Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Bbb23, I'm sorry I didnt see the sockpuppet investigation for Athangkarma until it had closed, but I would like to speak in defence of Athangkarma who is doing a lot of work in Bhutan to develop an editing community for both English Wikipedia and for Dzongkha Wikipedia. I ran a workshop via zoom for him from Australia, with a group of eager students from the law school, and those two clusters are from those workshops he was running, hence the shared info. Druk and Drukpa would likely be two different people - Druk is the Bhutanese name for Bhutan and Drukpa means Bhutanese people. Athangkarma was an administrator of Dzongkha Wikipedia and hosts editing workshops on his business premises at his own expense. He facilitated workshops for me last year. The editing community in Bhutan is a fledgling one, working in a second language, so would request some latitude for them as they try with the very best of intentions to join the global community. Please can you advise how we can fix this. Doctor 17 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would provide links or diffs to what you're talking about on en.wiki, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is the link to the sockpuppet investigation. hoping you can help. with thanks, Doctor 17 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to unblock the user, and neither did any other admin who reviewed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user was not creating different accounts to use for sock puppetry, they created the accounts for training and to enrol new users. They didnt know where the discussion was going on or who to explain this to. I understand very well why sock puppets need to be banned, but if this person was not creating the accounts for this purpose, please may I ask how he can have this decision reverted. respectfully Doctor 17 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in User:theleekycauldron and User:PhilKnight. Went to Bhutan last year and meet User:Athangkarma in person. They have a computer lab in their office and are trying to build a community of editors in the country. What we have here is not the blocking of a group of socks but blocking a bunch of new editors in Bhutan. That they are writing about Bhutanese topics is not unsurprising, nor is their positive perspective on their royal family. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry if I made a mistake! I think a more experienced CU than me should take a look at the evidence – I don't think the explanation is implausible given what I found, but I wouldn't be qualified to give a definitive answer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will ask for a review by another CU. As mentioned Athangkarma was supporting edit-a-thons within his school, thus it is not surprising that we see them all coming from the same IP address and even some from the same machine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At the request of Doc James, and in consultation with theleekycauldron, I have reviewed the sum of available information pertaining to these blocks, including checkuser results and logs, and the nature and quality of the edits made by the various accounts. Based on this information, it appears significantly more likely that this is a situation where an experienced Wikipedian has undertaken to assist new potential editors in developing their skills, rather than a sockpuppet/meatpuppet scenario. As such, and in the spirit of assuming good faith, theleekycauldron and I have agreed that I will unblock the relevant accounts. It seems clear that Bbb23 did not have the information provided by Doc James or Athangkarma at the time he wrote the SPI. It is worth noting that many "tells" that may lead one to the "socking" conclusion do not apply equally to those from a small geographic area and population who are writing in their second or third language rather than their native tongue; linguistic similarities in English are likely to be the result of the editors having a near-identical educational background, and topic choices are likely to more narrowly reflect local culture and custom. In this case, one of the draft articles that raised red flags (Draft:Tarayana Foundation) is highly specific to the culture of Bhutan, and would likely be best written about using Bhutanese sources by Bhutanese editors, which could easily lead to the appearance of some sort of conflict of interest, whether valid or not. On the other hand, this organization is analogous to the King's Trust - an organization about which Wikipedia has had an article since 2005; both are organizations that fund charitable activities in a designated kingdom and are established by one or more members of that kingdom's royal family. It's easy to write about things that make it to English language reference sources. It's much harder to write about similar organizations where the sources are primarily not written in English. Risker (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by my computer's clock, past 00:00 AEDT on 2025-04-01. So it would be appreciated if you (and any of your lurkers) could today add a little happiness to Drmies's day with some Support of your choosing.

Of course, as we all know, a good rationale is a key thing in these sorts of discussions.

It does not have to involve furniture, despite the obvious Round Table that Drmies just built entirely unprompted, or even dead people (in the Lincoln Cemetery or otherwise). You could address anything, from taking an axe to axe, through belting out AFC approval on The Onion Belt and finally (after 12 years!) letting us know that we had been speaking an African Urban Youth Language all along, to the plenisocculence of the tumble-dryer of life.

Only 100 Supports to go! ☺

Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I support anything Drmies wants, particularly if I don't understand it. It's my brother's birthday tomorrow. Please send real presents c/o me.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy birthday to him! Drmies (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent the presents to me. They have not arrived yet. Uncle G (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't anything particularly bad with this talk page post [1]. One out of 15 mentions of the team Logrones was mistakenly linked to CD Logrones, a team dissolved out 16 years ago.

On first look I WP:AGF that this was an honest comment on the page. Though I do see that the original poster has received a few warnings, I don't see anything particularly shocking to revert this post. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Marin Marić is being heavily vandalised by IPs at the moment. Can you please consider a temporary page protection. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, just thought an active admin would be able to help as the vandalism is happening live very often. No worries then. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]