Happy new year! Have you ever written publicly on your view about hats? I don't completely buy it but I do find it thought provoking and there was just a conversation on Discord where I'd have liked to link to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barkeep49 - happy new year to you too. Sorry for the slow response - I've had quite a lot going on in real life over the last couple of weeks, have hardly had chance to sit down at a computer. I remember the conversation we had about hats, but I've never written anything down on it - maybe I'll try to get chance to do something about that. If I do, I'll send you a link before I take it live, perhaps you'd be willing to cast an eye over it and check for any speling mistayks. GirthSummit (blether)15:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take a look and always look forward ot any chance for the two of us to talk or collaborate. I know you've also expressed it in other contexts (which I can't specifically name without perhaps violating confidentiality which hopefully clues you in to where I'm thinking about). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the other contexts are recorded in text somewhere, feel free to ping me an email to remind me where they were! I remember an IRC chat, but if it was on email or somewhere recoverable that might give me the bare bones to write something up more easily. GirthSummit (blether)13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I believe I've said in the past "Now, I know we discourage hat collecting. But there is something to be said for having clear role delineation and also a nice title/hat to go with that role." ...I believe I then made an amusing pun about how "we must mollify those millinery malcontents." Perhaps I'll write up an essay someday on how hat collecting isn't always such a bad thing, what with our gamified nature. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
There's a recently active user, Special:Contributions/Erag888t, whose contribution topic area highly suspiciously overlaps with the sock farm you recently checked at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mesbmr6710. But given that they were recently active and didn't turn up in your check, should I assume that they're more likely meatpuppets and not socks, and avoid adding them to the SPI? Or should I request CU to make sure? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU is a fairly limited tool - it can lead me to other accounts using the same IPs or ranges, but it can never on its own prove that two accounts are operated by the same person. I know for a fact that I have in the past been on the same wifi router at the same time as at two experienced Wikipedians; we would have looked very suspicious had we been editing rather than drinking coffee and eating cake. The corollary of that is that it can easily miss accounts that are operated by the same person, if they are even marginally careful about how they use each account. If I had one account that I use on a cell phone on a mobile network, another one I use on a laptop on my home wifi, and a third that I use from my work computer, running a check on any one of those three accounts would not lead to the detection of the other two. So, the fact that I didn't see that account on a check of the others doesn't necessarily mean that they must be meat rather than sock, it just means, well, nothing really beyond the fact that they weren't editing from the same network as the others.
This is a long winded way of saying that we need evidence. I'm entirely unfamiliar with the subject area, so don't assume that I would understand how one article is connected to another. You need to head over to the SPI, and present the evidence that makes you think they're connected. If you go ahead and do that, we can investigate. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)13:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the earlier response. Having waited a bit to see their edits, I'm not seeing very clear behavioural indications, so I'll just leave it. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy New Year
It is time to wish all members of the project a Happy New Year and many thanks for all of the work done on articles relating to Yorkshire over the past year.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2025 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
A very big Thank you to all the editors who labour away quietly and help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
To members who have added suggestions to the ToDo list at Yorkshire Portal.
To the football and rugby editors who have done sterling work in keeping abreast of the top clubs.
To all the WikiProject Yorkshire editors who have been busy on vandal patrol at watchlist.
Great!
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered January 2025 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Ashley Fripp: this is a review you could build on! I have too many red links of my own to which I don't get. I'd look if you tell me where you start ;)
Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is them, they've moved to a different country. Could be; could be a friend, or a joe jobbing troll. I won't take any action unless there's any actual disruption. GirthSummit (blether)16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LitReviewer1 is definitely them - same range as before, behaviour leaves no room for doubt. No comment on the IP - if IPs continue disrupting the talkpage discussion, file another report and someone will look at the behaviour. Noveramatry is likely them as well, but it was only used for a couple of day in 2017 - I doubt whether it will reactivate, we can address that as and when it does so. GirthSummit (blether)08:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor making the recent disputed changes has indicated on their Talk page, that they will no longer change the text. I believe that not coming from the UK, they did not fully realise the traditional set-up of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that these articles were deleted due to the creator’s involvement in sockpuppetry. However, it seems that they are simply a direct translation of the Indonesian version, which have existed for quite a while. I believe these articles are valuable for the WikiProject Languages. However, I would like to confirm whether recreating them would be acceptable, as I am concerned it might be considered WP:PROXYING. Thanks. Cal1407 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cal1407. I don't know anything about the subject matter, but if you think the subjects are notable then there would be no reason why you shouldn't recreate them yourself at those same titles. GirthSummit (blether)15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Doug. Honestly, I don't understand some people. It's not like they were vandalising, or promoting anything as far as I could tell - it looked like they were trying to be useful. They know what their talk page is, they even replied to you on it on 5 Jan. But when you ask someone three times to stop doing something and they just ignore you and keep doing it, what else can you do but block them? Hope you're keeping as well as possible - how are the dogs? GirthSummit (blether)15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs are great, but my Parkinson's makes it hard to walk them with Helen as I'm too slow. I've got a marvelous fall alert watch though. Brilliant service. I'm fine, hear from my oncologist Thursday. Doug Wellertalk16:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their response to the block:
Hello Doug/Girth,
You did not give me time to respond to your messages before blocking me. It has only been a little over 24 hours since I've visited this site. That apart, I have noted your messages and will take care accordingly. Request you to kindly unblock me. Doug Wellertalk17:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at them tomorrow if I get time. Something about them doesn't sit right with me. Didn't give them time? I literally messaged them as they were doing it and they kept on doing it. Hope the appointment with the oncologist goes as well as possible. GirthSummit (blether)19:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through this article and reconsider editing Out of Madness out from the page https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesnownews.com/lifestyle/books/features/exclusive-how-rithwik-aryans-time-inside-indias-most-notorious-asylums-shaped-out-of-madness-article-116591184/amp 2409:40D0:2030:21CC:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't say his book is inspired by Lolita - he says that he feels good when people compare it to Lolita (and Catcher in the Rye), and that he respects Nabokov (and Salinger) - that isn't quite the same thing. Honestly, I don't think it warrants a mention - we don't need to list every book that has ever been compared to another book. If we were to mention it, it definitely shouldn't be in the lead section. GirthSummit (blether)20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Girth Summit. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I didn't get the ping I'm afraid. It looks like you asked that question in three edits, and only added the ping in the second one. It's a quirk of the software that a ping is only issued to the recipient if it is added in a fresh comment on a new line, and if the comment that includes the ping is signed with four tildes. Goodness knows why, but that's the way it works, so if you leave a comment and then afterwards you want to add a ping, it's better to put a new line below with a ping saying 'sorry, forgot to ping you in the comment above'.
Also, you would have been better coming here in the first place - once an SPI case is closed, there shouldn't be any further discussion in that case ideally. And, if you're going to comment, don't put it in the 'Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments' section.
Anyway, since you'd left the comment there, I've replied over there for the archive. If there's anything else you want to say, put it here so we're not cluttering up the archive. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)18:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I must say, I still don't quite understand how you can be so sure that they're different people when the "very specific change" that the IP was interested in was one that JAMAMBTGE had made. Are you saying that you don't find it all suspicious that now JAMAMBTGE has been banned, a single-purpose IP has turned up to defend his edits? Zacwill (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zacwill I'll tell you what I see. None of this is privileged CU secret stuff, it's all available to any editor. JAMAMBTGE almost always uses the VisualEditor; the IP never does. Before their block, JAMAMBTGE edited almost every day, dotting about a very wide range of articles; the IP edits sporadically, always about the same article. JAMAMBTGE rarely edits between 08:00 and 18:00; that's exactly when the IP is most active. JAMAMBTGE usually does not come back to an article if their edit is reverted - they have done once or twice, but generally they give up after the second revert, and almost never go to an article's talk page. The IP, well, behaves differently.
So much for the publicly viewable information. I can't tell you the specifics of what I can see in the CU, but I can tell you that JAMAMBTGE consistently uses a particular type of device, which is different from the one that the IP uses. I also know where JAMAMBTGE lives; the IP geolocates to a place a great distance away from there. I considered the possibility that JAMAMBTGE might be using a proxy to edit through that IP, but every proxy checking tool I know tells me it's a clean IP (it would also be fairly unusual for a proxy service to give you such a stable IP). So, either JAMAMBTGE has moved house and changed their editing device and their editing habits, or it's someone else who agrees with him on this one particular point. Hope that makes sense. GirthSummit (blether)20:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of exhaustive answer I was hoping for, thank you. Based on the evidence you've marshalled here, I'll concede that my hunch was wrong. Zacwill (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and no worries about the hunch. Before I was an SPI clerk, I remember being sure that certain accounts were socks because of engagement on a particular article. I was sometimes perplexed when admins or CUs told me I was wrong. The training course for SPI clerks is fairly extensive - there are lots of different things to look at, and it's easy to get caught up on subject matter interests. It's a big world, there are lots of people who share views, even if they're odd views. In this case, it's the newly installed president of the US - there are going to be a lot of people looking at these pages, and some of them are going to agree with each other. If the IP is disruptive, report it via the usual channels. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Budisgood
You recently blocked a series of sockpuppets from Budisgood, conform this SPI. Now I have the idea that he is back with a new sockpuppet, making the same low quality edits in the same articles as Budisgood. (See here: Contributions. Am I right or wrong? The Bannertalk22:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
