User talk:Blablubbs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

fyi

Hi Blablubbs, I found this through my Watchlist because the image is on the Divya S. Iyer article, and then noticed the image was originally uploaded by an editor at the Commons with the same name as one of the Phoenix man socks, so I figured I should let you know: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Divya s iyer.jpg. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Beccaynr, I'll take a look as soon as I find some time. -- Blablubbs|talk 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I had a very quick look; the account in question hasn't edited (or attached) on enwiki – I'm not very familiar with the xwiki patterns of Phoenix Man (though I'm pretty convinced there's a COI thing going on here), so I can't say much about whether this is them or not (especially not after a quick skim), but at least on the SPI front, my hands are bound until the user edits here; please feel free to ping me if they do so, especially if there are additional indicators that this is Phoenix Man. -- Blablubbs|talk 21:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and will do. This is all quite new to me, and I very much appreciate your work on this and SPI generally. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

user name convention

Hello, and thank you for helping me create my account. I requested a user name of 'klaberte', but was assigned 'Klaberte'. I was going to ask if I can change that (as klaberte has been my handle since the mid-1990s), but then noticed most other users have a capital letter to start their user names. Is this a common practice, or a hard rule, to start usernames with a capital letter? Also, it seems that a new section uses the markup with four equal signs. I didn't see that as an option in the Wiki markup in the editor. Is there some other shortcut for this, or do you actually have to type it? Klaberte (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi klaberte! Unfortunately, Mediawiki (the software Wikipedia runs on) doesn't allow usernames starting with lowercase characters because of technical limitations – no matter what we throw into Special:CreateAccount the first character will be converted into uppercase. You could however customise your signature to display in lowercase letters (see here for details). As for the section headings, new headings usually start with just two equal signs; if you use the source editor, you can hit advanced->headings->level 2 to insert them automatically. If you use the visual editor (only available when editing articles), you can click "Paragraph" and select the appropriate header level there. There is some additional detail in this Manual of Style section. I hope this helps, please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions. -- Blablubbs|talk 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a Zenmate proxy

Hi here. I found a Zenmate proxy 146.70.13.0/16, but because disruption from it is still nonexistent yet, anon-blocking would be better at the moment. 146.70.13.8 (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, answering at WPOP. Blablubbs|talk 10:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about what/when is a sock

Hi! SPI isn't an area where I'm familiar but trying to learn it as I keep running into it with my work in UAA, among other areas. Noticed your actions re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Terago marketing (and agree it was blatant) but when I reported a similar scenario at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depeterz/Archive, Sir Sputnik said that isn't socking. The follow up (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depeterz) wasn't actioned so I didn't report Terago beyond letting Deepfriedokra know their warning should probably go elsewhere. Should I have? Thanks for any insight. StarM 17:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi. Terago marketing was a clear-cut case because they were hardblocked both for the username and the promotional editing, hence making their use of Cloudstar123 clear-cut block evasion. The case you linked is a little more complicated; if I'm parsing this correctly, the sequence of events is:

1. Depeterz is created as "ACISinc." and creates a page as such
2. They create User:Ahmed Amshi and duplicate the page in their user sandbox
3. They are warned about their username and COI, disclose and get renamed
4. Ahmed Amshi gets softblocked for the username violation after the rename
5. The user continues editing as Depeterz

If that actually is what happened, I'd say this is somewhat confusing (why create the second account in the first place?), but not a violation of WP:SOCK because they didn't actually edit the same pages, nobody was ever hardblocked, and they complied with the rename and disclosure requirements. For the recent filing, I don't really have enough to go on to figure out whether they are telling the truth about just being a friend or if this is actually the same person. Since they haven't edited in a while, I'd probably suggest just keeping an eye on the situation; if it becomes clear that the new account is used to circumvent the requirements of WP:PAID, then this would indeed be a clear case of abusive socking. I hope this makes sense, please let me know if you have any other questions. --Blablubbs|talk 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs, that is very helpful. I guess I thought that by creating a second account rather than renaming, they were technically socking but I understand your differentiation. If that isn't explained somewehre that I missed (totally possible), it would be helpful for it to be as I think what is a Sock is confusing to those of us who opt not to edit there. Ikenna is definitely stale by now, I'd reported the account ahead of the "explanation", but then the account ceased editing as well so all was resolved. Thanks again. StarM 18:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I don't think it's explicitly in the socking policy, though WP:SOFTBLOCK does basically make it policy. It might be worth to explicitly clarify it in WP:SOCK, though. --Blablubbs|talk 18:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

CSD G5

Hello, Blablubbs,

I have asked another, more experienced administrator and been told that if another editor wanted to "take responsibility" for an article created by a sockpuppet, it would be okay to restore a page deleted for CSD G5 reasons or remove a CSD G5 tag. Proxying only applies if edits are being done at the direction of a blocked editor. I know that there is disagreement among administrators on this subject and I wasn't sure if would be okay which is why I asked another admin. Perhaps this matter is worthy of a RfC or a discussion on Village Pump. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I decided to raise the question at the Village Pump. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Liz, if you're referring to [1][2], I thought about that a little longer after I had made the reverts and I think I should have worded it better. My primary reason for reinstatement was that the user who blanked the tags mass-contested and removed various G5 tags on Kashmorwiki's work in extremely rapid succession; there wasn't, as far as I can tell, any content-related reason to keep it (they edit in completely different topic areas), instead it was a somewhat POINTy way to have the back of a user they liked. I don't think we should be applying G5s no matter what, but I also don't think a blanket statement that a block evader's edits were actually fine should be enough to avoid any consequences for block evasion. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 07:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Suspected Sockpuppet of Ajhenson21

Good day! Can you look into Dave Vincent C. Rafio? I have reason to suspect that he is another one of Ajhenson21's wikipedia sockupuppets. The pages that Ajhenson21 used to edit were protected in order to dissuade sock creation from him, and as I've noticed in the subject's edits, he first edited random pages in order to be autoconfirmed and after that started exclusively editing the pages that Ajhenson21 used to edit. Hoping for a positive response on this regard. Thank you and warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gardo Versace, thanks for the heads-up – I've handled it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajhenson21#08 May 2021. Ideally, new reports should go directly to SPI. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thanks for swiftly acting on this. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Reopen?

Can you or RoySmith reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wareon?

I was about to publish my reply but it got archived. It is essential. Wareon (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wareon. We technically can (although it's done somewhat rarely). Are you certain that it's crucial that the case be reopened? Note that you are not under any sanction or threat of sanctions, and that you are free to remove the warning that the filer left on your talk page. Can you hint at what this is about? --Blablubbs|talk 14:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The SPI seems to be concluding that I socked with IP when I didn't. That is why I am asking for an opportunity to reply. This SPI can be used against me in future that's why a different outcome is needed. Wareon (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wareon: That's not my read of it; I closed it without action and repeatedly stated that I do not believe that the evidence is sufficient to tie you to the IP to any reasonably conclusive extent. --Blablubbs|talk 15:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wareon, I know it's disconcerting to have anybody even suggest wrongdoing, but I honestly wouldn't worry about this. If, as you say, this was a case of mistaken identify, it will fade away into the depths of obscurity on its own. If you browse the SPI reports, you'll see thousands (10's of thousands? 100's of thousands?) of similar reports that never went anywhere. It's not a big deal. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Wareon (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this reverted edit by Liz. Just FYI. VV 06:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

SPI archives

How do I add the latest confirmed socks? Do I need to open a new SPI (even though they are already blocked)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: It's usually not necessary to make pro-forma filings on behalf of others; the blocking CU elected to block without tags and not file – this is usually done for a reason (often WP:DENY), so there's not really anything left to do. --Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Actually I need it now, due to weakness and headache i developed in last two days. Going for a short break. Hope, you people will see rest two cases which are opened. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Enjoy your break, Heba Aisha – I'm sure someone will get to the cases soon. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Proxy

What's your evidence that I'm a proxy? 24.204.150.197 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a particular can of beans I'm unwilling to open. --Blablubbs|talk 08:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Account Compromised

@Blablubbs: my account has been hacked this morning as someone removed me from my email. Can you suggest to check the IP connection of Owlf with any check user? I'm mailed stewards to block the account. To find the fact of last three edits and removal I've also requested in WP:ANI but as i know you're CU helper so can you please proceed it? 103.10.31.47 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Owlf. Sorry I'm on mobile and on my way to the zoo, I can't look into this all that much right now – since it's at ANI, I'm sure a CU will see it shortly. I hope you will regain access soon. --Blablubbs|talk 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: are you back now? If yes than please check it. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Translating Pages

Hello Blablubbs,

Thank you for your welcome message. This is my first time and I have a newbie question. I do understand how to edit pages and insert new information on the existing pages. I just don't know how to translate pages from English to my local language? Do I need to create new pages if it doesn't exist? Or can you please point me to a tutorial for a beginner? Thanks in advance. - Shah ahmadyusof (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shah ahmadyusof! There's an introductory guide to translation at WP:Translate us; essentially, you can either use the content translation tool if it's available, or you can create a new page and enter your translation there. Remember to provide attribution to the original author, as this is a licensing requirement. I hope this help – feel free to reach out if you have any other questions. --Blablubbs|talk 17:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Alvalade XXI

I don't know much about the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvalade XXI, but is 213.141.15.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) them due to the same edit at Gerda Schmidt-Panknin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? FDW777 (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777, good catch! It's them, and the IP is extremely static (previously blocked as an IP of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs) in 2019, and that is the original master here). I'll try to find someone who can hand out a long global block. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777, all edits now rolled back, IP gblocked for a year. Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 13:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. FDW777 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Henley & Partners

Hi Blablubbs, my name is Sarah and I'm the Group Head of Public Relations at Henley & Partners. I'm writing to you because of your involvement in my company's article and related articles, as well as in the investigation surrounding the undisclosed paid editing on those pages. In short, the agency that had been editing Wikipedia on H&P's behalf was not forthcoming with us regarding the extent to which they were violating Wikipedia's guidelines. H&P is no longer working with that agency, and we are now being advised by a company that is helping me interact with the Wikipedia community transparently and follow the proper avenues for proposing changes to articles for which I have a conflict of interest.

Practically, I want to do all I can to help get the articles in question to the point where they no longer require the "undisclosed paid" notice. I would be more than happy to suggest new, drastically shorter versions of the articles where all promotional-sounding content is removed, or if you have a different suggestion, I would be eager to hear it. The bottom line is that I would like to do whatever it takes to make this situation right, and would love to work constructively with you to that end. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sarah, sorry for the delayed response and thank you for being transparent. Essentially, the tag can be removed once an uninvolved editor has reviewed the pages content and checked it for due weight, tone and verifiability. It could potentially take a while until someone comes across the page and has the time. You are welcome to suggest a redrafted, shorter version of the page, and submit it as an edit request on the talk page. We have a wizard that makes this process easier at WP:ERW. I very very strongly recommend you do not edit the page directly. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any questions. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 09:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs - I appreciate being given the chance to fix this. I intend to begin by working on drafts in my userspace, and I hope that when I'm done, you might take a look to let me know if I'm on the right track. Thanks again, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

SPI closures

I was going to mention this on IRC, but as freenode has forcibly changed hands to a for-profit via lawyers and I can't get the replacement run by the ex-freenode staff working, I'll mention it here. Just to note that your closures are not being reflected in the case status. For example, in this diff you say you tagged the sock and closed the case, but the close wasn't noted in the status. I've seen a number of other cases where this has happened, and I've then changed it to close for you. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Yep, my apologies. I seem to have a habit of forgetting to hit the relevant button and sometimes forget to check back – trying to improve on that. Again, sorry for any inconvenience. --Blablubbs|talk 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As a sidenote, if you're referring to libera.chat, there seem to be occasional connection issues (and registration is clogged), but it's relatively stable for me by now – I hope most of it is ironed out within the next day or two. --Blablubbs|talk 14:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's no worry. All it takes to close (with the great spihelper tool) is a click of a button anyway. Just making sure you were aware. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

I just sent you a very sensitive email. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Just replied. :) --Blablubbs|talk 14:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I just sent another one which might interest you. Thanks once again what you said made a lot of sense. Celestina007 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

deny=yes?

I didn't know spihelper could do this. Where's that hiding? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Heh, I only recently discovered it as well. Select All Sections in the case selection dropdown and then click Change SPI options. :) --Blablubbs|talk 14:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Heh. Easter eggs FTW. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Zjholder

Saw what happened on the SPI page earlier- unfortunate that the filer ended up being a sock themself. However, even though it was a discussion with a sock, my point still remains from these comments. Could it be possible that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caidin-Johnson are the same and cases should be merged ('evidence' to support this is in the 'these comments' link above). Magitroopa (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Magitroopa, thanks for reaching out. After having another look, plus a chat with someone who is more familiar behaviourally with both of them than I am, I don't think there's enough for a merge here. My hunch is that we're looking at a joe job by Zjholder – they're both into comics, but Zjholder's edits seem more coherent and verbose, and less idiosyncratic (probably not the right word, but I can't think of a better one). They're also actively trolling (evidenced by the most recent sock) and interacting with other editors more generally (see also [3]), which is not something I've really seen with Caitin-Johnson. Given how many checks we've had, I would also expect CU to have made the link at some point. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 00:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You broke my code :-(

Sigh. this caused this. Fortunately, should be pretty easy to fix. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith oh, that explains the error code I got. Sorry for messing up your code – and thanks for the quick fix. :) --Blablubbs|talk 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, It's largely my fault; my code for parsing that page is really quite brittle. I shouldn't care or notice which template is transcluded, but if I had more time, I could easily turn this into a rant about how much I loathe parsoid :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Gala1900 SPI

Hello Blablubbs, thanks for your contribution in this SP investigation however the first IP is once again editing (reverting version BTW). here. Hope a warning or a 24 hour block could be made? Mr.User200 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mr.User200 – thanks for alerting me. I can't block it myself, but I have filed and requested action. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 08:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin action complete

Alokechatterjee3 has been blocked as per your admin request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mysuperradishfinger. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think {{Sockpuppet}} remains to be tagged. Run n Fly (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Run n Fly,  Done – though in connection to my comment here, I would like to mention that it's also not necessary to immediately notify me of developments in a case on my talk page, especially if you also ping me there. Please try not to fall back into patterns that were troublesome for your previous account. --Blablubbs|talk 10:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, will do as advised. Thanks Run n Fly (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Gala1900 II

Hello Blablubbs, seems another Anon IP from the blocked IP ave returned to restore edits made by SP IP. I reopened the case could you request a Admin action, once again?? Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200,  Done, though it's usually not necessary to notify me – I read basically everything that goes on at SPI and tackle things as I find time. See also the thread above. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

IPsock template

Can you please tell me where we are discouraged from appropriately placing the {{IPsock}} template? There is no such admonition in its documentation. I use it regularly when sockpuppets use IP addresses to avoid scrutiny. It helps everyone to track who's who. Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Elizium23, there are a few aspects to this. The first is grounded in policy; WP:HSOCK states Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny. For the IPsock and {{sockpuppet}} templates, the "an editor has expressed a concern" version does exist, but its use is not in line with policy (or at least its spirit) – it has been removed from the documentation of the latter and probably should be for the former. Outright removal from the code is unfortunately hard to implement technically.

The second is that non-admin tags can pose an issue for clerks because they are sometimes placed incorrectly or despite us consciously electing not to tag socks per WP:DENY. Additionally, the "expressed a concern" version also leads to IPs and accounts being categorised as suspected sockpuppets, along with accounts that were actually examined at SPI and blocked on behaviour, which makes it harder to navigate our categories.

Finally, tagging IP addresses has limited usefulness and potential negative effects because most (though by far not all) IPs nowadays are highly dynamic and sometimes shared. Chances are that by the time someone tags, they will never be used again or have been reassigned to a different, innocent user – if they are static enough to be reactivated at some point in time, then the IPs should be blocked. I concur that there is some potential merit to the tags, but the negatives outweigh the (potential) benefits; the template as a whole seems to be mostly a relic of the past; relevant ranges can always be noted at SPI. For what it's worth, I have never placed a tag like it or seen another clerk place one. --Blablubbs|talk 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. You may look into this case as you are a SPI clerk. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @A.A Prinon. Please see these two threads right above – it's not usually necessary to notify me of developments at SPI (here's a permalink since I'll archive last month's talk page messages soon). While I have you, could you exlain what your reasoning behind leaving this comment was? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I though the comment should have been put. So I did. Apologies. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding SPI

Is it bad form to tack on to another user's SPI report? I made edits on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL, but I wanted to make sure this is something that is OK to do without filing a separate report. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10, tacking on is completely fine as long as the case you're tacking on to isn't closed (and sometimes even then, e.g. if a super obvious duck shows up 5 minutes after the blocks) – I often prefer it to separate filings, which often makes cases unnecessarily lengthy and fragmented. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 08:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 No problem, as far as I'm concerned - and thanks for your input. Let's hope this issue can be resolved in due time. MPSCL

@Mikehawk10, Also, please do file a separate report if you feel this is justified. MPSCL 17:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Intended tag?

Hi, was this the intended result? Heymid being a sock to himself looks wierd. Isn't there a different template to use for the sockmaster? EstrellaSuecia (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@EstrellaSuecia, you're right – thanks for catching that. Fixed. :). --Blablubbs|talk 09:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Anytime. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For all your valiant effort against undisclosed paid editing. It’s only a handful of us remaining. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Celestina, and thank you for all the work you do here! Best, --Blablubbs|talk 10:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Expertise required

I created both Wikipedia:Not Omniscient and Wikipedia:Anti Spam Identity Conceal today and forgot to include the “WP” before the shortcuts as you would observe in both essays, in other not to muddy things up, I thought it wise to meet someone far more experienced than myself in page moving to handle this for me, could you please make the shortcourt in a manner that “WP” is included in each shortcut title? For example can you move SHAPESHIFT to WP:SHAPESHIFT and do the same for all? I think I have muddied things and don’t want accidentally muddy it more. Celestina007 (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Aye mate, I figured it out. I’m correcting it Atm. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Another sockpuppet of Ajhenson21

Good day User:Blablubbs! I come to you for help again because I noticed a user who is possibly another sockpuppet of Ajhenson21. The user in question is one Garette24. I looked into when the account was created and it was around the same time that the last sockpuppet of Ajhenson21 was blocked. The user edits the same set of pages, with particular emphasis on Ang Probinsyano and its related pages. The editing behavior is likewise similar as the user focuses on updating episodes of Ang Probinsyano and other primetime shows broadcast by ABS-CBN and/or its partners. Can we run a CU on the said user? Thank you and warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace, thanks for bringing this up? Would you mind filing the account at SPI? That would make this easier to process – I can take a look once it's there. Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 10:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs Sorry for this. To be quite honest I have been reporting his sockpuppets for the longest time but I have not been able to study how to properly report to the SPI. I guess if there's as good a time as any to learn how to, now would be that time. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace I'm happy to walk you through the process. Do you have Twinkle installed? --Blablubbs|talk 11:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs Yes I do. I'm currently on desktop. Usually edit on mobile. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: Excellent. If you navigate to the contributions page of Garette 24 (Special:Contributions/Garette 24). Once you're there, you should see a TW button. In the dropdown menu, select ARV, and then choose Sockpuppet (WP:SPI) in the dropdown menu. In the sockpuppeteer field, type Ajhenson21, and present your evidence in the box below, ideally using diffs that clearly show similarities between Ajhenson (and/or their previous socks) and the account that you're reporting. To request CU, simply tick the checkbox, and then click Submit Query. If you don't want to use twinkle, you can navigate to WP:SPI, hit the "show" button for the "How to open an investigation:" box and then use the wizard below. --Blablubbs|talk 11:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace now blocked (thanks LuK3), locked and tagged after they decided to show up on my talk page, but I've filed and endorsed for a local sleeper check – the above method will probably still come in handy for future reports. :) --Blablubbs|talk 13:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gardo Versace - I was just coming over here to thank Blablubbs for helping me out with some templates (thanks B!) and noticed this thread - hope you're well, and sorry again for the mix-up earlier this year. Just wanted to echo B's advice about Twinkle - I have in the past attempted to raise an SPI report manually, got hopelessly baffled, and made a terrible mess of it. Twinkle makes it easy as pie - I strongly recommend it. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day Blablubbs and Girth Summit! Sorry if the reply came in late. Got preoccupied over the weekends but thank you for dealing with Garrette24 Luk3. I have just done some snooping on him and my suspicion turned out to be correct, as following his blocking, he started posting on the Category page for Ajhenson21's sockpuppets. But having dealt with him before, I'd take the names he rattled off with a grain of salt, he might be trying to implicate other users again like he did with me. I have just reported another suspected sockpuppet of his via Twinkle. Thanks for the lessons Blablubbs! It's nice catching up with you again Girth Summit, all is well with us; that was an honest mistake and I guess I'm thankful for that because it brought us together as allies in trying to curb Ajhenson21's sockpuppet activities. Warmest regards to all of you. Gardo Versace (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi I was trying to figure out why my username was implicated as well and came across this thread. I suddenly received several wiki emails about this user joelani sacdalan claiming my username as one of his accounts. I have not been active lately due to other activities taking me away from Wikipedia editing. I hope this guy gets blocked, and am concerned that he used my username. I am not associated with this guy. Thanks!Pipamidalton (talk)

@Pipamidalton: Ajhenson21 likes joe-jobbing people this way, but we won't take action against anyone if there's no evidence aside from a bogus claim. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 12:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding quickly and acting on this swiftly. These type of folks are a nuisance and should be blocked. Their actions frustrate editors who have put in so much effort in improving wiki pages. More power to all you do to protect pages from vandals.Pipamidalton (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

sock templates

Case in point: User:Anisur365 which uses {{blockedsock}}, which I don't parse correctly because when I wrote my parsing code, I didn't even know it existed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith, yeah, duplicates and redirects are an issue; it looks like {{blocked sockpuppet}} will be gone soon, at least. My main concern is how some of the templates work by default; {{sock|Example|suspected}} and {{sock|Example}} produce "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Example", which is an issue since WP:HSOCK mandates only blocked socks be tagged and it's pretty counterintuitive for the person doing the tagging. ToBeFree has removed it from the documentation, but it still exists and is still used (sometimes by admins who don't realise that using the template with no parameters doesn't mark accounts as blocked, sometimes by editors who think the tag should be placed because the template variant does exist after all – I'd be in favour of prohibiting non-clerk/admin tagging altogether, but that's an entirely different discussion). I wrote some more about this here, but unfortunately it hasn't generated much discussion – in short, fixing that would need a bot job. {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes}} should probably also not exist. Another gripe of mine is {{IPsock}}, which also violates HSOCK by default and is often misused (see also this thread above); I think that one should be deprecated entirely. I think simplifying and correcting the templates and redirects is one thing (I could probably figure out how to do that by just stealing code from elsewhere until things start working), but actually making it work would require a bot job to tweak or remove many existing templates since they're all transclusions. I'd try to work on it, but my programming knowledge is limited to running some statistical tests in R, and I wouldn't even know where to begin. --Blablubbs|talk 15:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is blocking an RFC

Hi Blablubbs, I'm the alleged sockpuppet of MPSCL,[4] sorry if I come to disturb you here. I just wanted to point out that the user who reported me is using that SPI, in addition to making me ashamed in front of other users, to block an entire RFC.[5] I'm not going to say "hurry" but... at least now you know the situation.--Mhorg (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Blablubbs. I also would like this case to be decided sooner rather than later. For example, is this a legitimate comment on the SPI request, or it needs to be removed or even supervised? I realize though that such comments may be informative in terms of SPI investigations. For example, the red-linked user is definitely a secondary account, and one can guess who the master might be. So, I am leaving this issue to your discretion. FIY, I responded to one of these users/accounts here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Mhorg and My very best wishes, I'm sorry, but SPI is severely backlogged – this case is extremely long and filled with comments by various parties, at least one person is hopping around on various proxies and the entire thing is taking place against the backdrop of a highly contentious topic area. In short, it's the sort of case that takes clerks a very long time to review. We're all volunteers, and we action cases as we find time, interest and energy. I'm afraid this may sit for a while before someone gets to it. The best piece of advice I can give to all of you is to stick to clearly and concisely presented evidence, with diffs that clearly show a connection, ideally in bulleted list format, and to clear and concise refutations of that evidence if necessary. The longer and more complicated cases get, the longer it takes us to go through them. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 20:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I improved a little my request and it does look convincing to me. As about others, I do not think they refuted anything specific except saying that they copy pasted very long edit summaries of each other, word to word. Well, I never do it myself and never saw others copy pasting edit summaries. But this is probably something for checkuser. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

You know better than I do, so i thought it wise to ask, are usage of VPN's allowed here? I’m sure there’s a policy or an essay regarding that I haven’t the time (right now) to begin digging, and if yes? Isn’t that going to be a major problem for CheckUsers? Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007! Using a VPN isn't prohibited – per WP:NOP/m:NOP they are blocked on sight though, precisely because they create issues for people working in anti-abuse areas – I often handle reports like that at WP:WPOP, which is the place to go for suspected VPN IPs. People with legitimate needs to edit through proxies generally go through WP:IPECPROXY to get an IP block exemption from checkusers. --Blablubbs|talk 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew you would have the answer I was looking for. Celestina007 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) --Blablubbs|talk 19:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sucker for All

Hi, if you haven't already, please take a look at the above case, the tug-of-war between Jesse Rafe and me, and the post I made to Jesse's page a few moments ago, trying to explain why he should let go and what he can do in the future.

I know you can't merge the case because you're not an admin, but as a clerk, you can justifiably control the comments by other users. If I let Jesse comment, then I have to let Sucker for All defend himself, not to mention another user you'll see in the mix who has also demonstrated his desire to argue about what's happening, and none of that is useful given the unusual circumstances; it will only clutter the whole thing.

I wish an admin clerk would take care of the merge, but I don't know how to make that happen other than what I've already done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I've left a comment there. --Blablubbs|talk 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. I think I'll pass on the doing the merge myself. For a variety of reasons, but thanks for the endorsement. You could always run for adminship yourself. That's what I encouraged previous good non-admin SPI clerks to do. And they did, and they were successful. Of course, I haven't reviewed your contributions outside of SPI, and you may not want to become an admin. If you are interested, I'd talk to administrators who are more involved in the RfA process for input. Me I avoid RfAs; running was bad enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words, Bbb23. I understand the merge part – that status has been there for an unusually long time though, maybe a clerk or CU talk page watcher will stumble across this thread (hint hint). Regarding RFA: It's something that has been on my mind, given that the extra buttons that come with the bit would certainly come in handy at SPI, but I do imagine that it's a rather stressful process, and there are some areas that I would like to gain some additional experience in before I gear up for a run. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 21:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Celestina007, just a quick acknowledgement that I've seen this – I'll try to reply some time today or tomorrow, sorry for the delay. --Blablubbs|talk 10:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course I understand, it’s complex and requires a brilliant mind(such as yours to analyze meticulously). Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I've replied now. :) --Blablubbs|talk 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The feedback was worth the wait. Thanks mate. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Boring

Regarding this, I've no problem not putting in the extra work for the boring VOAs. Generally, I think two things may be useful to keep in the archives: enough documention of particular behaviour (here, it's probably the pages on battles), and, enough fresh socks for a CU or behavioural comparison. Disclaimer: I am not known for my clerking skills. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

zzuuzz, thanks for the 2O. I know what you mean – I should've probably given some more context for my initial comment. The thing with Kizilbörü seems to be that the topical fixation is not super consistent: We've tracked them as Kizilbörü, as Denizgezmis, as Liveradvil, plus there's a second open case (Stepgilara) that's also them; the socks in all of the side cases edited fairly different topics from the main group. What ties them together is mostly the usage pattern and trolling (rapid creations, lots of throwaways, SPI disruption). Most filers will probably not be familiar with the original master and hence file new reports each time they switch to a new topic area; I don't think merging is counterproductive (it definitely has its benefits), I just can't do it myself and I wonder whether the benefits of having streamlined archives outweigh the downsides of the additional maintenance work and the DENY aspects. If it's useful from a CU perspective, I'm happy to continue going the merging route. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 10:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adventurehqdubai

Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you please deal with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adventurehqdubai? Sainthbabu is continuing to spam today like the blocked Adventurehqdubai did. v. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek, it has become a shitstorm and is beyond what I can wrap my little mind around. I lodged this because they said (here and here) that they edited the article first, before me, and because they reintroduced the blocked vandal's edit (Masdafizdo). I found All for Poland diff diving through the recent editing and saw the similarities, but that's all I know about that one. I was also suspicious because the Volunteer made many references to new accounts and socking and I thought that was a sign of a guilty conscience. But it is too complicated, and there is too much history there, I won't post there again unless there are questions for me.VikingDrummer (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Hi. Sorry, I'm currently somewhat busy with other stuff, but I'm sure a clerk will get to it as soon as they find time. --Blablubbs|talk 22:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for welcoming me. I had a question for you about my first edit. I'm trying to find out why my dates at Tim Lucas put up error messages. I tried to figure it out myself but there are about a thousand pages of Wikipedia instructions. Are you the right person to ask? TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. An editor named User:Keith D went in and wrote the names of the months out. I guess that was it. Where would I have gone to find this out in the instructions? Thank you. TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TheHorror TheHorror! Sorry, I had gotten your ping and planned to reply, but I had a lot on my plate and forgot to. The issue was that the template doesn't accept abbreviated dates – somebody fixed this later by expanding "Jan." to "January" and "Feb." to "February"; you can see what they did here. If you use the Visual Editor, you may also want to have a look at this introduction to automatic referencing, which can help with things like this. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 17:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, regarding your diff here, why did you choose to restore (remove from hat) two edits which do nothing but cast aspersions, call for unjustified admin intervention and provide no proof, but remove my edit which contained a cross-reference between past emails of Marek and this sockpuppet? I understand some of my comments could come off as having a "personal attack" tone, but I believe the information is relevant and of use. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to move the comment anyway because it was misplaced, making the thread confusing and potentially constituting an accessibility issue for people who use screen readers. While I understand your concern, I try to minimise my refactoring of cases; this thread – unlike the other one – had not spiralled out of control and the mention of a potentially related account seemed pertinent, and it was indeed supported by an argument, albeit not as well as it probably should be. I hatted the other thread because it had spiralled out of control, its tone was wholly unacceptable and it was mostly commentary, which is something that does not usually receive much weight when determining case outcomes. --Blablubbs|talk 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I understand. Thank you. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Proxy question

I have a general question. Checkuser made a comment: "Inconclusive W.R.T. [user name] due to proxy use (they have ip block exempt)" What does it mean? I assume checkuser means they can not make any conclusion, so that a sockpuppetry can be established based only on behavior evidence? Hence this still can be a sockpuppet account? More important, does it mean that any named user who uses proxies is immune to the SP investigations? That would be strange. If anything, the editing by a named account through proxy should indicate the intention to evade an SP investigation. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi My very best wishes. What that comment means is that the user is using a proxy, making CheckUser ineffective, likely because they have demonstrated a legitimate need and applied through WP:IPECPROXY. You can interpret it as an approximation of {{possible}} – CU doesn't prove or disprove anything in cases like this. It does not mean that anyone on proxy is immune from WP:SOCK. --Blablubbs|talk 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not know about WP:IPECPROXY. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Trout!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For doing so much high-quality administrative work but not running for adminship. I will be the first to support you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thank you Scorpions – maybe at some point in the future. :) On a different note, I was sorry to hear about your health troubles and I'm glad that you're feeling a little better; I hope you fully recover soon. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you. --Blablubbs|talk 10:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Blablubbs, and sorry for the delayed response. I am traveling to another state for a month or two to get treatment for my OCD. My therapist says that it is also responsible for my physical symptoms. I also came to tell you that I filed an important SPI that I had been putting off since last November. I have never filed one against an established editor before. I was wondering if you could clerk the case since you were familiar with the editor in question. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I see that another editor filed a bad SPI on the person in question. I really need you because you participated in the first one. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you have access to mental health support Scorpions, and I hope things will improve soon. I've also actioned the SPI case. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 agree with Scorpions :-) Pahunkat (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Proxy hopper: [6]. I think this is master account. But unfortunately, I made a misprint in their name while submitting the SPI case. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. Thanks for the heads up. All  Confirmed proxies. I'll try to have a look at the full case tomorrow. --Blablubbs|talk 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dusty8686

Hello Blablubbs, FYI I attempted to add another account at the SPI but got into an edit conflict with you - you may want to review the case in the event that it changes the endorsement. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, never mind - I think this is another master, perhaps Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OriginalMousetrap101/Archive. Pahunkat (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Only got to this now – looks like your hunch was right. :) I'm guessing that's probably not the original master either, but in cases like these, I generally don't think about it for too long. --Blablubbs|talk 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I need to ask another question

Hi, Blablubbs. Thank you for your help the other day. I'm slowly trying to read all the many, many rules and I think this one paragraph at Tim Lucas violates a couple:

One of Lucas' film scripts, The Man with Kaleidoscope Eyes (co-written with Charlie Largent), a comedy about the filming of Roger Corman's 1967 film The Trip is currently optioned by Metaluna Productions for director Joe Dante. In October 2016, the script was the subject of a live table reading at the Vista Theater in Los Angeles, promoted as "The Best Film Never Made." The performance starred Bill Hader as Corman, Roger Corman himself as Roger Today, Ethan Embry as Jack Nicholson, and Claudia O'Doherty as Corman's longtime assistant Frances Doel. Lucas has reportedly since adapted the script as a novel, but no release has yet been announced.

If I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Statements_likely_to_become_outdated correctly, "terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020." So we should just say "is optioned as of (whatever date I can find to cite this)"? I think that applies to "no release has yet been announced" also?

And second, and I don't remember where I saw it, but are we supposed to use the word "reportedly"? Something doesn't feel right with that.TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I did remove this sentence since it read like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Describing_aesthetic_opinions_and_reputations "Describing aesthetic opinions" without a footnote: "The novel was generally overlooked upon publication but can be seen in hindsight as the point of origin for the "mash-up" horror novels that rose to commercial prominence at the end of the decade, for its incorporation of approximately 50 pages of Stoker's novel into the weave of its original narrative." Was I right to do that or should I have put a "citation needed" by it? I can put it back. I'm still learning.TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi TheHorror TheHorror! I'm a little busy, so I have to keep this brief-ish, but feel free to ask follow-up questions or visit the teahouse (where other editors are around as well) if you need more help :)

• You are correct regarding "yet" – relative time references should be avoided, see MOS:RELTIME for details.
• "Reportedly" could be considered a weasel word – these should usually be avoided per MOS:WEASEL but may be okay to use in some cases.
• Material that is not supported by reliable sources may be challenged and removed, with the burden of verification being on those who argue for inclusion of the material. However, it may be a better option to add {{citation needed}} or try to find a source yourself. If you're convinced something is both untrue and unsourced (e.g. if it's contradicted by reliable sources), removal is the way to go. Again, use your discretion – and note that this does not apply to unsourced contentious material about living persons, which should be removed immediately (see WP:BLP).

I hope this helps, let me know if there's anything else I can help with. --Blablubbs|talk 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help and good advice, and I will try the teahouse before coming here again and "going to the well too often"! You have been very nice. Thank you, Blablubbs!TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Skathi (moon)

I saw T280844 and thought of you. I wouldn't be surprised if this is some kind of malware using that page as an innocent-looking probe for network connectivity. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting read! Thanks for the link. :) --Blablubbs|talk 12:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved issues at ANI

Hi. Please see this thread at ANI that you have been involved in. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Computer wizard

prior sending you an email, this text pops up: Hello! Before you email me, please note that: Unless a matter is private, I prefer to be contacted via my talk page, as this gives better transparency. If extra security is needed, please encrypt your email using my PGP public key, which you can find here. I reserve the right to forward or publish any or all of the email contents at my discretion. I will not do so except in exceptional circumstances (that is, cases where partial or full disclosure is necessary to protect the integrity and safety of the project or the health and safety of its members). How in Gods name did you pull that off? Can you teach me? Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, the text is located at User:Blablubbs/Emailnotice and gets displayed whenever someone visits Special:Emailuser/Blablubbs – if you create Special:Emailnotice/Celestina007 User:Celestina007/Emailnotice, the same will happen for you. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions. --Blablubbs|talk 19:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You are a sweetheart! Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 my bad, I typed the wrong link above – it's User:Celestina007/Emailnotice of course. My apologies. --Blablubbs|talk 12:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I kept trying over and again then I just felt “oh well”. Thanks for helping out. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

IP address question

Hi Blablubbs, you are good with IP stuff. What do you make of 213.172.123.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WHOIS information (myHome?)? S0091 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @PhilKnight: given they have blocked the IP and are a CU. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@S0091, I haven't run any deep checks, but it appears that this is a hotel WiFi, cf. here. --Blablubbs|talk 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahh...very helpful. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

This is pertaining to security. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI archives

Oops! Should I have just added the report to the main casepage and then just had a clerk archive it, then? I figured that would have been a pain in the ass. jp×g 20:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG in this case, I think there's not really a point in filing – if needed, clerks an checkusers usually do pro-forma filings themselves; and we always have the sock category to see who has been tagged as a sock. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 20:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Cheers, jp×g 21:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your hard work at SPI, thank you. We're better off as an encyclopedia because of you. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Kevin, it means a lot. --Blablubbs|talk 09:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI questions

First, using the spi helper script, is there a way to block/tag and close at the same time? Second, I just disposed of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starboyedits, and I swear I checked the box that puts a block notice on the master's Talk page, but it didn't happen. I slapped a standard notice on Starboy's Talk page for socking with Twinkle, but it didn't refer back to the SPI, which would have been helpful. Third, and last, is the fact that the "Editor interaction utility" link doesn't work correctly known? Very annoying. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. You can combine any actions by ticking the relevant checkboxes in the selection menu beforehand – if you tick both Block/tag socks and Close SPI, the script will do both in one go. I unfortunately can't help with the second question because that part of the script doesn't show without the sysop flag; paging GeneralNotability who may be able to help. The editorinteract thing is a known issue. As far as I can tell, the link gets filled for filings that are made using the main SPI page, but not for ones done with Twinkle (compare e.g. the editorinteract bit in this Twinkle filing with the one in this non-twinkle one; the link works for the former, but not the latter). I personally use https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/ for editorinteract – type in the SPI name (there's a list of current cases, you can type in the full name and it will work with archived ones as well) and hit "Interactions", that should take you to a properly filled EIA. It might be worth bringing this up with the Twinkle maintainers for a "proper" fix. I hope this helps. Best, Blablubbs|talk 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

First, thanks. The SPI tool sounds good; I'll try it. I haven't had good luck with suggestions for improving Twinkle, so I'll pass. Second, when I use the spi helper to block/tag socks, the Close checkbox is not there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. The checkbox doesn't show up within the "block/tag" submenu, if that's what you mean – you have to tick the box before you go forward, i.e. SPI -> select both "Block/tag socks" and "Close case" simultaneously -> click continue -> proceed as usual; the case will then be closed once you're done blocking and tagging. Blablubbs|talk 00:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I understood, but (just discovered) on some SPIs it works, but not on others. I must've tried it on one that didn't work and just assumed that's the way it is on all. In any event, on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial the Close checkbox is not there, whereas on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Remitbuber it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. It didn't show up for me at SheryOfficial either, but I think I figured it out now – seems to be bad case formatting messing with the script's parsing. Blablubbs|talk 01:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The script seems sensitive to structural expectations. Thanks for fixing it, and from now on I'll assume that I can do blocks, tags, closes, and order OJ all at the same time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Sims

Oh man, talk about good cop, bad cop :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Heh, pleasure interrogating with you – this one is 3X'd, so I think we might need a jury trial... -- Blablubbs|talk 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to show you that I've learned how to cite books! See "Origins" at Fangoria! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: Nice work! Citation templates can be tricky (I still regularly have to look up parameters), but it becomes easier after some time. :) Blablubbs (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And I've also just learned how to do "thanks" to other editors from the "History" page! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

UAK

Hi RoySmith and Blablubbs. Archiving of UAK went wrong due to renaming the archive. I'm not sure how to fix it, perhaps you could look into it? (Posting on both of your user talk pages.) Trijnstel_talk 13:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

PS. I already did this, but we should make sure this won't happen again. We should probably change the archive link on this page, but not sure how to do it. Trijnstel_talk 13:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel, can you clarify what went wrong? The archive was split because of excessive page size, but that's intended, and new archived cases should go where they went. Blablubbs (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted – the original archive (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive/1) is still linked to from the main casepage, but new cases should indeed continue to be archived to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw the archive was split, and that's okay. But on the regular archive page a redirect was placed to the Archive/1 page. New requests were moved to the Archive page, but as that was a redirect to Archive/1 we don't see them. Do you understand my point? Trijnstel_talk 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel, missed that somehow, sorry; that's bad indeed. I removed the redirect and reinstated the split. CC @GeneralNotability, this looks like it may be a script error? Blablubbs (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't get it. It's fine to have two pages. But please remove the redirect then (on the top of the page). Trijnstel_talk 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's what I meant. :-) We only need a link to the Archive/1 page then. Maybe also on top of the page? Trijnstel_talk 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel yep, done. :) Thanks for bringing this up, I wonder what went wrong here, GN might have some useful input. Blablubbs (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi Blablubbs, As you are the page mover . I request to move this article List of districts of Nepal to List of districts in Nepal.Which you can see detail information of talk page of that article.(Fade258 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

Hi Fade258. Sorry, but I can't do that; partly because the move is contested – Old Naval Rooftops seems to disagree with it – so consensus will have to be found before anything is done, and partly because that's not really an area I'm comfortable with. I'm not active at RM, and my use of pagemover is limited to SPI-related tasks, such as moving sock categories. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.158.90.121

I think you misread one of the two IPs (69.158.90.121 and 69.156.107.94) as the /16 range you mentioned is not possible. I don't normally favor editing archives, but I would delete your comment in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23 oh snap, my bad – thanks for catching it. I've removed the comment. -- Blablubbs (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for filling in some key details I left out on my SPI report. Keep up the great work! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Yeeno, it's much appreciated. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Editingwiki777

Given User talk:Doug Weller#I amediting wiki and the post above, I'd think the blocks could be changed now to reflect probable socking. What say you? Doug Weller talk 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Looking at both accounts more closely, I'm inclined to believe that Raxythecat (talk · contribs) is somebody's sock, but it feels like a joe-job to me, especially given the unrelated CU result. Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs) seems to have mostly focused on edit-warring over OR, while Raxythecat is basically a trolling-only account (that, unlike the master, uses edit summaries). They might still be the same person, but the somewhat dodgy-self admission isn't quite enough to overcome the CU result and behavioural differences in my view, so I would personally lean towards leaving the blocks as they are because I wouldn't be comfortable forcing Editingwiki to defend themselves against a socking allegation in a potential unblock request. Courtesy ping @Skyerise. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I don't really disagree, but I doubt Editingwiki777 is likely to come back via an unblocking request! Courtesy ping @Doug Weller. Skyerise (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd forgotten about the lack of edit summaries for one account, although I noticed it at the time. Hadn't thought of a joe-job. I'm happy with the status quo now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Another spi.helper question

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Myers Court, as an example, but this has happened before. I blocked the puppet without tags, but it asks me for the name of the master. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I presume that the dialogue box is coded in a way that it just sequentially sends you through the boxes and discards unneeded data – I don't think it does anything for blocks without tags. Blablubbs (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do any harm, but it shouldn't ask. It knows not to ask when you do tag and you've identified the master, whereas if you tag a sock and don't identify the master (because it's already tagged), it asks. So it actually doesn't do everything by rote but has a fair amount of intelligence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Pingpong @GeneralNotability: In case this is an easy fix. Blablubbs (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The master is used in {{uw-sockblock}}'s master= parameter (so that it says "as a sockpuppet of so-and-so"). I've never loved the logic in this part of the script, to be honest (and spent months fixing minor bugs in it causing weird sock tagging issues). Brief review of the logic involved here: the prompt will fill in the name of the case, unless someone has a sockmaster/cu-confirmed master tag, in which case it will fill in their username instead. The question is basically "should we support tagging where the sockmaster doesn't match the current case name" (I say yes, for dealing with cases where CU finds multiple independent groups but we don't feel like filing a proforma case) and "how do we present these choices to the user in the least surprising way?". GeneralNotability (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Need I say what this is for? Ah! Okay, for your tireless efforts at SPI. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: Thank you, it's much appreciated. And thanks for all your work around here. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oldest account

Hi, Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers/Archive, User:Vikhyat Dubey is certainly the oldest account and thus the master. It would be consistent to move the SPI to master, will you agree? Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri you're certainly correct, that must have slipped my mind somehow. I'll move and retag. Thanks. Blablubbs (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a lovely weekend, by the way. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri now  Done – sorry again. And to you as well. :) Blablubbs (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

An idea

Hi Blablubbs, but also @Possibly and TSventon:.

Yeasterday, Bédévore (who works on fr-wp, like me, on SPI and, moreover, promotion/COI/UPE) and I had an idea, following en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MARdF (thanks for the ping, btw). When we discover, on a specific wiki, abuses like promotion/UPE/COI that are cross-wiki, it's not always easy to know how to alert other wikis. Here, you pinged me because we already cooperated in the past, but for example, TSventon asked if we did know trusted users on es, hu and pt... and as for me, no.

So here is the idea: create a hub (a page, in fact) on metawiki with volunteer referents/contacts for as many wikis as possible, and a talk page for coordination on big cross-wiki cases. The volunteer referents/contacts would be wikipedians used to SPI, fighting promotion and UPE; if they have a role (sysop, CU, this could be indicated, along with the languages spoken). For example, in our case, we could have reached contacts/referents listed on this page and/or use the talk page as a way to coordinate.

To create such a hub would request, obviously, to look for other people invested in fighting UPE, promotion, etc., and to make some publicity for this new hub on other wikis. This would be an occasion to create a bit of an international coordination against UPE and more broadly uses of Wikipedia for promotion. On fr-wp, we have a fr:Projet:Antipub, but not that much contacts with collegues from other wikis.

What do you think about it?

Best regards, Jules* (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I do not have much to contribute to this discussion other than to say that it also occurred to me that a contact page for "admins on other wikis willing to help", or something like that, would be really useful. It was great to have Jules' help on the Prix Versaille accounts; je vous remercie! --- Possibly ☎ 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely required. I haven't seen much cross-wiki spam lately, but that's probably because they post to en.wp first. There are a couple of tells that are specific to cross-wiki spam.

That reminds me, I should finish my cross-wiki history tool. MER-C 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This sounds very interesting – would it be an actual process to deal with crosswiki UPE (i.e. like we have SPI for socking) or just a contact list of administrators/functionaries willing to help out? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: it could be both, it remains to be decided. I thought that the talk page of this meta page could be a place for coordination, in an informal way (ex: I'm from x wiki, I ping contact user of y wiki to inform them about a cross-wiki abuse), but we could also use a more formalized process (like SPI here) for bigger cases, with one subpage by case. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 18:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Jules*, thanks for your response. This all sounds like a great idea. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree good idea. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, really delighted to see such enthusiastic comments! :) Cross-wiki spam and vanity pages are a real liability. As of now, Jules and I are thinking about "who could be available?" and "how to do this?". Please feel free to contact me about cross-wiki spam and vanity page creations, I definitely love cleaning it up. Best, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 17:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules*, Bédévore, Giraffer, and TSventon: Sorry, I know I promised an earlier reply, but Moderna had me more or less knocked out for a bit. I agree that more cross-wiki coordination would definitely provide a huge benefit. In past cases, I've usually either relied on existing contacts, or taken a similar approach to TSventon, which is that I notified affected wikis on admin noticeboards or at their embassies, generally with good results. Compiling a list of users who are willing to help with detection and cleanup in cross-wiki UPE matters sounds like a great first step. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. Just a list of users on different wikis willing to help would go a long way. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Giraffer, TSventon, Blablubbs, and MER-C:. Before reaching out other wikis, we are going to create a draft of this coordination page on Metawiki. Do you have an idea for the name/title in English (it will be translated in other languages, obviously)? "Anti-advertising coordination"? "Cross-wiki anti-advertising group"? My English level is basic, so you may find something better . (I would like to avoid names with "ambassadors", as this page may be used to coordinate investigations too, beyond the list of users willing to help.) — Jules* ^Talk 15:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules*: Maybe just something simple like "Wikiproject antispam" or similar? --Blablubbs (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam (it could also handle external links). MER-C 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. @Giraffer, TSventon, Blablubbs, and MER-C:, meta:Wikiproject:Antispam is up, you are welcome to improve it, register yourselves as contacts for en-wp if you want so, and help identifying on others wikis volunteers who could be contacts regarding spam and promotion fighting. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll continue the conversation there. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, what is gsw in your contact details? TSventon (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: Swiss German, though I imagine it won't come in particularly handy. ;) --Blablubbs (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Grüezi! Hopefully als Wikipedia is some way down the list of spam targets. TSventon (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour! Thanks all, your ideas motivated Jules* to create the project with the relevant information ; hopefully it will be easy to use. I guess I should write a report about the Apowersoft case and another one involving some Russian dude with many SPA about him. Best, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Prix Versailles next steps

Thank you for your help with this. Now all the users have been blocked, what action is needed on removing non notable content in other Wikipedias? Will SPI checkers already be on the case? Or could that wait until your idea takes shape. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon and @Jules*, sorry for my brevity – noting that I've seen this and the above and will post thoughts tomorrow once I've read up on everything and have some more time. The SPI team generally doesn't have any responsibilities outside of processing the cases, though I'm personally happy to help cleanup. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TSventon and Blablubbs. I guess we should warn other wikipedias (with a message on their admin noticeboard?), so they can handle it on their side. — Jules* ^Talk 16:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* and Blablubbs. I was think of messages on admin noticeboards too (the 16 languages of Prix Versailles plus Wikidata and Commons). They should probably mention Purple economy, Cultural footprint and International Appeal of 7 June 2020. Would it be best if the message came from an admin like Jules*? Do the fr and en admin notice boards need to receive the same message? TSventon (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon It doesn't have to be me (but I'm OK too to do it). No need for fr-wp, I already did it. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* I will post a similar message to admin notice boards (English and machine translation). It may take a couple of days. If Fr Prix Versailles is deleted, will fr Wikipedia remove other mentions of the prize? Wikipedias without COI editors like cs and nl don't seem to mention it. TSventon (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Some notice boards are semi-protected so I can't post there. My first two posts have been to de and es vandalism boards. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: for fr-wp, probably, yes. Thank you for the posts! Lets us know which wikis you could not inform so we can handle it another way. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 10:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs and Jules*. Probably an English language noticeboard for a Wikipedia like Chinese will work better than a machine translation. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon, you could try contacting one of the English-language ambassadors listed at zh:维基百科:大使館. Embassies worked well for me on dawiki and nowiki in a minor xwiki case I was involved in some time ago. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* I have now posted a message on all 14 Wikipedias plus Wikidata and added links to User:TSventon/sandbox3. Pt, es and ar have responded, but the only Wikipedia to take action so far is de. Possibly late July is a quiet time of year. I see you have already posted on de Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks TSventon. Maybe we can continue this discussion on meta now we have a project talk page suited for it ;). — Jules* ^Talk 12:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* see meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Following up Prix Versailles. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello Blablubbs, for us non technical editors, reading some technical related polices and guidelines still go over our heads. I have read WP:Committed identity/Commitment scheme but still cannot understand it, can you give me a detailed explanation(if you can’t due to time ) can you in summary tell me what it’s about? Celestina007 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007! I'm happy to try to explain. At the core of committed identities are cryptographic hash functions. Those are functions that convert any given string into a different string of seemingly random letters and numbers that always has the same length, no matter how long the input is. For example: If you use the SHA-512 hashing algorithm on the string test, you get ee26b0dd4af7e749aa1a8ee3c10ae9923f618980772e473f8819a5d4940e0db27ac185f8a0e1d5f84f88bc887fd67b143732c304cc5fa9ad8e6f57f50028a8ff. If you use the same algorithm on testtest, you get 125d6d03b32c84d492747f79cf0bf6e179d287f341384eb5d6d3197525ad6be8e6df0116032935698f99a09e265073d1d6c32c274591bf1d0a20ad67cba921bc etc. Really minor changes in the input string will produce massive differences in the output hash.

It's not important how they work exactly on a mathematical level (I don't understand that either), but a good hash function has two properties that are of interest to us: First, that it's deterministic, which means that if you run the same algorithm on the same string, you always get the same result, and second that it's irreversible, meaning that it's extremely hard (basically impossible) to get the original string by looking at its hashed value. This means, for example, that while putting test into SHA-512sum will always give you ee26b0dd4af7e..., you can't use ee26b0dd4af7e... to deduce what was originally encoded.

One common use of these functions is to store passwords. Any website operator worth their money won't be storing passwords in plain text, they will be storing the hashes of these passwords. The database won't know that your password is test, it will only know that your password's hash is ee26b0dd4af7e.... If the database gets stolen, the security impact is mitigated because nobody actually knows your password, they only know its irreversible hash, which is pretty useless on its own if you use a strong and unique password (and not something like "test", which is extremely easy to guess).

For committed identity schemes, we essentially do the same thing. In cases of account compromise, one crucial step is to be able to verify whether or not one is speaking to the original account holder. Say I hash the string Name: Bla Blubber, Tel: +49 123 438 23 43, 23 Example Lane, Somevillage, Examplistan, I get the hash 51e5a09f00428659030ef9d9cd3a7b54cbd10ef411aeea1450cd43f759e7721261e6dc4a43391ba2968872bab747bbb618a63205ed12b9f12006cb763c5d8696 and can put that on my userpage. I don't tell anyone what my secret string is, but I do make a note of it somewhere. If my account gets compromised and I go knocking at WMF T&S, they will probably ask how they can be sure that they are actually speaking to Blablubbs and not an imposter. I can then provide them the input string Name: Bla Blubber, Tel: +49 123 438 23 43, 23 Example Lane, Somevillage, Examplistan and they can hash it for themselves, thereby proving that my identity is clearly linked with the committed identity on my userpage, and take it from there – they could even call me to make sure that the person contacting them is actually the person operating that phone number. However, nobody will be able to tell what my name, phone number and address is just from looking at my userpage because the hashing process is irreversible (assuming you use a good algorithm).

Does that make sense? --Blablubbs (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

lol Huhhh????? Okay now you are just showing off 😒 it’s like I told EEng & Guy Macon you guys are gifted from birth, my view on technical editors is either you are born with the amazing gift or you aren’t, oh well I guess I wasn’t, I have already enabled 2FA, and have an email linked to my account so I think that should suffice. why don’t I just stick to what I was born with, which is detecting UPE no matter how well the WP:ADMASQ is written I just know it when I see it oh well let’s stick to our innate gifts. Like I said before templating editing or anything technical related like (coding) is a gift and I assure as hell wasn't present when God was giving out that gift. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 007. Long story short, what you're already doing is fine. EEng 23:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If that was the underlying question, then yep, that's the answer. ;) --Blablubbs (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, lol thanks guys. Celestina007 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

more socks, and more sock..

Hi,

You might recall I contacted you some time back, thanking you for your excellent work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit.

Well, this is a never-ending job; I watch some of the articles on leaders of Gulf area; the problem is that they use millions of dollars (literally!) on so-called "reputation management". Lots of these leaders (who are virtually all deeply undemocratic, with absolutely dismal human rights records) tend to end up haveing very pretty biographies on wp.

I noticed the VentureKit-socks on Yousef Al Otaiba; I didn't keep my eye on it for about a year, and all what the socks tried to remove (with no support from WP:BLP-board) magically disappeared.

Ah well; I am not a very good sock-hunter, but someone should look into it?

This is a Sisyphean work, I'm afraid,

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Huldra! Yep, good catch. BEANS limits me in what I can say here, but there's an account there that has been on my radar for a while. I don't think it's VentureKit – at least I can't conclusively tie it to them or to anyone else, and there's not much to go on. I can email you details if you're interested.

A Sisyphean task indeed; I prefer to think of it as Whac-A-Mole though; that sounds a little more fun, and given that the sheer amount of socking linked to state-level actors in that topic area is one of the darkest things I've learnt about Wikipedia in my time here, I can use any positive re-framing I can get. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you recognize?

This account? It is obviously not a new user. They copied this user page at some point, but I think they just used it as template, though the description on their user page do not jive with their contributions (ignoring their user pages and multiple Wiki project registrations, is rapid fire reverts of anonymous IP editors only).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: I see what you mean, the userpage gaming is particularly concerning to me. I can't give you a specific name though, there are a number of people this reminds me of. I'll have a look and maybe ask some people who have better memories than I do. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am fairly certain it someone, but I've drawn a blank on the few comparisons I've made. I think the user page copying and wiki projects is just smoke (copied at random), which leaves us with user page/project emulation and rapid fire reverts of IPs at the moment.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix, keep in mind that all of those are fairly generic and shared between lots of sockmasters and some good faith users – for rapid reverts of anons, this lot comes to mind. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's our answer. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I knew your talk page would unleash the jackpot. :-).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the credit, but I have no idea whether NRP came across them here or elsewhere. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Bruh, socks are a thing? Find those stinky socks and sock them! I swear to thee I shall never be a sock around these here parts. Gyofh (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Question (II)

Hi Blablubbs - hope you are well. Thank you for your excellent work with this SPI case. If you don't mind, I have a technical question for you! As you know the editor jumps from IP range to IP range, going back-and-fourth from the 103.74.xxx.xxx range to the 117.228.xxx.xxx range. Is this a choice by the editor, or is the IP address decided by the host ISP at the point the user logs on? More for my own curiosity than anything else. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts! IP assignment is mostly in the hands of the ISP, though there are limited exceptions (beans!). In this case though, we are dealing with two different ISPs that own different ranges, so the editor switches IPs once they go from one network to another. The Cloud Shield one discussed in the SPI is presumably their residential or business ISP, while the other, BSNL, provides their mobile internet (see here: BSNL-GSM-westZone; GSM stands for "Global System for Mobile Communications"). Fortunately, both ISPs appear to have sensible assignment patterns (i.e. users stay on a single, relatively narrow range for extended periods of time), which isn't a given considering the country. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any other questions. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That's an excellent reply - pretty much confirmed my thinking. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting Suspicion

Hello Blablubbs,

I hope you are well.

There is this user named "Accidental-usurpation" that I am almost certain is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user named "BaxçeyêReş". The account was created a day after BaxçeyêReş was banned, and the types of edits "Accidental-usurpation" makes are extremely similar to the ones BaxçeyêReş made, like removing Azerbaijani names/translations from the article introductions, changing the language in the templates, and etc.

The kind of language "Accidental-usurpation" uses also seems extremely similar to that of BaxçeyêReş. I mean maybe you yourself would notice, both use archaic, kind of "exaggerated", overly formal language, such as "Thank you so much for your swift and lucid response" here, you can check other examples from BaxçeyêReş's account where he writes, the style seems very very similar, if not identical.

Both users also claim to be "neutral" like on BaxçeyêReş's main page, "Both Azerbaijan and Armenia" kind of deal, but then similarly to the blocked account, the new account only edits on Azerbaijan-related pages.

Also, the new account very quickly went on the talk-page of the banning administrator and started naming all these experienced users that stick to Armenia/Azerbaijan pages i.e "WimpyDood, BaxceyeRes, Parishan, NMW03, Brandmeister, Grandmaster, KhndzorUtogh", which is unusual for a new user to know the editors. The user also started indirectly defending BaxçeyêReş with what-aboutism, "Azerbaijani users do it, it's not fair!" sort of thing here

I have several other concerns I could write about, but basically it's a long list of similarities that I simply don't believe are coincidences. You yourself I think got slighly suspicious here, similarly to this user here who created an account immideatly after BaxçeyêReş was banned and started a sockpuppet investigation into me here. Also both "Accidental-usurpation" and "PuhPaayYuh" both claim to have been IP spectators. Now I don't know how many "ip spectators" there are on Wikipedia that never edit but simply observe the editing environment, but I imagine not many.

I want to file for Sockpuppet Investigation basically. Just wanted to ask your personal thoughts on this as a person who deal with this kind of stuff?

Thank you in advance for your response, - WimpyDood (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi WimpyDood. I was more than a little suspicious, but also fairly sick and not in any state to file a coherent SPI – I'm fairly confident of the PuhPaayYuh<->Accidental-usurpation link and haven't looked into the BaxçeyêReş enough to have a definitive opinion there. I recommend filing an SPI if you are reasonably certain, somebody will have a look. As a general tip, brief, diff-heavy reports in bulleted list format (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constituto/Archive) will generally be easiest to parse and act on. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you very much for the advice, I will file SPI as you suggested. Also wish you health if you are still sick, take care. - WimpyDood (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WPWP, deleted SPI

How is anyone to know what's going on with an unblock request when the only record of what's going on is in a deleted SPI? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

are you referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminwa 21? --Blablubbs (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I expect so. Good job closing these (but maybe don't advise deletion just yet?). Jpgordon, be sure to catch a read of WP:AN##WPWP_#WPWPARK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well yeah, the only reason I know about it is because of an unblock request which pointed to that SPI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They were not blocked as part of that SPI. FWIW, recommend unblock on all of them (looks like CU picked up an editathon). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When people start to mistake you for an admin

Regarding this: you know what it means when people start to mistake you for an admin, right? You'd have my support! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, {{sofixit}} please - TheresNoTime ^😺 15:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that I will let you know if and when the time comes, but that would get me blocked for canvassing, so all I can say is thank you both, Apaugasma and TheresNoTime! --Blablubbs (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, TheresNoTime I’ve mentioned this to them before but they were (and are) still way too modest. Blablubbs, needless to say, you know you already have my support. (when it becomes an invariable actuality). Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

checkuser needed template

I put the template on User talk:Chesterwhy, but I don't see it listed in the SPI table. My memory is that CU needed pages are listed. Did that change?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It should. I had a look; it does show in the original one maintained by Amaltheabot, but we switched over to a list maintained by bot at User:Mz7/SPI case list some time ago because Amalthea is fairly inactive, which can be a problem when the bot goes down, and the new list incorporates some improvements. The "original" backup at User:AmandaNP/SPI case list also doesn't have the quick CU request. I haven't read the source code for any of these bots, but if they rely on category parsing to build the case list, that would probably be a relatively easy fix (i.e. include Category:Requests for checkuser). Ping Mz7: In case you have any thoughts on this. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten to implement this functionality. My real life right now is a bit crazy at the moment, but I will try to find time to make this happen. Mz7 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: This should be  Fixed now. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Whose sock is this?

I've just blocked:

• Uarsntiak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

for likely UPE. I'm sure I've seen this particular abuse pattern and its distinctive feature before, but where? MER-C 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C: Good question, I'm afraid I'm not sure. My first thought was Mariah200, but I can't quite put my finger on why I thought that; I can think of one other (unblocked) account that does the {{DEFAULTSORT}} thing a lot, but they aren't really consistent behaviourally outside of that. Maybe a friendly talk page watcher knows? --Blablubbs (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Blablubbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seen, might take me a day or two to reply though, sorry :/ --Blablubbs (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m aware of your crazy busy schedule, and the fact that you are heavily multi tasking, it no worries, BB, please take all the time you need before responding. I’d be awaiting. Celestina007 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Less busy than I thought, replied, though it might not be super helpful, I'm afraid. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You are far too modest your response pointed me in the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hello Blablubbs, I noticed your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r and thought of a fifth group, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thamesinfotech (which likely does UPE contribs here as well). On reflection, I think two of the groups could be related - could you drop by the Thamesinfotech SPI to see may later remarks and give your opinion? Pahunkat (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thanks for the ping, I'll try to take a look. That entire cluster of cases is a mess of joe-jobbing UPE socks in a region that's generally not easy territory for checkusers. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do for you, or whether trying to attribute each wave of socks to a prior master is really worth the effort. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Sorry, managed to catch a cold and forgot about this amidst all the tea-drinking. I've endorsed Thamesinfotech, will have a go at comparing the full cases once the CU results are in. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I close this myself? Or is that only clerks?

I've run into this in a few cases, where I've made reports and the users end up getting CU blocked interdependently of the case (or the case isn't updated by the blocker). In a case like this one (I created it, and all users and now blocked for socking, potentially the only loose end is a global lock requests), can I tag it closed by myself? Or is that only for clerks?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Eostrix: Never close a case yourself. Only clerks and admins should do it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases (closures). MarioGom (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful link for filing cases which I think I managed to skip so far so I'm giving it a read.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix, yep, Mario is correct; in about 50% of cases, something remains to be done (e.g. adding tags, or endorsing a sleeper check) – when people are blocked for unrelated reasons, it's also helpful for future cases to have an "official" determination of socking at SPI. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What to do?

Something bad happened to me at the Wikimedia commons Administrator's thread that led to a one week ban. The user Noncreativephotographer was spitting my name everywhere and keep abusing me as a vandal, asking each and every admin to block me by pointing an anonymous IP address. These guys along with an anonymous IP are hell bend in creating allegations against me on Wikipedia projects as I saw the very recent SPI investigation against me. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 14:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A couple of us have left messages over at Commons. The administrators there can be hit or miss; a small but vocal minority of them (including the one who blocked you) have an unhealthy fixation on being the biggest dicks possible to en.wiki editors, but more of them are reasonable enough. I'll do what I can to keep a lid on things here, feel free to give me a shout if it starts up again. It's been a while, but I have a history in India-related topics and know how to tamp down the frothing lunacy those articles sometimes bring out among the caste-obsessed fanatics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out there. These guys are just a bunch of freaks and are always ready to contend with anyone who comes against their way of POV forking. As far as I could see there are enough shreds of evidence of his sock play in Wikimedia Commons but no one there is really interested of scrutinizing it. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Commons has a way of not so much getting their shit together but instead actively smearing it everywhere and blaming en.wiki for the mess it makes. That they let several banned users try to refight battles they lost here doesn't help. Like I said, if there's any article here that you need someone to keep watch over I'll happily join in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please include the articles Talk:Ezhava, Caste system in Kerala and stubs like Panicker, Kiryathil Nair, Chekavar, Cheerappanchira in your watchlist as the sock accounts finds these articles as their primary target for content disruption and POV mixing. There are also numerous caste promotional IP edits everywhere on Wikipedia and now they are into the creation of articles without the AFC submission bypassing it using pages of similar kind. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 10:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm now looking out at all the places you specified, and if you need specific intervention just come straight to me; AE and ANI can be a hassle if the wrong person is the first to come upon a thread, with this topic I have no qualms about blocking/banning as needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Adhithya Kiran Chekavar is the one behind all these dramas. In my initial days of Wikipedia had encountered an edit dispute with a POV pusher Othayoth shankaran, and he was later got engaged in a dispute with Sitush at the Ezhava page got banned indefinitely for Egregious personal attacks and harassment, found to be as a sockpuppet of Adithya Kiran Chekavar later. In the month of December, I had been accused by an anonymous IP for reverting content failing to provide a proper edit summary at Kalaripayattu article and moved the discussion to WP:ANI, days later another sockpuppet of Adithya Kiran Kalari Poothara was caught red-handed for Thiyya POV pushing at the Kalaripayattu page. A dozen of sock accounts have then been banned and tagged by check users on en.wiki,ml.wiki and commons in this regard. Now he started unsourced caste promotion activity through anonymous IP edits [7], [8] by keeping his new sock accounts behind. Also, those promotional edits are being reverted by someone else and can be seen here. From here, it is clear that they are part of the long-running Thiyya campaign and are ready to attack anyone by accusing them of the term 'Vandal'. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 07:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mo' UPE, Mo' problems

Hey, saw your comment at User_talk:Orlaw66#Unblock_request, any chance you could throw together an SPI for the accounts I mentioned there? Be interesting to find the oldest one/see if y'all know which farm they're from? In my books, they're all  Technically indistinguishable ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Sounds like a pretty supportive work environment. Thanks for taking the time to look into this (no pun intended (or only a little bit)), I know UPE stuff is usually not super fun to CU. Socks now neatly folded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orlaw66. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wolfdietrich Schnurre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wolfdietrich Schnurre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PinkElixir -- PinkElixir (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ClassicYoghurt/BaxçeyêReş Possibly Back

Hello Blablubbs,

I hope you are well. Perhaps you might remember the ClassicYoghurt/BaxçeyêReş sockpuppeting case? well judging by what I've gathered the banned sockpuppeteer might be back and I opened a new case [9]. It is possible I am wrong but frankly seems clear as day to me personally. I just wanted to bring your attention to it, maybe if you have time you could check it out and let me know what you think? you were involved in the original case so I was thinking I would ask you. - WimpyDood (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@WimpyDood: Thanks for the notification, I'll have a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

SPI decline

Is there a different way I should be reporting obvious IP socks? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: SPI is the correct venue, we just can't use the checkuser tool to connect IPs to accounts; behavioural blocks are still possible and routinely done (that's why I only declined and did not close). --Blablubbs (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your request for some rangeblocks at WP:OP

Hi! I blocked both of the /24 ranges that you requested. But what is the extra meaning of reinforcing the global block with a local hardblock. Isn't the global block on Special:Contributions/185.217.117.0/24 already a hardblock? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, and thanks! It is indeed a global hardblock; my suggestion is primarily because global and local IP block granting procedures can differ quite significantly, with GIPBE usually being handed out more liberally. Global IPBE does not override a local hardblock, so reinforcing the block by additionally hardblocking locally "forces" people to go through the WP:IPECPROXY process if they want to edit with their VPN enabled. A secondary advantage is that we're less reliant on stewards this way, both in case of a global unblock for whatever reason, and because local blocks will show up at User:ST47/rangeblocks expiring soon, which increases the chance that someone will re-check the range to see if the block needs extending. It's by no means absolutely crucial, I'm just a fan of redundancy. ;) --Blablubbs (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, strike the last part, I just remembered User:ST47/global rangeblocks expiring soon is a thing. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Hello Blablubbs, I hope all is well. I am here requesting your opinion if that's fine - this user right here[10] seems like someone's sockpuppet given the complexity of their edits and given how suddenly they began editing starting the 3rd of August, but I'm not entirely sure.

Seems like a high possibility of it being ClassicYoghurt given they were banned on 28th July, and then the 3rd of August is only a couple of days after, that the possible sleeper started working. They don't leave edit summaries so can't really go off of those. Even if it's not ClassicYoghurt, seems like a high possibility it's a sock of someone else.

What do you think about this? Should I add this case to the ClassicYoghurt SPI page?

p.s. they edit almost exclusively on Azerbaijan-related pages like ClassicYoghurt, and ClassicYoghurt had made similar template edits in the past to this account.

Thank you - WimpyDood (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi WimpyDood. I'm not really seeing any strong indications that this is ClassicYoghurt; fiddling with information about territorial control is something a very large number of people in that topic area do, and I'm not seeing anything else that would tie the accounts. Generally speaking, it's always possible that any given user is returning (and in contentious areas, it's always possible that they found their way to Wikipedia because of off-wiki canvassing), but I'm not really seeing anything actionable here. If you have good evidence to tie them to any specific user, you can always file them at SPI, but just from the quick look I've taken, I don't see anything actionable here. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Kingshowman IP

Yeah, I did notice that. I was tempted to just blow the report off, but the sockiness was clear. I'm sure the deeper one digs on this one, the more badness one will discover. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Yeah, the account is indeed ducky – the filing just raised an eyebrow (though proxy use doesn't necessarily imply malice); I just thought it might be worth noting in case any other suspicious reports pop up. Oh, and  Global lock(s) requested for that one – forgot to note it in my SPI comment. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In Retrospect

Do you recall when I asked you if someone in (for example Nigeria or any nation) can make their IP address appear as though they were in a different country/continent? I’m pretty sure you must have laughed real hard at how “not tech savvy” i was, This month, in order to successfully track down a particular editor and an a particular organization allegedly contracting out undisclosed paid jobs for “Wikipedia editors for hire on Twitter” I've been experimenting with VPN trial versions and now I know you literally can make yourself look as though you are in a different continent altogether. Even though the VPN has helped me track down the editor in question I honestly don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing, and honestly, I believe it should be scrapped or editors using it to edit Wikipedia be indef blocked, I mean, how on earth could SPI clerks like yourself carry out your duties effectively and efficiently with the existential nature of VPN's? Especially when an SPI is opened? Oh boy , I don’t envy you clerks your duties are as arduous and tedious as they come. I just realized that I do not necessarily need to see what’s happening on Twitter or Upwork anymore and Luckily for the collaborative project I can perfectly analyze Nigerian sources and if I see any dubious Nigerian articles, I’d perform a source analysis an send to AFD or draftify the article like I did here. I copied you in an email, did it reach you? Did you see it? Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007! There are a couple things to unpack here:

• VPNs can be a headache, but we have a good grip on detecting and blocking most of them pre-emptively because they usually use webhost IPs that are easy to identify.
• There are technical signatures that enable me to identify specific technical signatures associated with particular types of proxy, which means that I can sometimes connect two IPs even though they may geolocate to entirely different parts of the world. I'm very familiar with the logged-out proxy use patterns of Yoodaba, for example.
• Proxy use does make SPIs harder, but a duck is still a duck even if it's a duck on a webhost IP, and tooling we've developed in past months and years has made proxy detection easier for clerks and CUs alike. If I see signs of proxy use, I just rely on behaviour much more heavily; whenever IPs are filed, I usually run proxy checks of varying depth and intensity based on usage pattern, ISP and country, and I assume most CUs do the same for the IPs of registered accounts.
• Using a VPN to edit is not as easy for most as it is for you; I am guessing that the large majority of IPs that you are using when you edit through a VPN is already hardblocked globally and/or locally per WP:NOP/m:NOP; you are merely still able to edit because you have IP block exemption, but that's handed out very rarely and exemptions for people who want to use proxies have to be cleared by a checkuser.
• My personal take is that proxy use is sometimes an indicator of evasion of scrutiny and should count as a point towards blocking in some cases, but shouldn't be an automatic indef because there are many innocent use cases as well. VPNs are often (misleadingly) sold as essential tools for privacy and security, so many people use these services with the simple intention of protecting themselves from threats; in some cases, they actually are important tools – circumvention of the Great Firewall of China comes to mind as a common and legitimate use case. I'm usually on proxy when I edit, though my UA string sticks out like a sore thumb and I occasionally (and intentionally) "leak" my real, very static IP.

I hope this helps, please let me know if there is anything I can clarify. I've seen the email, just haven't had the time to really look into it yet. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, you have clarified more than enough, with the workload you carry and your very extensive knowledge about Wikipedia, you better RFA, we need you up there like we need oxygen. Celestina007 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I use Bitdefender's VPN often to look at pages in the US and Australia that are blocked in the UK. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I told you to stop putting "TONY_BALONEY_BEST_CHECKUSER" in your UA! GeneralNotability (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9