User talk:ST47/Archive22

My Talk Page

My Contributions

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.

Hi ST47, I was asked to look at Mey Chan, because of serial IP-hopping hoaxing. Three of the IPs range in 118.136.141.9/16 (and there's a few more), and I see that you and Bbb have run CU on that range a number of times (I haven't). There are a few SPIs there, and some of them may still be relevant ("Asian food")--I don't know if this editor is one of them. Would you mind having a quick look? If those edits mean nothing to you and you don't see anything else, that's fine. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I've sent you an email. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. ST47 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47,

your opinion, advice or action at User talk:Spiko-carpediem would be welcome. (IPBE? Unblock IP? Neither?)

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thanks for the note, I unblocked the part of the range that was affecting them, and will look to see if the block needs to be made more precise. ST47 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah perfect. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you became aware of the odd PR behavior of DeniseWhite, but I appreciate your actions regarding this account. I posted a warning to this account's Talk page about this, and saw this odd message on my talk page requesting I not undue these edits. Thanks for your assistance. --- FULBERT (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST, is it possible to check for any potentially active ArthurCurry70 socks? I've had my eye on TamilMirchi for a little while because he sprang out of nowhere and in the span of a month and a half has made about 8700 edits. I didn't have any behavioural markers to go on, but I notice that he recreated this article, which was created by ArthurCurry70. It could be a coincidence, but it's a bit odd, and most of the article was dropped in one dump, which tends to look like UPE. I'm happy to type something up at SPI if you think it necessary. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I think that's just a coincidence given that this seems to be a very prolific contributor. They are  Unrelated to ArthurCurry70. ST47 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly prolific. Unsettlingly prolific... Thanks for looking, mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 I've updated the evidence for belief in SPI. Do I need to resubmit or can the case be reopened?

Here Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to reopen the case, as one of the accounts is stale and there is no violation of policy alleged. ST47 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 The concern is that the previous account ceased operating because of a conflict of interest. Drwillow seems to have the same kinds of conflicts and seems to be the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyderabad22 (talk • contribs)

@Hyderabad22: Why do I have five pings from you leaving me one message? ST47 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Cause I'm a newer contributor and don't understand how to always correctly link to user pages. I edited them to link to the correct page. I'm sorry. Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: It appears that this user has a new account and is again participating in disruptive editing as F&INerd. I have again requested a SPI investigation this time I believe I have marked evidence better. Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, edit filter 1050 has been working well, but unfortunately missed a recent edit that it would ideally have stopped. I'm testing an improvement for it at edit filter 2 and would appreciate edits or feedback before implementing it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandals seem to be reverting to this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses&oldid=954224168. Maybe worth to purge that version? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: That isn't likely to stop them, and in any case, it's not allowed under the revision deletion policy. ST47 (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, fair enough. I thought they keep reverting to that version. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I semi protected that AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hi ST47 - not sure why I'm stalking you, and didn't even identify that this report was on your talk page until I looked at it again after protecting. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xaosflux. Kingshowman socks have been messing with a few different AfDs today, in fact. ST47 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the "Dan Smith" theme from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bardia EsmaeilZadeh has continued, now at User:Dan Smith12/sandbox. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Hello

Thank you for your reply. However, at the present time - 21.48 BST, I am still unable to edit Wikipedia. Regards David David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @David J Johnson: Now I'm extra confused - you just did edit wikipedia, by posting to my talk page! If you get any more errors, please send a screenshot to the ticket as an email attachment and I'll see if I can figure out what the deal is. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied by email. David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have sent a further mail with details, but not a screenshot. David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that redlink I created at centralized discussion. I also missed adding the actual discussion link in the edit summary so I wasn't on my toes today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47: Your bot has blocked this IP:

202.9.123.109

Can you explain me why was he or she blocked? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That IP address was blocked because it is an open proxy. It was operating on port 35481 at the time of the scan. ST47 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i forgot to put a dot. Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Please forgive me I forgot to ping Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider revisiting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sachi bbsr? With the evidence I provided yesterday, I believe that CU would be justified now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I though you could be a user whom I should call on to report the use of open proxies. There's a user who goes on editing hiding himself behind proxies, and you and your bot "ST47ProxyBot" have already blocked him in the past (109.177.53.37 & 176.205.249.146). Now he's back with the IP 185.162.126.65, still unblocked. For some weird reason he keeps vandalizing a page about a small town in Italy, by disrupting the phonetic transcription of its name and passing it off as "more accurate". I've noticed it today but he's been doing it since January, so I'm going to keep an eye on that page and tell you here about any future proxy IPs used to repeat the same edit, let me know if you agree. Have a good day. Elbaylump (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elbaylump: Thanks, it has been blocked. ST47 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this lot User:Goutamkumar Oinam 2 is the same. See Moirang Kangleirol, socks all the way down. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yep, they are the same - see my comments on the case, and they're also tagged now. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I didn't read enough of it. Thanks. I'll finish nuking the sock created articles tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add 72.227.160.141 to latest sockpuppet of Peteski132 as well as aryeh10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Peteski132 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.212.25 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this SPI. I've only done one other SPI submission and it too ended up confirmed, but both were a tad difficult for me to write up being so new. This one in particular. I hope to never run into another, but in case I do, if there's any criticism you can offer as to how I can better write-up the submission I'd greatly appreciate it (obviously I met the bar to check them, but how could I have done better?). eg, too many words with diffs or not enough, etc. I'm old, so I can take the truth even if it hurts.ToeFungii (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeFungii: I thought it was good. The main thing is diffs where I can look at two different users and see "yeah, they're doing the same thing". ST47 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47! I hope you're staying safe! I wanted to follow up with you about my sockpuppet case which you pushed from open to hold. There has been no abuse that's been committed, I only partially reverted the accuser's content/section wiping (across multiple pages) after they removed two months of my edits (April and May). I've adhered to all policy to my best of knowledge, including the one that he/she notified me of (three-strikes). I did nothing wrong. I've apparently run into an extremely aggressive user who removed basically all of my content and then accuses me of misdeeds simply after restoring part of it because (I'm beginning to believe) it was removed in a stalky and systematic way. Best regards! Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal are going under the username CGSFH on Wikidata. Might wanna keep an eye on him. --Trade (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above investigations have been completed an anonymous user, User:2402:4000:2380:5B44:DD5B:A34A:95C8:9615, has created Draft:Andwdlka, which is an exact re-creation of Androidwedakarayo (deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androidwedakarayo). It appears that this is a sockpuppet of Truekasun trying to get around the block. Dan arndt (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination) - this was nominated by a sock, close this immediately (edited by socks and IP vandals). ChokLador (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChokLador: And do you know this because you are a sock of the same person? ST47 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:, six days have passed since the article's nomination (I am not a sock of anyone). ChokLador (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(they were) ST47 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has explicitly agreed to not post links to the website they were spamming; any objections to unblocking? A reblock would be easy enough if they "changed their mind." I might also add the condition that they not spam articles about Blinqnetworks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Fine with me, subject to the usual conditions that they not insert spam links or contribute to articles in which they have a COI. ST47 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was reviewing the unblock request of User talk:MauraMurrayMissing and wondering if you had anything additional to add or any unaddressed concerns. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I believe the banned serial sockmaster Xiang09 has returned again:

• Ggrandez17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Xiang09 SPI convenience link.

As usual, they are heavily focused on transgender people in indigenous Filipino culture, as well as on creating various articles about Filipino mythology. Of course, I see no reason to trust any of this content.

As noted in the SPI, they use the same sources. Here, to take two quick examples, a now-blocked sock used Ancient Beliefs and Customs of the Tagalogs by Potet (a self-published book), and Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. Here (in the same article) this newest account used the Potet source, and here they used the Cassell's source. I believe this is enough for a CU, but if not, please let me know. A bunch of sleepers may turn up again too. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would like to think you made this accusation in good faith. First of all, who's Xiang09? I'm not related to whoever that is. In fact, this is my first Wikipedia user, since this is the only time I'm not actually busy cause of the pandemic. Second, yes, I edited various articles, mostly NON-transgender articles. I've edited at around TWO LGBT articles and some myth articles. Is anything wrong with that? Just because some account edited those articles before, am I not allowed to anymore? Can't anyone edit those articles just because the data being added are about transgender people? Third, there are only a few sources about LGBT people and culture in the Philippines, which if you are a someone who's done research about it, you would know. Hence, all Filipino LGBT sources are important, and of course I'm going to use those sources with LGBT themes such as Ancient Beliefs and Customs of the Tagalogs, and Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit, especially since they are written by actual scholars. A popular website in the Philippines use Potet's book as source to their stories, which made it known to many, including me. Or are you saying that their work are irrelevant just because they include transgender Filipino topics, knowing that they are one of the only few sources with such topics. If I change the valid sources with transgender topics and replaced them with other sources with transgender topics, would that make it better? No, because, again, there are limited sources on those topics, so it won't change anything huge. Ggrandez17 ^-talk- 06:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhmm. Isn't it a bit strange this user has decided to copy my signature format exactly? The only difference is that their userpage link is red because they didn't create one. Anyway, ST47, what is going to become of this? There's more evidence that this is a sock account, I just didn't give it all to save time. I went to you because you have experience with this sockmaster and I thought just running CU would be easiest. Please let me know if you need more evidence to run CU. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, blocked. ST47 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

On this note... why is there no way to keep this person (and other banned users and LTAs) from registering any more accounts? Couldn't, say, their IP and user agent combo(s) be blocked indefinitely? I feel if this was done generally, so that banned users were literally incapable of coming back, it would save a lot of time and effort. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: We do try to place IP blocks when we think it will be productive. However, it's a tradeoff between blocking the target and risking collateral damage to innocent users. This user actually was affected by an IP block - I won't say which, of course - but see their unblock request about a week ago. Unfortunately, no one who looked at the unblock request made the connection, myself included, and they were able to use a different IP to continue editing over the past week. ST47 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder, though, if certain combinations of IP address and user agent data could be blocked. My ideal is that their personal devices would not be able to edit Wikipedia or register accounts; but even if we can't block a device as such, maybe an indef could still be issued for, say, 'IP X used by operating system Y'. I can't see there being any real risk of collateral damage if data is used in combination like this. I understand if this is not feasible for some reason, but if it is, I can't imagine why it is not commonly done. Having to play whack-a-mole with sockpuppets does damage to morale, and doubtless plays a part in why we have a problem with editor retention.

User:Stricnina stated to me on their talk page: I still remember that month and it made me actually give up because it was clear to me that I was dealing again with the same sockpuppet yet every time that I have to open an SPI I have to collect diffs again and again and I was already tired of collecting evidences at that point. I was actually entertaining the idea of just letting the person behind the sockpuppet to just do whatever they want. I was about to quit because it turned into a lonely and frustrating whack-a-mole game with the same sockpuppet master.

This is not the first time I have heard such sentiments. I too am very annoyed when I have to spend time stopping socks. How many good faith users have grown tired of dealing with socks and have left? I appreciate you handling this again, but I thought I'd ask in more detail why this idea isn't pursued. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The account User:Kumarjatji has already recreated two of Pkschhonkar's articles (one of them still is a massive copyvio) and the editor's talk page shws the same choppy way of responding. It is about as blatant as it can be. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wht do u mean sir Kumarjatji (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know pkschhonkar Kumarjatji (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir You are getting it wrong Kumarjatji (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just translated Hindi Wikipedia into English and Kumarjatji (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir You are getting it wrong I just translated Hindi Wikipedia into English and Kumarjatji (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... Sir

Can you expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia's page. Please, career, reference this alone. Please.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just a reminder that I sent a reply your wiki mail. I sent it on May 17 in reply to your inquiry months ago. Thanks, and apologies for the delay. Whym (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you update 122.53.86.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s block to a proxy block, per the IPs block log? Thank you. 2601:1C0:0:CCFF:5199:5E76:F128:94B2 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 124.105.29.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may still be a proxy as well... 2601:1C0:0:CCFF:5199:5E76:F128:94B2 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked one of them. I'm not able to confirm that 122.53.86.50 is still a proxy, though. ST47 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to cast WP:ASPERSIONS at a newly registered editor, but don't you think this is rather odd? How would they have known about this blocked account? Also, considering they also just posted at the Teahouse about being tasked to write articles about their employer, makes me wonder if this is a new sock? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

I want to apply IP block exemption rights for my account because I'm going to use FreeBasics.com as a proxy website to edit Wikipedia because it is free to access Wikipedia on this website without using my data package. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please do a CheckUser between Pavan8809 and Generalsagar? These two users seems to be operated by the same person, evidenced by inserting the same website and format for references with SELFPUBLISH issues. 182.30.83.85 (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Many thanks for your help over at the SPI and thanks for making it less-painful then it had to be - Your help is greatly appreciated :), Happy editing :), Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 01:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm User:Samlaptop85213. Could you unblock me please? I want to start editing articles again. Thanks.--2A00:23C0:8483:F101:450E:3CCD:8E9A:3042 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the blocking admin of User:CentralTime301, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentralTime301. --107.77.169.11 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Wikipedia Page is not useful because in India more than one lakh Indian classical vocalist, so we can not create all persons Wikipedia page, so please delete this Wikipedia. लाल सिंह चड्डा (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @लाल सिंह चड्डा: Please take it to WP:AFD if you want to deleted. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mentefuwaley was created and edited by three different known socks of Xiang09 (SPI). Since they know I have seen that draft, they instead created Draft:Mentefuwaley (gender identity) under the new account NCCAee. I know it's them because the text is nearly identical, and because they strategically abandoned the one I had seen before. Please check for sleepers as well, since they have turned up in the past, and also please block their IP for as long as you can stomach. They are clearly determined to sock again any chance they get. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a reminder for this. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP range is a cellular network owned by Verizon that you blocked as {{checkuserblock-wide}} for 2 years on April 1, but it feels like I'm missing something here. Can you explain your thought process as far as collateral goes? Posting this looking at my Android Phone in question. Thanks. 108.21.73.223 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It’s one of the most active ranges in terms of long-term abuse and multiple sockmasters. I’m pretty sure I know the long-term abuser that was in mind when this block was made, and it is helpful and needed from the perspective of squelching account creation and making it more difficult since it limits the ranges that can be used. Plus most people in the United States have access to 3+ ranges, the other two being easy to handle from a CU perspective once the mobile range is account creation blocked. Basically this block has significant benefit and those who are impacted by it and are here in good faith just need to turn wifi on their phone on, and they can either edit anonymously or create an account. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47! I have been trying out a VPN lately. It's not always on, and I never edit logged out. I just got some kind of IP block notice, likely the VPN. I looked around for the policy on this but it's not really clear, as I read it as mostly about IP editing. Anyway, I guess my question is this: is using a VPN while logged into my WP account going to lead to trouble? I like to be a law-abiding Wikipedian, of course.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: VPNs and other open proxies are routinely blocked to prevent abuse. It won't get you in any trouble, however, you likely won't be able to edit as the VPN is likely "hard-blocked", i.e., without the "anonymous only" flag set. ST47 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for the quick answer! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really saying I think the file is not "non-free" only that what you did seemed a bit out of process. Leaving the file with no license at all meant it would've ended up deleted per WP:F4. Anyway, I didn't realize that you were an admin and probably realized that and perhaps intended to go back and add a license like you did; so, my bad. Since you are an admin though, you could just close the FFD discussion, can't you? Anyway, I notified the uploader of the F6 tag you added as a courtesy; perhaps, he will add a rationale for the file's use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I won't close the FfD after being "involved" in the image itself, particularly since I'm not terribly familiar with FfD. However, as the image contains copyright-eligible prose (certainly the first paragraph, likely the descriptions of the many people listed, and maybe there's something to the compilation copyright argument as well), it is dangerous to us and to re-users to tag it as a public domain image. I don't really care if the image is used or not, I don't think we need it but it isn't a big deal. If we want to illustrate what the Times front page looks like, it would be better to use a low-res scan of a more typical edition. But if we're using it, it needs a non-free rationale, or to be scaled down such that the text isn't readable, or some evidence that the text is available under a free license. ST47 (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a NFUR, then FFD would be a fine place to hash out whether our use of the copyrighted image was really necessary and whether our use of it was sufficiently minimal to meet the guidelines. But you don't need an FFD to put a copyright tag on a copyrighted image. ST47 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

Well done sir, please I want to guide on how to submit article here in Wikipedia. Please sir, I need perfect explanation. Thanks Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found my editing possibility in English is blocked due to VPN connection. When I am outside of my country, Romania, I am using VPN connection due to I am working in Middle East country. In this situation always I use VPN.

Can be solved my problem to allow me to use VPN?--Emimilescu (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For taking your time to direct me to an avenue where I got immediate solution for a problem I thought was beyond repair. Celestina007 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ST47! You might want to be aware of this character, who keeps claiming he has your password. Looks like you are on somebody's radar; lucky you. He's blocked and rangeblocked for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I really meant to block that IP range earlier today, I must have gotten distracted. Looks like Materialscientist got it sorted out. ST47 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting, I believe User:RobertSimBBFA and User talk:RobertSimBBFA should be revdelled. They are disruptive pointed references to User:Robertsky. CMD (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Robertsky:. ST47 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to confirm that user:ST47 (alt-acct) is your account. CLCStudent (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: I think that's a 'no': 1 2. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift action on the threat message. I really appreciate that you quickly worked on it and found the sockpuppet. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia safe. Zoodino (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

Hi! I am wondering why you removed a few comments on an active sockpuppet report against me that were defending myself. I mean no accusation, I am simply curious. Thanks. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait nevermind you are a CU. My bad-- I am rather new to Wikipedia editing. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PurpleDeskChair: They were sockpuppets of a different user, which is why they are now blocked (and tagged) as such. ST47 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay— thanks for the explanation. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ST47: Given your recent involvement in blocking a number of sockpuppets of user WildlyAccurate (see this sockpuppet investigation), I would really appreciate your input in the ongoing discussion here regarding a related sockpuppet investigation that involves a user closely connected to at least three of the sockpuppet accounts you blocked. Thank you for your help and for your time. --Drevolt (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm an editor from mainland China. Because the government has blocked English Wikipedia in China since last year, I must use VPN to connect and edit. So could you give me the permissions of the IP block exemption? Thank you! Perimeter Chou (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a novice administrator, I blocked 2a02:c7d:da62:8500:b400:c198:2ca6:82af (my first ever block I think). It seems to me that the sort of subtle vandalism they were engaged in is more damaging to Wikipedia than the more blatant sort. Could you explain your actions with regard to this user, because my impression is that you have reduced my indefinite block to a three months block, and I don't realistically feel that this user is ever going to be an asset to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: First, most IP addresses are dynamic, and can eventually be assigned to a different end user. So IP addresses should rarely be blocked indefinitely. I maintain a report at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips and occasionally try to correct accidental indef blocks of IPs addresses.

In this specific case of an IPv6 address, you only blocked a single IP address (Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:DA62:8500:B400:C198:2CA6:82AF). In IPv6, typically a single customer will have access to a whole range of IP addresses, which we call a /64. This means that the first 4 "sections" of the IP address will stay the same, but the last 4 can change. This might happen automatically, or if the user turns their device off and back on. Apparently they did in this case, because the same user continued to make similar edits using other IP addresses: Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:DA62:8500:0:0:0:0/64 (see edits from July 17th to July 27th). I also maintain a report on this at User:ST47/overspecific v6 blocks, and there's an essay written for a non-technical audience on this topic at WP:/64.

So, I widened the range block from a single IP (which is highly unlikely to ever be used again) to the appropriate range, but also shortened it to three months. That's probably still excessive given the very short history from this specific IP, but I was doing a bunch of these last night and didn't look too closely at the specific block durations. ST47 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mubthasim; this person has come up with another sock, Keralacinelovers Media, after the last block a day ago. An obvious sock, returned to make the exact same edits on the same pages, also uses misleading edit summaries and sometimes brings fictitious references as well that does not support the changes. Please use a check user. 2409:4073:21A:BA6F:558F:4C17:1E85:2E02 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year I was part of an edit war that resulted in my being blocked for 72 hours. After I was blocked an account called Zestkick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was registered and began impersonating me as if it were my sockpuppet. It made a further revert as part of the original edit war, corrected a typo on a page that I actively edit, and then added and reverted a comment on my own talk page. The account was quickly blocked, of course, and when I explained that it wasn't me another editor recommended WP:CheckUser. But the CheckUser process didn't seem to fit my situation as it requires hard evidence of a sockmaster, whereas all I had was a single username with a completely unknown owner, plus I didn't receive any further punishment for something I didn't do, so I just dropped it. But recently I encountered an editor in an entirely unrelated dispute who decided to trawl through my talk page and block log to bring up this incident and use it to attack me, which is at the very least incredibly annoying and disruptive, so I thought it might be worthwhile to revisit the situation. Would CheckUser be able to look into the User:Zestkick account and find some way of determining the owner or otherwise prove it wasn't me? Or should I just let this slide? Thanks! Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazer-kitty: That account, Zestkick, has not been used in more than 90 days, and therefore there is no CheckUser data available for it. ST47 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well dang, I did not know that. Thanks for the quick response. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you sent a message on my talk page that i am adding personal information of other Wikipedia users but can u tell me whose information? here i am receiving a death threat via emails and you are sending me message that i am sharing information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Memon_KutianaWala#August_2020Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Memon KutianaWala: You referred to another user multiple times by their full name, which is not permitted. That is what I was referring to. I do not know anything about what death threat emails you claim to be receiving, but my understanding is that Trust & Safety is already looking in to that matter. ST47 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am sorry for that i had no idea about it but anyways thanks for the heads up. but its strange that why every warning to me? a user saqib is mass deleting my page why not any admins stop him to do? a page which i created in 2018 August and many editors were working on it suddenly is on AFD by Mr. Saqib because i made a complaint of him, Is there any policy of Wikipedia to stop user not to mass article for AFD? Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you sent a message on my talk page that i am adding personal information of other Wikipedia users but can u tell me whose information? here i am receiving a death threat via emails and you are sending me message that i am sharing information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Memon_KutianaWala#August_2020Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Memon KutianaWala: You referred to another user multiple times by their full name, which is not permitted. That is what I was referring to. I do not know anything about what death threat emails you claim to be receiving, but my understanding is that Trust & Safety is already looking in to that matter. ST47 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am sorry for that i had no idea about it but anyways thanks for the heads up. but its strange that why every warning to me? a user saqib is mass deleting my page why not any admins stop him to do? a page which i created in 2018 August and many editors were working on it suddenly is on AFD by Mr. Saqib because i made a complaint of him, Is there any policy of Wikipedia to stop user not to mass article for AFD? Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit which I wish I didn't on the school I went to. Just revealed too much info about myself. Could you delete it as I can't since I'm blocked? Or can stuff not be deleted? J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J-E-N-O-V-A: I deleted the edit you're referring to. You don't seem to be blocked, FWIW. ST47 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you were responsible for blocking MistyfelSR (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of Ineedtostopforgetting (talk · contribs). It has come to my attention that a new user Cope375 (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia in a very similar fashion to MistyfelSR (talk · contribs). Both users have a history of targeting edits that I make and reverting edits that should not be reverted (e.g. 1). Cope365 (talk · contribs) has specifically created an account that appears to target my edits only, in the same way MistyfelSR (talk · contribs) created an account to target my edits only. As a result, I believe Cope375 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Ineedtostopforgetting (talk · contribs). Are you able to use the CheckUser tool to perform a check on this user please? I am not very familiar with this process. Thank you. (Sapah3 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Can you move the Sockpuppet investigations/Nisheshbhattarai to the oldest known account, i.e., Bhattarai nishesh. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move the Sockpuppet investigations/Nisheshbhattarai to the oldest known account, i.e., Bhattarai nishesh. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

Hello ST47, sorry mistyped. Regards --Serols (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: I'm not sure what you did, but okay, no worries :) ST47 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47, see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The August 22 portion of this case is closed? I had been under the impression that it was awaiting behavioral analysis, with a final determination yet to be made. Will it instead be left as "Possible"? Grandpallama (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, could this be classified as harassment? This user has attempted to instruct other admins/CUs in the guise of 'questions' such as El C and Mz7 when it's more of an assertive demand into wanting to get me blocked. Both of them have brushed them off (because obviously I haven't done anything wrong), which is why Grandpallama is asking you now (as they probably weren't satisfied by the outcome) and you were the last admin/CU to make an edit on that SPI as well as made the final investigation on me.

Basically, Grandpallama just wouldn't leave me alone and has constantly stalked my edits, and would not engage in discussions thereafter. All they do is approach a different admin and try to convince them that I'm a 'sock'. This is literally my only account and I wish the relevance I have with that other user will stop. I've restated this countless times at this point. I'm just leaving this here so that you would understand the motive behind this 'question'. Telsho (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question of the relevant CU, not an assertive demand, since the last update to the SPI stated "Possible so far", which usually means a decision regarding behavioral analysis is forthcoming. Please stop with the bad-faith attempts to characterize my motivations; you've already been warned by one admin about personal attacks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add that I'm a bit surprised that this SPI was closed. Regardless of who Telsho is, it's a bit disturbing that an extensive discussion about a "Possible" LTA sock can be met with radio silence and a sudden archival. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 23:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for dealing with the Honduras case (and all the others), and for your explanation. Now I have a little more insight and know that not all connected accounts will necessarily be identified. I hope my question didn't sound like a criticism. I'd like one day to get a look inside the workings of the checkuser control room, which I imagine to be a sort of Men in Black underground bunker. Do they give you flashy lights that make socks forget why they wanted to edit Wikipedia? --IamNotU (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for dealing with the Honduras case (and all the others), and for your explanation. Now I have a little more insight and know that not all connected accounts will necessarily be identified. I hope my question didn't sound like a criticism. I'd like one day to get a look inside the workings of the checkuser control room, which I imagine to be a sort of Men in Black underground bunker. Do they give you flashy lights that make socks forget why they wanted to edit Wikipedia? --IamNotU (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]