward to enable this) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks There'sNoTime. I thought the same, nothing to do except changing the password. Thankfully, my password is very strong. See you guys around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always scary when this happens. I wish 2FA was easier for non-admins to enable, but I highly recommend it. GAB^gab 19:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

NP vs LX

GAB, This is LanguageXpert. He's the one with a fetish for the languages of Pakistan/dialects. NP's IP is mostly in the UK unless he travels or is behind a proxy. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you! The South/Central Asia nationalistic sockmasters are very confusing. GAB^gab 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A refresher for you :) :

• Nangparbat -- mainly focuses on India vs Pakistan (most IPs are BT). I used to handle this one for many years though now I just go to the SPI and check it out.
• LanguageXpert -- started off mainly around Saraiki but now focuses on all Pakistan languages/dialects and loves to undermine Uanfala at all odd places (Pakistan IPs)
• Najaf ali bhayo has an overlap with both of the above but has a greater focus on Gilgit Baltistan, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, etc and focuses more on ethnic groups than languages. IP ranges overlap with LX. Thomas.W is the resident expert. THis is the one that I'm least familiar with among these.
• Faizan/TownsHill is also focused on India-Pakistan disputes like NP but doesn't have the trademark of NP.

Hope this helps :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Quite a bit - thanks! GAB^gab 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right sanctions

Thank you for that, however I'm not getting the pink warning message when editing the source that I see on other pages. Is there something else that needs to be done? --That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Thank you - I've gone ahead and added a 1RR/Consensus required notice. Arbitration and sanctions matters have never been my beat GAB^gab 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I confirmed it works. Thank you. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)