User talk:Newslinger

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, has been now closed. The final decision is available at the link above.

The following remedies have been passed regarding this case:

• TruthGuardians (talk ·contribs ), TheWikiholic (talk ·contribs ), Guitarjunkie22 (talk ·contribs ), Jimcastor (talk ·contribs ), and MraClean (talk ·contribs ) are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• TruthGuardians (talk ·contribs ), TheWikiholic (talk ·contribs ), Israell (talk ·contribs ), EpistemeAletheia (talk ·contribs ), Guitarjunkie22 (talk ·contribs ), Jimcastor (talk ·contribs ), MrBoar1 (talk ·contribs ), MraClean (talk ·contribs ), Never17 (talk ·contribs ), and PinkSlippers (talk ·contribs ) are indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• NE0mAn7o! (talk ·contribs ) is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard §Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

Hi Newslinger, thought I would mention since you took action on Jgellatly: I am pretty sure that Compliance-Expert is another member of the team (probably meat rather than sock) given the interaction between Jgellatly and Compliance-Expert on the HIPAA talk page, and Jgellatly's attempted use of Compliance-Expert as a "validator" of his COI edits on both that Talk page and AINB, e.g. This revert removed content that had been proposed through the proper WP:COI talk page process and received independent approval from Compliance-Expert. Compliance-Expert was challenged on COI (), admitted it (), and has not posted since, so I don't suppose any action is warranted: just providing a heads-up in case they do re-emerge.

Thank you for all your help with this. M kuhner (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi M kuhner, and thanks for the notice. I see that, in Special:Diff/1344558222 (21 March 2026), Compliance-Expert (talk · contribs ) has disclosed that they are employed by Supremus Group LLC (doing business as HIPAA Training on the website hipaatraining.net), and that one of their "clients" asked them to write about Supremus Group's "Certified HIPAA Privacy Security Expert" (CHPSE) certification on Wikipedia, which means that Compliance-Expert's creation of the now-deleted Certified HIPAA Privacy Security Expert article constitutes paid editing. I can't say for sure whether Medcurity or Jgellatly (talk · contribs ) is the client of Supremus Group that Compliance-Expert is referring to, but it's likely that improper off-wiki coordination is involved here.

In the deleted revisions of the Certified HIPAA Privacy Security Expert article, I see that, after it was draftified for the first time , Disneey (talk · contribs ) rewrote the article and moved it back to article space. Disneey was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of Zimidar (talk · contribs ) in an SPI case opened on 3 April 2026, and Zimzidar's sockpuppets have a long history of undisclosed paid editing. Because CHPSE is Supremus Group's certification, it is likely that Supremus Group hired the paid editing firm that used the Disneey account to republish the Certified HIPAA Privacy Security Expert article.

Compliance-Expert is no longer editing about the CHPSE certification, so I agree that no action is needed right now. However, they have promoted content from the hippatraining.net website as recently as 17 June, which can be addressed through channels such as WP:COIN if it continues and becomes disruptive. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-31515-92 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-35406-24. These two accounts might be related. Dragon Klaw (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Dragon Klaw, I have opened and processed a new SPI case with the information you provided. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Newslinger talk 14:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

love ~2026-39129-24 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@~2026-39129-24: Hi there, if you have a question, please feel free to ask me or the Teahouse. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I have just sent you an email through Wikipedia about my PhD research. I would really like to chat with you about your participation experience on Wikipedia, especially your experience with the OpenAI article. When you have a chance, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the email. I hope to hear from you. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren miki (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

see ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

it fixed itself? nevermind ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@~2026-38678-64: Hi there, because the {{Sockpuppet }} template only displays that message when the corresponding sockpuppet category does not exist, it can show that message incorrectly when it is relying on stale data. This tends to happen if the user pages and sockpuppet category were quickly created around the same time (which is the case here). To fix this, just purge all of the pages where the template shows the incorrect message. I just did that, which instantly fixed the issue. By the way, thank you for assisting with the conduct dispute resolution for this incident. — Newslinger talk 02:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

oh, interesting, yet more innards of wikipedia

thank you for your prompt indefs right as i was getting discouraged by there having a 6th sock TA yet again reverting my collapse ai template ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No problem. Some conduct reports can take a while to be properly reviewed, but when the situation is clear, the result is implemented all at once. — Newslinger talk 02:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

also thank you for the ping! (i tend to use my contribs as my own pseudo watchlist (they really ought to give more shiny things to IPs but AFAIK "user pages for IPs" is a 20 year old proposal that continues to fail)) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

While you can't create your own user page using a temporary account, you can ask for your user page to be created for you and then edit it afterward. The most straightforward way to do that is to use the {{Help me }} template on your user talk page. However, each time you switch to a new temporary account, you would need to ask for your old user page to be moved over if you want to continue using it. Since you're already here, I would be glad to create your user page for you if you prefer. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

i mean, sure (that's allowed? interesting) i want it to add a funny infobox ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:~2026-38678-64 is ready for editing. Have fun! — Newslinger talk 02:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Newslinger, I noticed that the account Renaldo97 had editing activity in the Interaction Timeline close to ~2026-32928-73, and in articles he created this IP was active, , , , Renaldo97 was active around the same time as these IPs on other articles. , , , . Before opening a new SPI, I wanted to ask for your advice since you are familiar with this matter. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think? Thank you in advance. AriuCH (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi AriuCH, Renaldo97's cross-wiki activity shows that they have made almost 30 times as many edits to the Indonesian Wikipedia as they have to the English Wikipedia, so some overlap on a few Indonesian political articles on the English Wikipedia is not particularly surprising. Also, one of the blocked temporary account sockpuppets partially reverted Renaldo97's edit in Special:Diff/Renaldo97, which makes it less likely that Renaldo97 is associated with Thesecondimpact. Based on this information, I would not take any action at SPI, but you are welcome to file a new SPI case if you find stronger evidence of sockpuppetry. — Newslinger talk 16:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Newslinger, Thank you for your time and note. I will keep your advice in mind. AriuCH (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:Larry Sanger, who was blocked indefinitely for off-site canvassing over another issue at WP:SANGERBAN, also tried to dilute the Epoch Times RFC over whether it should be described as "far-right" by advertising it to his 96k followers on his rather conspiracy laden X account.

Also there has not been much scrutiny of single-purpose accounts per WP:SPA. User:ClifV had previously tried to push the same views, and was previously blocked and unblocked due to some unconfirmed sockpuppet allegations. ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@~2026-40495-85: Hi there, if you are interested in any content dispute on the article about The Epoch Times , then you are welcome to participate on the corresponding talk page, Talk:The Epoch Times. Please note that the topic is covered under the WP:CT/AP (post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people) contentious topic. Because Larry Sanger has already been community-banned and ClifV has not edited since May, there is no recent behavior that needs to be addressed at this time. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2/Evidence; private evidence may be sent to arbcom-en-b[画像:@]wikimedia.org. Additional parties may be proposed during the first week of the evidence phase. Please add your evidence by August 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply