User talk:CNMall41

Falling on top of socks

A couple weeks or so ago I started going through this edit filter looking for a specific UPE farm but then fell on top of what I am terming the redirect socks (in addition to other UPE) so I have been reverting when I come across them. Apparently I have annoyed them. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@S0091:, It only annoys them as they likely don't get paid unless their edits stick. Great job. Have you seen this? Pinging @JBW: as well since they are involved. I believe it is a case of creating a redirect and then using another account to remove and create the page in hopes no one will see it or to avoid G5 in the event they are caught in an SPI. Good work!!!--CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so that's the SPI. I knew there had to be one but hadn't yet made the effort to find out which one. I also had a discussion with Ponyo as she had protected a couple of the redirects and she thought protection was likely the better route. I had also thought about moving them to draft but worried that would at least be least frowned upon so I'd be interested in getting yours and JBW's thoughts. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fine line but there was mention in the SPI that the pages created by RB could be G5'd if it is conclusive. A better route may be to redirect and protect the pages as deleting them will only lead to multiple attempts at recreation. Just my thoughts. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And before I forget, I think P.Karthik.95 is like part of this or at least UPE. S0091 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. They are on a list of potentials I am keeping but need more evidence as I have filed so many SPIs over the last few months I believe I have annoyed the F*** our of CUs and Admins. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think Nauman335 is likely part of the same farm (and have thought so for a while). The most recent open SPI on that user shows similar conduct of redirect creation followed by page creation. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh I know about feeling we are bugging CU/SPI. Yesterday I filed one, Spicy got to it right away but then then within minutes I filed another under the same SPI. Between you, me, @GSS, @Saqib and a couple others, we keep SPI hopping unfortunately and UPE farms are usually the toughest cases. S0091 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I pissed them off filing so many. I completely understand as it takes away from their enjoyment of editing Wikipedia just like these UPEs take away mine. All good. They do a pretty good job so I am just trying to hold off and file only the ones where I have no doubt based on the evidence. That way they don't feel like Wikipedia is work. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have let go of so many UPEs because I didn't want to spend the time pulling it all together for what a CU might still legitimately deem a weak case and then there are times when I think Wikipedia is overrun with UPE so I have go do something else for while. Like you, I also worry about CUs getting burned out. I would. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. I thought about going RfA and becoming CU eventually but at this point I don't even want to look in that direction. I have empathy at this point and don't want to join that workload. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What I really wish is for us to have a private space where we can collaborate so we are not spilling WP:BEANS or worse, openly suggesting someone of might be UPE who might not be and get other eyes/hands to help with analysis along with AI tools to help id patterns, etc. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed our UPEs are emigrating to Simple English WP, fleeing the persecution they face here? Barzakh (TV series), Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not entirely uncommon for UPE to create articles at both en and Simple and/or another language. It's often part of a package deal and a way to hedge so if it gets deleted at one, it will still exist at another which also gets them a Wikidata entry. S0091 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────┘
S0091, A package deal? Is it like buy one, get one free? Wow! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

More like for $XXX you will get these XXX articles on these XXX Wikipedias or if they are unsuccessful at en their backup offer is Simple, etc. They may also offer different wikis such as Wikialpha which is free for all (offline as of last week but existed since like 2009-ish I think) or Wikitia. S0091 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR. Sorry guys, I'm in a hurry. By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE. Anyway, since I'm here, I have a quick question: what does this edit filter do? I've noticed that UPEs often create a redirect and then, after some time, someone removes the redirect to attempt creating an article. However, the newly created page doesn't appear on NPP. So what would be the best way to tackle this issue? @MPGuy2824:— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib the filter simply identifies/flags "Large creations by inexperienced user". It requires a person to review them to determine if there's any action to needed. See [1]. As for removing redirects, they do show up at NPP but I think they will be dated with redirect creation date rather than the date the redirect was removed. It's probably the main reason why there are pages in the queue that appear to be years old. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It could be they identified a way around NPP by using the redirect creation. What is the SPI for the 100K+ ?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, I'm certain that not all redirect turned articles appear in NPP. @MPGuy2824: Do you have any thoughts on this? @CNMall41, Please check your email. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

someone removes the redirect to attempt creating an article. However, the newly created page doesn't appear on NPP. Please give me an example of where this has happened. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, Usman Riaz — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I get an example that is not deleted, please? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, In this case, you'll need to wait until I encounter another one. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824:, if you look at the new page creations for user RahulBodke you can find a few. here is an example along with this, this, and this. Hope that helps. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sadhi Manasa is in the NPP queue (I can see the toolbar there). Jagaddhatri (Telugu TV series) is old (converted to article more than 6 months ago) and articles automatically leave the npp queue if no one reviews them for that long. The other two were reviewed by an NPPer after conversion to article: [2], [3]. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is clear they are also moving to Simple English Wikipedia. I am about to go there to start editing as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not actively edited there but have poked around. Vermont is a admin there, active here and a steward and there's at least couple other good/active admins so you shouldn't run into issues with things being actioned on if warranted. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. The first two I tagged have been deleted. I am going to make a list of all of the ones that added a Simple English link here on Wikipedia and then go from there. Should expose quote a few socks as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The question of accept

Now tell the newspapers which are not named under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. If you give those references, will Akash Kusum accept the page? Nilpriyo (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I am done assisting you at this point based on WP:DUCKish behavior. The guideline is listed and it is up to you to learn it and apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WT:CSD#Revisiting a criterion for UPE creations

You might be interested in this discussion. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, TL;DR but are your concerns about editors being hired to participate in AFDs part of the proposed changes too? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

With a new UPE CSD one would not need to go through AfD for a UPE's articles to be deleted. If a user is blocked for UPE their articles prior to the block could be CSD'd. So for example an editor over the course of months/years created several articles then was confirmed UPE all their articles could be CSD'd. As it stands now, it's generally either G5 or G11 but for G5 to apply they need to be confirmed to an already blocked account which is not always the case/possible (ex. creations by masters and their first discovered sock(s) are not G5-able, only the subsequent ones) or the article has to meet G11 but as we know many of them do not meet that criteria either. Make sense? S0091 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, Absolutely delightful! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)