Jump to content

User talk:ST47/Archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wednesday
13
November
2024
17:15 UTC
Archives
0x00
0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F
0x10
0|1|2|3|4
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation

Future potential encounters

[edit]

If I encounter a user like Hejoveda again, to what noticeboard(s) should I report them? Should I just contact an admin directly? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIV would be appropriate, as they're clearly nothere - or an admin directly if you have a convenient way to do so, like IRC. ST47 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Solarenergyindia.in

[edit]

Hi ST47! I was reviewing the new user log and going back to see any users that may have been missed, and I ran into this account which you applied a hard block due to its username. I agree that the account should be blocked due to the username, but I'll typically apply a Uw-softerblock (promotional username soft block), or (in cases where the editor has also added spam or advertising to their user page or on Wikipedia), a Uw-spamublock. These blocks will leave a more accurate block notice on the account's user talk page explaining that their username is promotional, and (if applicable of course) that their edits suggest that their intent is only to advertise. The Uw-uhblock you applied for this account should typically be used for accounts with a username that's blatantly inappropriate, offensive, threatening, sexually explicit, or similarly malicious, as it will leave an appropriate block notice explaining such. You didn't do anything bad or wrong, of course... ;-) I just wanted to give you a heads up so that future blocks you make like this will reflect a more accurate block log summary, as well as leave a block notice for the user that explains the actual situation and reason. ;-) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know (ping me if you respond here so that I receive a notification) and I'll be happy to answer them. Hope you're doing well, and I'm sure I'll see you around the project (as we usually do). :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:, I had intended to use the spam username hardblock template, but must have hit the wrong one. The user had tripped several spam filters, which is what brought them to my attention. ST47 (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries. I do that sometimes as well. Thanks for letting me know! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My room mates block my ip addreass by doing unwanted accounts named westrextravels

[edit]

Dear, i am working on a big article about pakistani rappers and musical artists with all refrences and external links and stuff but i cant publish them or edit please help me i start work with sunny khan durrani article and i do more but i stucked in blocked page Icanedit60039 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you were blocked, then you wouldn't have been able to post this question. You'd better start by deciding which you want, Draft:Sunny Khan Durrani or Draft:Sunny khan durrani. (Astonishingly, they're different.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Surasky

[edit]

Hi, I wanted to bring your attention to Russell Scott Surasky which has been previously deleted under the names Russell Surasky, Russell S. Surasky and Bridge Back to Life. I nominated it for speedy deletion yesterday but another IP user removed the deletion template. I am not so sure about the appropriate deletion process to be followed here. Previous deletion discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Back to Life. 2401:4900:3307:93F6:2144:FC7D:914D:1C82 (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted and salted. -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

[edit]

Bonjour ST47, seeing you're familiar with my case, my article Abdullahi Sadiq was mistakenly deleted under Wp:G5 after I was blocked, can you please restore it? The original admin that deleted the article is now retired. Magherbin (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magherbin: Sure, done. ST47 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Magherbin (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP range

[edit]

Hello ST47, Blackcat from Italy here. Yesterday I tried to edit on en.wiki and noticed that I couldn't because I was editing from an IP which range (98.158.240.0/20) is blocked: it's actually the IP range of the company where I work :) I'm not here to discuss the block policy, you know what you're doing and you've good reasons for sure for blocking that range of IP addresses; the only thing I'd like to ask is whether my username can be included in the exemption block list. Thanks and regards. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Sure, done. If you still require this permission in a year, you can request that it be extended via UTRS or the checkuser mailinglist, per the links on WP:IPECPROXY. ST47 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 08:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP 185.201.60.0/22 Train Belfast->Dublin

[edit]

Dear ST47. On the 29 January 2020 I travelled from Belfast to Dublin in Ireland by train to attend a Wikipedia editing workshop organised by Rebecca O’Neill. I tried to edit Wikipedia using Google Chrome on the train's open-access network and got the message:

Editing from 185.201/60.0/22 has been blocked by ST47 for the following reasons: ... it is believed to be a web host provider or collocation provider ...

I have no problems editing from home, nor had I problems editing at the workshop in Dublin. I am normally logging in automatically. The mentioned blocking message included some instructions about how to circumvent the block by putting a special mention on the user page indicating the habitual IP address of the user's machine. It might be the IP Address template, but I have not noted down these instructions and am not sure what to do.

I wonder why the train Internet network should be blocked. The train is run by Translink - Enterprise. Might it have been blocked by error? With many thanks for all the hard work that you administrators are doing for us. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

[edit]

Forgive my ignorance in these matters, but does your bot mean that we will no longer be using Amalthea's bot or that we will be using both? Either way, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I'm happy either way, if @Amalthea: re-enables their bot, mine will automatically shut itself off (in fact, it will do so as soon as anyone else edits the table). If they don't seem to be available to turn it back on, I can run mine indefinitely. ST47 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such automation. Can your bot do the updating without Amalthea's bot (I'm assuming the answer is yes)? Do you know why Amalthea's bot fails (I'm sure you know this has happened before)? If so, is your bot susceptible to the same failures? Amalthea I believe has explained the problems, but, as you might expect, I couldn't understand what he said. I don't like to put words in Amalthea's mouth, but I imagine he would be happy not to have to respond to complaints about his bot. I think he has better things to do in RL.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Yes, my bot runs independently. No, I don't know why theirs fails. Mine is currently running on a server in the corner of my living room, but I could move it over to toolforge for some redundancy. ST47 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always think that bots are so decorative. Perhaps you and Amalthea could discuss the problems his bot has. I've no doubt you and he would understand each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail - CheckUser

[edit]
Hello, ST47. 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS - In regards to WP:EMAILPOST, feel free to share with other CUs as you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JackSucksAtLife's ban from having his own Wikipedia page

[edit]

Deletion review for JackSucksAtLife

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of JackSucksAtLife. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Question

[edit]

I am looking at a UTRS request for an IP within the range 85.132.0.0/17. The user claims they are not a webhost so I didn't know if you could provide additional information about the block. Thanks in advance. 331dot (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I had blocked it due to some ref-spammers that were creating accounts from that range. The specific IP I was looking at looked like a server, but maybe the whole range isn't. Feel free to unblock it if it's causing problems. ST47 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of ArchChat

[edit]

Hi ST47,

Deb decided to delete the ArchChat page which I created after a page move from its previous avatar as iSticker.

Can you restore either the ArchChat page or the iSticker version of it?

I was looking at the history of Kate Charles and that's how I came across you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Charles&action=history

Regards, Sachi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User MG2020DTC

[edit]

Hello ST47, based on the evidence I posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 don't you think EMmegLY is user MG2020DTC? EMmegLY was CU blocked as a sock of A134. GSS 💬 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Oh hey, I've just sent you a wiki-email. ST47 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha.. and there is a possible case of UPE, please check your inbox for details. GSS 💬 06:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your actions to the Trust & Safety team. If this is what you do routinely and you don’t question why a user talk page is deleted, you could be potentially putting people at risk. I am now going to have to go through all the diffs to find out what I need removed. You should be ashamed of yourself. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I highly suggest you cut out the personal attacks. Praxidicae (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I just want to clarify that we're talking about the talk page that you unconditionally asked to be restored a few hours ago. Look, if there's something that needs to be suppressed you know where to send it. @Chris.sherlock: You have repeatedly been aggressive towards me and others tonight. Do not contact me directly again for any reason except for notifications that are required by policy. ST47 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

[edit]

I have referred you to ArbCom. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cancelled the request. I'm clearly upset today. What you did was very wrong though. I'm taking a wikibreak. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Professional Women

[edit]

Hi,

Unfortunately you deleted my edits because you said they did not demonstrate a neutral point of view.

I disagree that sharing relevant information has anything to do with point of view. If you take the time to look at the following websites, you will notice how strikingly similar they look. There are even the same "featured members" listed on the sites!

https://www.iawomen.com https://www.waofp.com https://www.theisfp.com

If you read reviews of their business practices, you will also note a striking similarity.

https://medium.com/the-establishment/anatomy-of-a-scam-the-national-association-of-professional-women-94304c38fb35


It is not a matter of opinion that I was personally solicited by this organization, nor is it a matter of opinion that hundreds of women have similarly disturbing stories.

This is a matter of public interest. Please do the right thing.

GillianCK GillianCK (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your own experience, and a blog hosted on Medium.com, not reliable sources as required by policy. Also, the language in your edit showed a clear bias against the organization, which isn't appropriate, as edits should come from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign against an organisation that you dislike, we need to use reliable sources and neutral language. ST47 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chrisfairbank888

[edit]

You were the blocking admin for Chrisfairbank888. The user has made an unblock request on User talk:Chrisfairbank888 and while I've responded, I'm not an admin so my word is not official. Are you able to address the review? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. I'm not going to unblock, even if that is that person's first account, their firm now has three indef blocked accounts. But if someone else is convinced that they'll follow COI and PAID, they're welcome to unblock. ST47 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental block

[edit]

I was blocked, and I honestly don't know why. The reason box says something gibberish. Is it because of the VPN I'm using? QChemist (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QChemist: I'm guessing the problem was solved, since you were able to edit this page? Yes, it probably was due to a VPN, they are blocked from editing Wikipedia under policy. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webservice for SPI code

[edit]

I was wondering if you'd want to make a webservice for the SPI updating script to run it on-demand. I can help if you want. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: I actually have it set up currently to watch Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview and "take over" if an update from the normal bot is more than 30 minutes overdue. I do want to move some of my scripts over to toolforge and set up a web UI at some point, but I don't consider it a priority while the current approach is working fine. How would you implement it, though? Maybe a web app that updates the tool's crontab? ST47 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, yep. A webservice would be redundant then, but a simple Flask server configured to jsub -once the script via the shell should do it, if you want to do so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium(III) bromide

[edit]

Hi ST47, can you protect the Yttrium(III) bromide page? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS ticket #28756

[edit]

Hi,

You issued a block for this range due to it being a webhost block.

We've received a UTRS ticket request under 28756 from User: 5225C who is caught up in this rangeblock.

Would you object to me modifying the block so logged in users can edit?

Or would you mind me granting them IPBE, say for 6 months?-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: I thought the information provided in UTRS requests was supposed to be private for administrators only? I redacted the IP range above, in case it's non-public. Anyway, the range in question should remain hardblocked, but you can give 5225C IPBE if you trust them. There's no sign that they are socking. ST47 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That IP

[edit]

...made the same edit as someone from a range you just blocked, a range I assume was used by Willie on Wheels or an impersonator. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. Yeah, that wasn't what I blocked that other range for, which is why I was confused. Didn't recognize the edit. I'll block the new /64 for evasion. ST47 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA IP block

[edit]

Hey ST47, hope you are doing well. I saw that you blocked 185.201.60.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this past November as a colocation webhost IP. I think you may need to access talk page access as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done. Favonian (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

You recently blocked Joshuaharrisoneast. I found it interesting to find this post on my talk. I've blocked the editor per WP:No legal thrests, and I wondered if it's another sock. I'm aware that my suspicion isn't enough for a CU, but just for info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep,  Confirmed. Re-blocked as a CU block. ST47 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fangusu

[edit]

Can we restore the deleted edits? Germane to current UTRS appeal.-- Deepfriedokra 01:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Please do. I don't know why I even deleted it. ST47 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Damn ST47, did they up the reward per block? You must be rolling in bitcoin. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of block evasion at Nilesh Odedra

[edit]

Hi ST47, you've blocked a bunch of proxies at the article, for which I've requested page protection. Maybe you can block the most recent wave of vandals. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been protected. ST47 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block for your bot

[edit]

With respect, since your bot is not authorized to preform the SPI task and it's currently excessively edit warring a substantially different version of the case list with Amalthea's bot, I have issued a partial block to prevent this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Sorry, I've disabled the task and will investigate. ST47 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:One Jeff Tami

[edit]

A user named One Jeff Tami has recreated his userpage about 2 times now, and the accounts only purpose appears to be promotional. The account doesn't have any mainspace edits nor any edits not relating to his own username. This may be a case of COI or NOTHERE.

Anyway I came to you because i'm not quite sure what I could do myself, and you are the first admin I think of when I think of an admin. -MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And contribs can be seen here. -MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another likely sock of Xiang09

[edit]

DwataAnito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For your convenience, the Xiang09 SPI case: [2] See there how it is noted by Stricnina that they focus on a specific image of Itneg potters and talking about the "asog"; and in these diffs of known socks, here [3] they added that Itneg picture, and here [4] they talk about the "asog", added a note claiming Early colonial accounts point out that same-sex sexual relations were common for precolonial Filipinos of both sexes, not only the asog. In general, there was a great degree of sexual freedom in precolonial Filipino societies. Virginity was not valued, adultery was not perceived negatively, and there was wide use of genital piercings (tugbuk and sakra). (Brewer, 1999), and they added the Itneg picture.

Now, as for DwataAnito's edits, note here [5] how they talk about the asog, and how they add a note saying exactly the same thing as the note above. Note here [6] their addition of that exact same Itneg potter picture.

You can also see a broad similarity in writing style, and there are doubtless more identical details, but I believe these are enough to justify CheckUser, or to block for behavior if they have evaded CheckUser via a proxy or shifting IP. If not, please let me know. Crossroads -talk- 03:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Crossroads -talk- 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Debra Arbec

[edit]

User:Miraclepine has asked for a deletion review of Debra Arbec. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you blocked (#943918) my IP address 37.160.97.83? Could check and unlock, please?

[edit]

One of my current IP address 37.160.97.83 was (and is) blocked with ID number #9439183. Why? Sometimes I'm just improving the inaccurate Wikipedia information through a mobile connection from Italy. Could check and unlock, please? (In the web there are a lot ignorance and approximation)--Iowiko (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously operated by a hosting provider. As that appears to no longer be the case, I've unblocked it. ST47 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of Architect 134

[edit]

Hi, Can you explain why you closed my suspected sockpuppet investigation of Symphony Regalia on Architect 134, without checking user? I think I provided significant evidence that they are linked, as you didn't check Symphony Regalia last time (who is the main problematic account).‎ Is there some kind of cooldown time between investigations? Kind regards, Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand, from my perspective it's very clear Symphony Regalia was using Karicodex as a sock as revenge for Dekimasu reporting him on the administrators notice board for edit warring, and that Karicodex is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of Architect 134. Does Architect 134 have a significanrly different modus operandi? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Yeah, there isn't really a concise summary of him anywhere, is there? Architect 134 is a troll who creates sockpuppet accounts which mimic the behavior of other editors, usually ones who are reported/blocked for edit warring, in an attempt to get those users' blocks extended unfairly. It's a false flag / joe job sort of thing. The other recent cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Architect_134/Archive show this same sort of pattern - EMmegLY was pretending to be MG2020DTC, Soaveidea was pretending to be Tonyb1961 (on a now-deleted article), Abbsymal was pretending to be Abbymsmall, and so on. ST47 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that makes sense, so Symphony Regalia is just obstinate and not a troll. Easy mistake to make when you don't understand the modus operandi. Cheers, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for bothering you. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

[edit]

Another Fajsfvbaf sock has shown up on my talk page. Thanks—Ermenrich (talk)

Sorted. ST47 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your partial block of IP 137 as a sock

[edit]

According to what I am seeing in the edit history of 137.97.0.0/16 at the article Rajith Kumar, You have blocked them as a sock, but only on certain articles. Could you review the article in question, and if need be block additional socks in the IP 137.97 range? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears the latest sock has been blocked, but they appear to be extremely agressive, but keeping an eye on the article might be a good idea, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

[edit]
Hello, ST47. 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.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I am new to wikipedia contributions. I see that there were alot of edits on the article for Nselaa Ward by multiple people. I initiated this page and in the edit history I see that they say something about persistent sockpuppetry. I wanted to know why this is. I don't want to be blocked and I don't want my contributions to be deleted either. I'm trying to understand the process so that I can improve on my contributions in the future. When I click on the link it says that it means logging out or creating new accounts. Can you help me to understand what this means. I have not logged out of my account and have been under andrea perry on all of my edits. I met Jimmy Wales at a conference last year in new york and he asked for more volunteers to help edit information about diverse communities. I am very confused now because it appears that by me trying to help contribute to people that I look up to is actually putting a smear on the pages of the people that I am trying to contribute to. If I am doing something wrong then I would just rather not make any contributions and have the derogatory information that they put on the page about sock puppetry and self promotion removed. My goal was to try to contribute to the representation of diverse communities on wikipedia, but it seems that instead the the articles are being smeared about great people - and is having a reverse affect. I know this person and the last thing I want is to have their name smeared by trying volunteer and be a contributor. How I just withdraw any future help, and have the derogatory information removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know how to sign yet, because I don't know where those sqiggaly lines are on my computer. I will look for it

Also, I see that at my first edit or initiation of the page of Nselaa Ward - it says "possible self promotion" Why does it say this?

AndreaPerry22 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)AndreaPerry22[reply]

@AndreaPerry22: The article Nselaa Ward is currently the subject of a discussion to see if it should remain on Wikipedia. Someone was repeatedly removing the required notice of that discussion, and was using multiple IP addresses to do so, preventing a direct block on them. So, I protected the page so that only users with accounts meeting certain criteria would be able to edit it. This does not prohibit you from editing it, only anonymous users and very new accounts.
I'm not sure what specific derogatory information you're referring to. Note that we have a policy on neutral point of view, which means we cover subjects fairly, potentially including both positive and negative information, if that's what the reliable sources say about the subject. If there is derogatory information that is not sourced, then it should be removed under our policy on biographies of living persons. Note that the notices at the top of the article are maintenance notices about the quality of our encyclopedia article, not about the subject herself.
The "squiggly line" key is called the tilde, and it's normally made by holding down shift, and pressing the key to the left of the number "1" key, at least on American English keyboards. ST47 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. It is very helpful. When I said derogatory information I was talking about 2 things. 1. I was talking about when it said "Self promotion." Because I was the one the volunteered to put the information up, it is specifically referencing me. However, when it uses the word "Self promotion." it is implying to anybody that is reading it that Nselaa Ward herself is responsible for what is written, which is incorrect. I volunteered because I thought it was important, and I also know the person. And when the founder, Jimmy Wales, asked for help in adding more diverse information to the database I thought I could start with people that I actually knew something about. However, the word "self promotion" has negative connotations to anybody in the public that is reading it, and it also unfairly gives that perception that she is responsible for anything that is written. Sockpoppetry as a similar effect. I think that it should be removed once the debate is complete. I would rather withdraw from contributing then to have negative connotations such as "sock puppetry and self promotion." applied to someone that I admire so much.

I also have another question. Also when do we know when the question of the "subject of deletion" has been answered? Is it a certain amount of days? A certain number of votes? How do we know when it is to be closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaPerry22 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreaPerry22: The discussion will remain open for a minimum of 7 days, at which point an admin will close it if the consensus is clear, or relist it if more input is needed. ST47 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

[edit]

Thanks for your patience in teaching me at the Village Pump. Wish you a good day!

tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 11:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

For some reason I was blocked from editing for 3 years and I am unclear why that is. I don’t edit things a lot, only a few times a year, so I do very little. Can’t you please explain what I did? Thanks. A friend (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loganscott74 The very fact that you edited this page means that you are not blocked. I looked and it doesn't look like your account was blocked in the past, either. That leaves an IP block that affected your account. Without knowing the IP involved it's hard to say more than that. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Target Wi-Fi

[edit]

Hi ST47, I’ve recently noticed that editing from 65.246.72.0/24 is blocked, but I don’t know why. I thought it was just a one store thing but I happen to be near another Target location in another city miles away and when the Wi-Fi linked up I saw it’s blocked here too. Can you unblock it? ⌚️ (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, ST47. 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.Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ST47ProxyBot

[edit]

Hi ST47. Any reason you're running your bot out of your admin account, considering that ST47ProxyBot is still pending approval? I'm not saying stop, but it's not a good look imo. -FASTILY 01:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are allowed to use WP:ASSISTED tools and scripts to perform repetitive tasks, same as any other editor. I review the lists of proxies before they're sent to the tool. Separating that onto another account, and making it completely automated, would definitely be nice for a few different reasons, which is why I submitted that request almost four months ago. I'm not aware of reason why this task should not be performed, just that no one seems to be willing to approve the BRFA. ST47 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I figured that was the case. I think it's a pretty valuable (and thankless) task, so I'll go poke some of the folks at BAG. Best, FASTILY 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

Why was 191.243.176.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked? They were making legit contributions. —GoldRingChip 13:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) GoldRingChip, from the block log, it appears that IP is an open proxy. Seems like it's been around a while, and it looks like it comes and goes from my tests. SQLQuery me! 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that explains it. I hope the proper user registers an account. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, bot and block

[edit]

Hello. Users have expressed interest for a bot to finish adding |doi-access=free to citations. As current blocking admin for User:OAbot, do you agree with what Headbomb said that the bot could be unblocked if the bot operators ask to finish its latest task without adding CiteSeerX IDs? Nemo 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: I only modified the block to prevent the autoblock from affecting other users on the same IP address, otherwise I don't have any opinion on @David Eppstein:'s block. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was the indiscriminate addition of citeseerx links. So if the bot's code for doing that is disabled, I would be happy to unblock. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, as I think I've said multiple times, there is no code that does that, so there's no code to disable. It's a command line option to add one parameter or the other. Instead of issuing bot.py "(pmc|citeseerx|doi|hdl)", like last time, I'd issue bot.py "(pmc|doi|hdl)" or similar and the existing code would not add citeseerx IDs. I don't understand if this is sufficient. Nemo 13:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There obviously is code to interpret that command line option and do something with it. And if I recall correctly, most of the problematic invocations were by other users than you. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShaynDiamond

[edit]

Hi, based on the sockpuppet case, the IPs 31.161.187.8, 188.206.64.0 and 188.207.87.25 are traced from The Netherlands. I believe the user "NiceKnowingYou" and "ShaynDiamond" is a pro-Pahlavi and Iranian monarch sympathiser who opposes the Islamic Republic. ---2607:FEA8:A760:1041:6182:5F29:722B:1C23 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock IP address

[edit]

Please unblock 140.0.81.196 IP address and 140.0.0.0/16 IP range. Because my IP address has changed since late March 2020. 139.195.175.139 (talk) 05.46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
No worries. Thank you very much for all your work 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, ST47. 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.— JamesR (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

[edit]

Hi can you take a look at this article [7], if you have time, there's suspected user name log outs and IP's edits which are problematic. Thanks. Magherbin (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sockpuppets

[edit]

Thanks for your help with Desapar's sockpuppet investigation. I was hoping to ask you for a bit of guidance. As you said, they are vote-stacking at AfD. Would you know what I can do about the votes they have already cast? There are now 3 "keep" votes for an an article of dubious notability. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kohlrabi Pickle: Well, there are two. I'll strike the sockpuppet's comment. ST47 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ST47 Yes, I miscounted. Thanks very much. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ST47 quick question: does Desapar's entry still stand if they have been blocked for sockpuppetry? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only struck the sockpuppets, not the master. The closing admin can decide how much weight to assign to their comment. ST47 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ST47 A new account has just appeared on Joshua Ip, possibly a third sock. Do I need to create a new investigation request? Thanks in advance. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes Kohlrabi Pickle. The previous report has been archived. In general, once a clerk, admin or checkuser has started to act on a report it's safer to start a new report. The SPI clerk can merge reports if needed. Cabayi (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cabayi, much appreciated. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

[edit]

Im unsure as to why I have been blocked from editing. I don’t understand code hence don’t really understand the messages. An explanation in layman’s terms would be useful. DanMc97 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore and delete, now understand editing wouldn’t take place due to my VPN, not my IP/account DanMc97 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking

[edit]

The LTA puppeteer, Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi (sami), whose socks you recently blocked has been doing extensive socking through IPs on multiple articles (see WP:LTA/SAMI). The last time you blocked the IP ranges being used by the puppeteer it greatly reduced disruptive socking from IPs. The puppeteer recently seems to have changed his Internet provider and is using these ranges 168.211.188.0/24, 168.211.189.0/24, 196.195.36.0/24, 117.102.0.0/18 to disrupt multiple articles through different IPs. No meaningful edits are coming from these ranges except extensive IP socking by the puppeteer. Please block these ranges, its taking a toll dealing with this vandal on many users who try to stop his disruptions. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the first two ranges are already blocked, and the fourth range, I have blocked Special:Contributions/117.102.48.0/20, I don't think it needs to be as wide as you say. ST47 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. The LTA page for the puppeteer isn't appearing at the SPI page. Can you please see what the problem might be? Gotitbro (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about IP partial blocks

[edit]

An IP who started/requested an AfD recently has the message on their contributions page: This IP address is currently partially blocked. Does this mean anything? (I'm asking because it showed you did the original block)

I don't know a ton about IPs, so I was wondering why this was on their User contributions page. Their AfD also had another IP chime in and !vote "Delete per nom", so I think I was just a bit suspicious. I've seen different IPs in the past start AfDs, with some !votes by IPs being Checkuser-ed and shown to be sockpuppets, so I was wondering if this was common or if my suspicion is unwarranted (and if I should just leave this stuff be in the future).

Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel4power

[edit]

This is my first block conflict. You CU blocked while I had the case up and was deciding to block as meat. What happens? Do you need to re-CU-block? Cabayi (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: No problem, I just switched the block summary back to the CU one. ST47 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lionel's now the oldest account. I'll move the report & retag. Thanks again for the fix. Keep well, be safe. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for protecting the Christopher Layne page, but someone vandalised the page again, any help?

[edit]
This user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capewearer vandalised the page for no real reason again, any help on that? Thanks. They claim that the page is a "linkfarm".112.199.181.130 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was account GG001213 blocked？

[edit]

OK, I found that the reason is ‘Colocation we host’, but I’m now living in Mainland China, which means that if I don’t use VPN I cannot use Wikipedia. I had never violate the rules when editing. Could you please check and unblock my account? Thx GG001213 (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake that it isn’t my account blocked, but my IP address 101.86.190.204 is blocked GG001213 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GG001213: You can request IP Block Exemption by reading WP:IPECPROXY. ST47 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Hi ST47, I was not aware of the formatting for the talk page and was ignorant of the proper place to put my comments, I should of read more carefully. I am aware now and it won't happen next time.ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

For your prompt work with the UTRS request. I can confirm it's now sorted. Appreciate it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siamfootball SPI etc.

[edit]

FWIW, I am pretty sure Siamfootball is not the original I believe that it's related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafiqabu. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor940

[edit]

I've proposed some unblock conditions at User talk:Editor940, and I'd appreciate your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: The unblock conditions look good to me. You can unblock if you think they understand. ST47 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll see how the 2nd chance goes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: This is at least the third chance they've received, just to be clear, and I don't agree that the block for creating two separate sockpuppet accounts in order to game the GA process should be shorter (22 hours) than the previous block for disruption (31 hours) only two days prior. I'm glad they know the difference between good and bad sock accounts now, but it's hard to justify creating those accounts as simply honest mistakes. An honest mistake would be reviewing the nominations with your original account, not trying to get away with these reviews through "alternate" accounts. I can no longer assume good faith from a user who is persistently dishonest and three days ago said "I strongly advise you immediately unblock me or I will be coming after your admin status and will fight hard to get it stripped from you." Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247: Yes, I saw all of the early aggression and personal attacks. Their approach has turned 180 degrees in the past couple of days, though, and we will now be able to see if it's genuine. And if it isn't, we can soon address it - it's low-risk, and easily fixed if it goes wrong. As for how long blocks should be, I don't see any justification for maintaining a block beyond the point we get an indication that the prevention has worked. Keeping a block in place for a further arbitrary time, simply because it isn't yet longer than the previous block, would seem to me like nothing more than punishment - and we don't do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Yep, I guess we'll find out how honest the recipient of Wikipedia's best lawyer award was. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just saw that. If I had to make a guess, I'd say I'm 50/50 on whether it will work out. But I'd say those are good enough odds to be worth trying, and nobody can claim Editor940 wasn't given a chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

[edit]

Tracing the edits of a new user, I came across this "appeal". It seems that after you declined their unblock request here, they started a new account, obviously not understanding what a global block is. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Blocked. Looks like they created their account at meta in order to avoid the local IP block. I don't know why the original account was locked, but I'll ask a steward to look at the new one. ST47 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA strike-off

[edit]

Greetings. You struck off Suffusien of Yellow's comments in the AfD about Benno Bikes, yet that editor does not seem to have been banned for long-term abuse. -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: That account is indef blocked. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the page of the (former) user carry the standard notification about the block? -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome:, oh, you mean the {{sock}} tag? We tend to skip those on accounts that are this obviously up to no good, partly per WP:DENY, and partly because I just don't know the name of the "master" account off the top of my head, and it isn't worth looking up. ST47 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but, like me, there might be editors who come to the page unsuspected. There must be some sort of quick & dirty notification that the user has been thrown out. Thanks for the input, in any case. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's all the same to you, mind just deleting the user and talk pages? That will cause the block message to appear instead, making it clearer to The Gnome and others, and will stop polluting the drop-down list in the search box. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another block evasion

[edit]

Hi.. As indonesian-related topics editor, I noticed that there are IP editors (118.136.113.195 and 139.192.224.172) who consistently make an edit mostly on indonesian cuisine topics and exhibit similar pattern with this sockmaster. Could you please look it up or should we open new SPI case? Ckfasdf (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qiushufang SPI

[edit]

Greetings. This case (the one I filed -- the second one) needs more attention. I gave pretty solid evidence Qiushufang was recruiting meatpuppets on Reddit, and it's gone 48 hours with no response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang - Hunan201p (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nohaata Seven

[edit]

I regularly run into issues similar to this in reviewing AfC articles: On Feb 17 2020, you deleted the page Nohaata Seven via G5 due to the page being created by a blocked user. On April 10, a new user created the draft Draft:Nohaata Seven that is overly promotional and attempted to move it to mainspace. It seems almost like too much of a coincidence that less that two months after a CSD of the page a new user recreated a promotional draft. Is this appropriate to report to WP:SPI, or is the circumstantial evidence too thin? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: Yeah, I would report that sort of thing to WP:SPI under the appropriate master, which in this case seems to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nohaata. I've ran a check, and that account is  Confirmed, so I will file the SPI and get the account blocked in this case. ST47 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's actually the other question I had. Is there a way to see the master username that created the G5'd article? Or is that something only admins can see? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy: Normally you would be able to see it in the page creation log, but in this case, it was created as Draft:Nohaata Seven and then moved a few times. The following is in the deleted history (which you can't see):
  • (diff) 23:12, 16 February 2020 . . Jonathan265 (talk | contribs | block) m 2,378 bytes (Jonathan265 moved page Wikipedia:Nohaata Seven to Nohaata Seven)
  • (diff) 23:11, 16 February 2020 . . Jonathan265 (talk | contribs | block) m 2,378 bytes (Jonathan265 moved page Draft:Nohaata Seven to Wikipedia:Nohaata Seven)
One of the limitations in MediaWiki is that you can search the move log by the source, but not by the destination. So there's no way for you to know that you need to check [8] without asking an admin to check the deleted history. ST47 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ST47/Archive21&oldid=1143280987"