Jump to content

User talk:Girth Summit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Girth Sockit)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]

Hello Girth Summit,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Happy Holidays[edit]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

Wikipedia policy regarding snippet view sources[edit]

Hi Girth Summit, hope you're doing well. Can you please tell whether or not snippet view sources from Google books (i.e those with no preview or full access available for either of the parties) can be used in case of content dispute? Thanks in advance. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi: (talk page stalker) I don't see how this would be any different than citing any other source – WP:PAYWALLed sources are perfectly acceptable, as are offline ones. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost for further information.
I noticed that you say that the editors involved are only using Google Book snippets and none have full access to the text. I don't think that this is strictly nessecary given that what can be accessed is verifiable. There have been a few times where I've cited a page of a book this way. The only thing that immediately jumps to my mind as a possible issue is if there's reasonable concern that somehow this text in isolation is misleading or not providing adequate context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what Clovermoss said. The source isn't the snippet, it's the book - sources don't need to be available online. Generally, I'd expect the person citing the book to have access to it, and to have read more than what they can get at with a Google snippet - taking a tiny chunk of text stripped of any context would risk misrepresenting the author's intent, but without any further information I can't comment on any of the specifics. Girth Summit (blether) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the quality of Google Snippets can vary dramatically. Some snippets will let you see pages while others will only show a paragraph. I'd find the latter situation more dubious. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sometimes seen ones that aren't even a whole paragraph - just literally like three lines of text. It all very much depends on the context - having sight of a snippet of text from an authoritative architectural guide might be enough to confirm that a particular building is of decorative gothic rather than perpendicular gothic design, but it would be very unlikely to be enough to confirm anything even uncontroversial about a BLP, or about biomedical effects of a particular chemical. Girth Summit (blether) 09:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three lines? Wow. I suppose I've been lucky in that I usually come across a few pages at a time when it's been nessecary. I agree that context matters here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit @Clovermoss specifically I was talking about latter kind of sources (such as this), which allow only a few lines to be read. Are these really ok in case of a content dispute? Sutyarashi (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what that particular snippet could possible support - it looks like it's just part of the index of a book. The book itself might be a reliable source, I don't have a view on that, but I don't see how that particular bit of any book in and of itself could support any assertion. Girth Summit (blether) 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It might be usable in a dispute over the spelling/romanization of a name, but wow, that provides even less context than I was imagining from “three lines”. At any rate, from the occasions on which I’ve tried to verify something and ended up at a snippet view, I guess there’s been sufficient context to satisfy me (one way or the other) in well under half of them.—Odysseus1479 20:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not even for that - bereft of any context at all, and index wouldn't support the assertion that the spelling it is using is connected to the word you are trying to spell. If I tell you that the proper English translation of the French word 'merde' is 'toast', and linked to the index of a book about bread where it gives page numbers that mention toast, you would laugh in my face, and quite right too. If I told you that the correct spelling of the word 'advice' was 'advise', and did likewise... you see where I'm going. An index is a useful part of a book, but it is not a useful citation. Girth Summit (blether) 20:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might argue that proper names are a bit different … but I won’t bother. ;) —Odysseus1479 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the word 'name' in your last reply. Even then though, how would an index alone tell you that it's the name of the right person/thing, especially since there are often multiple ways that names can be spelled... Girth Summit (blether) 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chess. I'll try to find time to look in on it, but that is a hefty discussion. Girth Summit (blether) 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:FCSB on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alia8910[edit]

Here are my comments on what they were doing. This was a strange subspecies of a strange species of conduct that we recently have seeing coprolites from at Miscellany for Deletion. What we see at MFD is that someone, at some time in the 2010s, created an account. Then they copied a web page into either their user page or their user sandbox. The web page may have been a Wikipedia article, or something else. Usually it is copied as a stupid copy, a copy-and-paste that captures the character content, but not the formatting, so that the copy is ugly, and difficult to read. The user then goes away. That is, all that they did was to create the stupid copy. We don't know why they do this. In April 2024 or May 2024, an editor discovers the stupid page via a report. Sometimes it can be tagged for U5, but if it is a copy of a Wikipedia page, there may not be any criterion for speedy deletion. It is a redundant fork, but that isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. So, over seven days, a few editors agree that it should be deleted. Creating a stupid copy is an occasional form of stupid conduct. This was different because the person doing the misconduct created multiple accounts, and did the same misconduct from each of them. This may have occasionally been done in 2015 or 2018, but the IP address records are not retained that long.

So this was someone creating stupid copies from multiple accounts. Now, if in six months we see stupid copies of the same web pages, we will be able to do an microscopic examination of the feathers.

This was a strange subspecies of a strange species of misconduct. I don't know why it is done, but MFD is the cleanup crew. That is a partial explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - this all sounds like a pain in the bum. There really ought to be a G15 CSD along the lines of 'Stupid disruptive nonsense that somebody did one time and went away'. Come to think of it, that sounds like a somewhere between G2 and G3 - can you stick a G2.5 tag on them? Girth Summit (blether) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your keen eye and hard work on sockpuppet detection. Wikishovel (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5[edit]

Hello, You CSDed Yubin Shin because the creator was a blocked user. However, and as I am sure you know, G5 does not apply in the case of pages substantially edited by others. I edited substantially the page and it took me some time. I clearly mentioned this in the Afd you closed....So can I ask you to kindly restore the text of that page either in my User space or, more appropriately, in a DRAFT? Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made two edits to that article, which I did not consider to be substantial. With that being said, if you want to work on it, I'll be happy to restore it as a draft, give me a minute. Be wary of any new accounts that show up and continue to work on it - the original author is a prolific cross-wiki abuser, and I will not be surprised if they return to continue working on it. Girth Summit (blether) 13:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Draft:Yubin Shin. Girth Summit (blether) 13:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed[edit]

[1] Nobody asked for your telephone ducttape opinion, you onion housekey. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up yours, bookshelf auntie. Girth Summit (blether) 17:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filing SPI cases[edit]

Hi Girth Summit. Thanks for the CU earlier. Do you think there's room for clarifying the instructions in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for ordinary use to include updating the case status, when that should be done, by whom, and the best way to do that? (If not there, perhaps in the collapsed instructions on SPI?) The instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases § What happens in the case also make it sound like editing the case status is only done for cases already filed. If you'd prefer me to ask elsewhere, just let me know, but I wanted to ask someone familiar with SPI first. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the first SPI I filed - I made an absolute mess of it, and a CU basically ticked me off told me to tidy up after myself. I'm not sure it's got any easier in the intervening years, so yes I think that the instructions could be improved upon. My own personal advice is to use Twinkle to file cases - go to the userpage of the proposed sockmaster, or the proposed puppet, and choose ARV from the drop-down menu. Amongst the options it gives you is to report a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer - you then just fill in a form. There's a checkbox where you can switch request for a CU on or off, which will set the flag for you. I wouldn't even attempt to file one manually, I think I'd still make a mess of it. Girth Summit (blether) 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if I was that CU; I never understood why it was so hard - not that that gave me the right to be nasty, though. Even now, I file SPIs using the instructions on the SPI page, which isn't exactly "manually". Twinkle is fine unless you want to add to an existing report, and manually isn't hard at that point and creates less clutter than Twinkle, which AFAIK, always creates a new report whether you want to or not. I'm constantly trying to remove clutter from a naturally cluttered world.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't you that I'm thinking of, but funnily enough... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MichaelMiletic/Archive. It took my a while to find my SPI feet! Twinkle is fine for adding to an existing case - even if the case has an open report on it, it will just creates a new report with today's date. The only thing it won't do is add a new sock to an open report, but I can just about get my head around doing that manually. Girth Summit (blether) 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2024[edit]

Delivered June 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV RFK Jr[edit]

Hello, I am talking to you because of a discussion in the RFK Jr wiki talk page about neutral point of view. I have also said this on Largoplazo and Ian.Thompson’s talk page. I noticed you on Ian.Thompson’s and thought you would know more about it. Since I am not an expert I have decided to go out and contact the experts so they can make their decisions on it. Thank you. Logawinner (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ian.thompson hasn't been around for years, unfortunately, so I don't think he'll be able to help. I have not particular knowledge of or interest in RFK Jr, and have no desire to enter into a discussion about our article about him. Rather than dropping notes on individual exitors' talk pages, you should go consider going to a noticeboard to make more uninvolved people aware of your concerns. WP:BLPN is where potential breaches of the biographies of living people policy, and WP:NPOVN is where to go to discuss articles that are not written from a neutral perspective. Girth Summit (blether) 07:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Logawinner (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially sockpuppet but no strong evidence[edit]

I'm uncertain about an editor who I suspect might be a sock puppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso. I've noticed that this editor appears to focus heavily on Chris Brown-related articles, much like Giubbotto non ortodosso did. In particular, they frequently edit the article on "Back to Love." Although it's just a gut feeling and I could be mistaken, I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that was who you were talking about? Found a sleeper too. Girth Summit (blether) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to bring this up again, but it appears that the editor:[2] is almost certainly Giubbotto non ortodosso. After the other account was blocked, they immediately began editing the article Hmmm. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Girth Summit (blether) 12:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this is exhausting for you. They certainly do come back quickly. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 12:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal. I just peeked at their block log, since I wasn't sure why they were blocked in the first place - it was just a case of a temporary block for edit warring, and then block evasion. If they'd just waited out or appealed that block, they might still be editing legitimately. People make strange choices. Girth Summit (blether) 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered Giubbotto non ortodosso because the sock puppet Justinaintime mentioned that DollysOnMyMind was another alias for Giubbotto non ortodosso. This prompted me to investigate further, and I found that Giubbotto non ortodosso consistently identified MariaJaydHicky in various articles. My curiosity about Giubbotto non ortodosso grew, and my suspicions were ultimately confirmed. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 12:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I'm doing the dirty job instead of you (who were caught helping them get their vandalisms into protected pages). You're welcome. I'm blocked because I'm catching people that are actually vandalizing the encyclopedia, while I'm also adding legitimate content. I find this more strange than "not appealing the block" to people who don't even care to actually look (instead of just quick-peek) at the contributions, but rather spend time bragging about being mentioned in small Nigerian articles nobody reads. I just want to ask you one question - in what way your today's contributions improved Wikipedia? What kind of harm did you just prevent? 5.90.234.239 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You better catch that block-evading user that is doing his edits the right way, or he's going to warn us about another block-evading user that's actually vandalizing Wikipedia!! This absolutely must not happen!!" 5.90.234.239 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look a bit deeper than my userboxes, you'll see various ways I've improved the encyclopedia - I've written quite a few featured and good articles. Recently, admittedly, I've spent more of my time enforcing blocks than writing content, but I expect I'll bash out another couple of GAs this summer, and have been thinking about improving Second English Civil War and taking it to FAC.
Now, why do I enforce blocks? Because without them, this place would simply not work. There would be constant edit warring, constant abuse hurled back and forth, copyright violations galore, and an infinite number of crap articles about school football teams, web comics and people's mates' bands. If administrators block someone, other administrators need to be willing to enforce those blocks - which is what I do.
If you are willing to abide by your block and wait it out for six months, email arbcom and apply for an unblock under the WP:SO. Don't come complaining to me because I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to it. Girth Summit (blether) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GS, I'm pretty sure that User:Clapham Crew (CC) is another instance of MariaJaydHicky. Can you check/confirm? I think you know them better than me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Girth Summit (blether) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How sad. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Girth Summit (blether) 19:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Hello. After you blocked a sockpuppet Miagarciacs, an IP editor, 2A02:1406:57:D889:406F:55D7:5514:3C58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), returned to the article to make the same edits.

[3]

[4]

Another IP address this person used, 92.35.43.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is currently blocked for 3 months. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the /64 and protected the page for a bit - ought to slow them down somewhat. Girth Summit (blether) 13:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DantheWikipedian socks[edit]

... are so obvious that I'm loathe to actually present evidence at SPI because I don't want to give them the opportunity to get any better at socking. Would it be alright if I just dropped a quick note on your talk page whenever I see said socks in action? — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 00:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the case be raised at SPI - in terms of actually investigating, it's much easier for a CU or clerk to have recent cases available in the archive to compare against. Don't feel the need to go into enormous detail (and, as you say, train them in how not to be spotted) - you can be a bit vague, something like 'Same pattern of behaviour as X, Y and Z', or 'same as report in the archive from October 2023 or whatever. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manually reported sock[edit]

I was told to do it a way so it wouldn't be complicated, so I did it manually under the Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky page, how would I go about reporting it on TW just in case for next time? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Twinkle, you should see 'ARV' as an option in the Twinkle drop down when you are on an account's userpage, talk page or contribs page. Amongst the options it gives you is Sockpuppet (SPI), or Sockpuppeteer (SPI). Choose the appropriate one, fill in the form, and Twinkle will to the rest. Girth Summit (blether) 07:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used Twinkle for the previous report of Justinaintime sock, I selected the Sockpuppet (SPI). So when I fill out the user for it, would I put the OG sock username? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways you can do it. If you go to the sock's userpage/contribs, choose the 'Sockpuppet' option, and enter the Sockmaster's username into the form. Alternatively, go to the sockmaster's userpage/contribs, and choose 'sockpuppeteer', and then you need to enter the the usernames of the account/s you suspect of being socks. I normally do it the latter way, but it really doesn't matter which you choose. Make sure you type the names correctly though, there isn't any room for error - I usually copy/paste to be on the safe side. Girth Summit (blether) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for telling me. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.Williams[edit]

Hello! It seems there’s a copy of the same nonsense article on a different language Wikipedia page: https://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.Williams?wprov=sfti1

also, the sock came back, it seems this nonsense isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can do about other language Wikis. Are you saying the sock is back on enwiki somewhere? Girth Summit (blether) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is, but I tagged it on the sock investigation page at it seems he's already been blocked again, but I imagine it's not over yet. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA Orchomen[edit]

Thanks for the CU block of Mizzion earlier. Unsurprisingly for this sock, they are having a strop and have been trolling my edits, reverting with a range of their usual IPs:

It is clearly Orchomen, and perhaps trickier to block the IPs as they seem to have various dynamic ranges to choose from. I'll just play wackamole for now, but it's a heads up in case there's anything you can do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile at the moment - please can you stick this in an AIV report? I haven't looked at your diffs, so no official comment on the IPs, but I probably shouldn't be the one to do any IP blocks given that I've publicly made comments about the accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 20:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A funny thing happened on the way to the RfA[edit]

I noticed that Novem Linguae, one of our new RfA clerks, properly struck Svampesky's vote because S wasn't an EC editor. Their account was created on May 4 (satisfying the 30 days requirement) but were a bit shy of 500 edits. Then in a conversation on the article Talk page about a related issue, Svampesky commented, at which point I took the opportunity to inform them that they are now EC, so they could reinstate their vote.

Meanwhile, I was suspicious of such a new account voting at RfA, and I reviewed their edits, which seem to involve a rather obscure agenda of de-orphaning articles. They added themself to the orphanage project on their 3rd live edit (their first was to create a Talk page). Other edits are unusual: (1) fairly early on they nominated an article for deletion (and it was deleted); (2) by May 13, they were Welcoming users; (3) warning users of COIs; (4) adding entries to Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia with an edit summary in which they cite WP:SELFOUT (personally, I was unaware of article and unaware of the selfout link); and (5) that's enough for now.

They were renamed from User:BlueSharkLagoon, and it's quite interesting to look at early iterations of their userpage where they discuss other accounts and their shared IP addresses (VPNs).

IMO, there is enough oddness here to warrant a check. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds odd, but I'd want to take a look through their contribs to be confident that a check was warranted. Anything suspicious that you noticed - are there any other recently blocked orphanage project (I didn't know that was a thing) members? Or overlap with any blocked accounts on the articles they're editing? I'd be hesitant to run a check if I don't have someone to compare against, and I can't put my finger on what it is I think they're up to. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had another account to check against, I would have said so. I just took another look at the user's contributions, and the oddness, for me, sticks out even more, but I don't think further analysis of why would change your mind, so I'll let it go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying no, I'm just saying I'll need to do a review myself to satisfy myself that there's cause (and inviting any pointers as to which rocks to look under). Will try to get a chance shortly. Girth Summit (blether) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how helpful it will be, but all I can do is highlight more areas of editing that are unusual for a new editor:

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help in this case[edit]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BantikumarWiki case. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Girth_Summit&oldid=1230450861"