Jump to content

User talk:Blablubbs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cwmhiraeth (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 16 October 2021 (MAKO Surgical Corp.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Query about a SPI case

Hello, Blablubbs,

You are a very active SPI clerk and now, also an admin. So I thought maybe you could tell me why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31 is still open. I was checking the impact of blocked editor User:DJRSD who was identified as a sockpuppet of User:JeepersClub which led me to this SPI about Sanketio31. I can see given the huge amount of evidence that was presented that this is a complicated case but I was still surprised that it hadn't been resolved given that it was opened over 3 weeks ago. Is SPI overwhelmed and understaffed right now? This isn't a complaint because I know that quite a lot of work is involved, it's more that I was curious about the SPI process. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz! Thanks for reaching out. This case in particular is very large and complicated, so the process takes a lot of time – Mz7 indicated a few days ago that he is in the process of checking these accounts, and that there will probably be some waiting time involved. Usually, checks take something between a few minutes and an hour or so, but the data here seems to be rather messy; a preliminary check by Maxim indicated that they are indeed all related, so I'm hopeful that we will be able to wrap this up soon.
More generally speaking, SPI is one of our perpetual backlogs (though not as bad as e.g. WP:CCI) for a number of reasons: The volume of filings is rather large, and many of them don't include enough evidence to make a call, which can lead to drawn-out hunts for additional diffs; there is a shortage of CUs active at SPI (I hope CUOS2021 will help with that), as well as a chronic lack of patrolling administrators. I'm not sure whether that last shortage is because the process is complicated or otherwise unappealing to most, because of an impression that behavioural investigation at SPI should be left to clerks, or because of something else entirely. The current backlog isn't actually too bad compared to peak times (the diligent work by my two clerk trainees Tamzin and Spicy has been a great help), but we can certainly always use any additional help we can get, and the clerk team is always happy to help people navigate the procedural maze. Alternatively, people could also just stop socking... Please let me know if you have any other questions, or if there's something SPI-related I can help with. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–

  • SPI is definitely "overwhelmed and understaffed" at the moment, and this is reflected in the lengthy backlog. However, I think WP:CUOS2021 should be a big help, assuming ArbCom assigns CU permissions appropriately. Note that as long as you are an administrator, you do not need any special permissions or roles to perform many of the functions of SPI. Back in May, I wrote a post on AN that offered some tips for helping out, if you're interested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive333#Admin help needed at SPI. Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember when I first became a CU in 2019, the group of us that just had received the permission were so fresh-eyed and motivated that we reduced the backlog to this: [1]. If we could have something similar this year, that would be so amazing, haha. Mz7 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blablubbs and Mz7,
I had forgotten about this message (I think I'm getting old) until I was checking into an editor which brought me back to this SPI case and, wow! I completely underestimated the amount of time and effort that went into this. I must have been looking at an abbreviated version because looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31/Archive, well, it's just overwhelming the amount of care, checking and double-checking that was involved. And I don't even know how CUing is done so I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more work and more labor-intensive than I imagine it to be.
So, besides me issuing a brief apology for being impatient, after reading through most of this case, I'm left wondering if this sock group influenced the outcome of any AFD discussions that we should reconsider. From what I gather, they would nominate pages and then vote "Keep" so maybe they didn't cause any articles to be deleted but that was the question I was left with after reviewing this case now that it has been completed. I spend much of my time now looking at CSD tagged pages and expiring drafts and I know how difficult it is to overcome a "Delete" decision on an AFD discussion so I'm concerned that some articles were deleted that wouldn't have been if these accounts hadn't overwhelmed the AFD discussion. Should I be worried or was this group's primary influence to keep articles that might have otherwise have been deleted? Because they can always be nominated again but once articles are deleted, it's hard to bring them back. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Liz. You're absolutely correct – there are a few instances in which Sanketio31's voting altered the outcome of an AfD. I was preparing a COIN post on it, but I got pulled away by something IRL. I'll try to put something up by the weekend. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockeycatcat

I noticed that you stopped by the talk page of an editor who did the same for me one time. I haven't seen them myself, but just note the suppressed edits on his user page. If I were an administrator, I would not have unblocked for the same reason as you, but I hope you took them into account when making your decision. Sorry if my comments are inappropriate to you. I'm just trying to help out another autist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Your comments are not inappropriate at all, though I think you're assuming more good faith than I am; from the behavioural link I can make to specific IPs, it appears that this is about things that are far more severe than legal threats, and it wasn't a one-time thing either. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see them myself. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for noticing the reverse copyvio. I haven't encountered one of those in a while. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:UNDO prohibit modifying the revision that is being reverted to?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reverting § Using undo for an edit that isn't a revert. CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Congratulations on RFA

Congratulations on your very successful RFA. I wasn't on line much in September; when I was I was helping with an article rewrite and not paying attention to much else. I am glad you passed easily and did not need my vote. Best wishes Donner60 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: A very belated thank you for the kind words. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

I came by to see if you answered my query about a SPI case from three days ago and you've already archived the discussion! That's kind of a surprise. It doesn't allow me to respond to your reply but at least I can read it so thanks for not just deleting it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I archive my talk page once per month, and yours was pretty close to the cutoff. There hadn't been a reply in two or three days and I had seen you around in the meantime, so I figured you had seen the responses Mz7 and I left. Apologies if that was a mistaken assumption – I've restored the section above. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New CU

You might be interested in looking at WP:SPI/Riyadhcafe87? The name came up here: WP:AN/I#Discussion:

Though it might be more of a WP:MEAT case, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Acknowledging that I've seen this; looks like an interesting case, but also a complicated one – I'll try to have a look, but it might be a while. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your outstanding work in compiling and filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31, one of the most technically and socially sophisticated sockfarms in recent memory! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you closed the Sockpuppet investigation?

Behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry is absolute and mathematically demonstrable. I'm surprised you closed one and not the one this sockpuppeteer maliciously initiated against me. Is there a reason for this?Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristodelosgitanos: I do not find the behavioural evidence conclusive enough to overcome an {{unrelated}} CU result. I have not reviewed the second case. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Blablubbs. I should have been clearer on the math. No worries. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAKO Surgical Corp.

Congratulations on your recent RfA. Could you use your sock-hunting skills to look into the very odd things going on around MAKO Surgical Corp.. I looked at it because a revision deletion was requested, but I found no evidence of copyvio. However something odd is going on with various editors and IPs doing prods and AfDs on established companies, welcoming each other, and generally mucking around as can be seen here. I looked at filing a sockpuppet report and decided the procedure was too difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blablubbs&oldid=1050193053"