User talk:ST47/Archive23

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

Hey, I wanted to let you know that 192.69.89.242 is doing some disruptive editing and personal harassment on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia. It sounded like the person was kind of internet stalking me too. Any advice on what I should do is appreciated. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ST47 please have a look to the new socks for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/208shaskell. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST, if you get any time, could I please impose upon you to take a look at some of the outstanding accounts reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ÆCE? Things have slowed down a bit, which is nice. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

196.250.209.79 is blocked as a socks4 proxy. They requested an unblock via UTRS and a scan of that IP address shows it is no longer running any services. Any objection to me lifting the block? --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: No objection, go ahead! ST47 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your expertise. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I'd want to start a suspected sockpuppet investigation but there are already so many contributions and edits that I want to compare that I'd like to know if there are helpful tools that I can use to confirm my suspicions. In particular, I'd like to know if it is possible to compare user edits and contributions through appearance of certain keywords so that I can compare in an easier manner the editing activity of a suspected and currently active account with the past activity of the previous sockpuppets. I'm having a deja-vu with a particular account (I'll not name it at the moment) that is currently active and I want to open an investigation, but there are already so many materials to search and compare but the feeling that they might be the same I can't shake it off. Stricnina (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening sir/madam. As i saw, that you were deleted the page Raktha Sambandham (TV series), so can in create the article. Parkijolli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

		The Original Barnstar
		This is just a regular barnstar for you. Nothing to worry about it too much. Giratto (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)[reply]

Please see User talk:67.198.37.16#Block evasion. This is Linas, as they even disclose, blocked several years back for personal attacks. You most recently blocked this static IP of theirs for 6 months for evasion. They came back with a flurry of activity right after the block expired. I was trying to extend a lifeline here because I think the user could be good to have around (others have too over the years), but they just seem to prefer playing dumb, so, there it is. I still hope something can be worked out, but until they're receptive to the idea, it doesn't seem likely. I'll leave it to you if you think putting the block back in place is needed. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deacon Vorbis: So, I did see this (I have their talk page on my watchlist), but I'm just not sure that I care. Their original block was for personal attacks and harassment, and if that's continuing, then I'd block. But if they're contributing positively, then I'd say live and let live, we have bigger problems to deal with. ST47 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that's good enough for me then. Thanks for the response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this arbitration tag you left on my comment section about and what page does it involve BigRed606 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BigRed606: It was to let you know that, due to an authorization by our Arbitration Committee, Administrators have some extra authority to prevent disruption on pages related to post-1932 American Politics. The notice ensures that you are aware of those powers, called "Discretionary Sanctions". For example, Hunter Biden has some page restrictions in place. These restrictions are displayed in the editnotice, shown when you edit the page using the "source" editor, and are also often listed on the talk page. For example, Talk:Hunter Biden has this notice. It says that you can only make one revert per 24 hours on that page, and, if you make an edit that is challenged or reverted in any way, you must gain consensus through a discussion on the talk page before you reinstate that edit. Further details are at our policy page on discretionary sanctions. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little bit more direct, I saw that you made some changes to the lead of Hunter Biden, those edits were challenged, and I wanted to make you aware that restoring your changes without consensus would result in you being blocked. ST47 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I am sincerely thankful BigRed606 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm unable to edit Wikipedia because I'm using a VPN. Could you kindly unblock this IP 107.150.95.36 so I can continue editing? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I granted IP Block Exemption. Hope that helps. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're in the process of closing that discussion. My fingerprints are all over the situation, from creating the redirect in the first place to initiating the PROD and AfD when it was made into an article and fully protecting the article space after the AfD and recreation attempts. I never expected that these actions would lead to the kerfuffle that followed. As a show of good faith, if you do decide that we should move the draft into mainspace, I'd be happy to be the admin to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: That's where I'm heading, I'm just writing something up. It is your protection on Theresa Greenfield, so if you'd like to handle the move, I'll leave it to you to do so. ST47 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that'd be great. I'll await your close and then take the action if you do indeed rule in that direction. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Muboshgu: I have closed that discussion here so please do go ahead with the move. I do think the move protection on Theresa Greenfield should stay, but your judgement on what level to leave it at is fine with me. ST47 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I took off the move protection before I saw this note. I doubt it's necessary, someone moved it to Theresa Greenfield (politician) to get around the now nonexistent page protection on the target. Thanks for the close and allowing me to make the move. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion on what to do with Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I was going to ask you! Some of the discussions on the draft talk page are still relevant. Can we do a copy and paste move, and set up archiving on the article talk page, so that active discussions from both talk pages will remain on Talk:Theresa Greenfield? ST47 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that is probably best. I may butcher it a little, but it's okay, I guess. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want me to give it a shot? ST47 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, but if you want to do anything to it, be my guest. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a very good close. I think that you've used the page protection permission to justify why a sysop is needed to overrule community consensus, when in fact the page was protected to enforce the decision the community had made. I don't think that discussion was open for nearly long enough to overrule the community's previous decisions. I'm disappointed that you've created a back door into every deletion review, and I'm unhappy that we're making binding content decisions on an administrative noticeboard. Please will you reconsider and reopen?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The protection is the reason why it was at WP:AN, and no one overruled community consensus. Circumstances change, and the consensus is now that the subject is notable. Entirely reasonable, as there is now much more media coverage than there was in May. If it hadn't been protected, the draft would have been accepted at AfC, thus the protection was the need for admin intervention. There's nothing wrong with bringing it to AfD if you disagree, that is how it is supposed to work. But I'm confident that an AfD today would choose to keep this article, which is why I must decline to reverse my closure. ST47 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The decision of one editor at AfC shouldn't overrule the community's decision at DRV. In this case, we used page protection to prevent that outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We use page protection very rarely for that purpose, and it's common for previously-AFDed articles to be re-created either directly or through AfC without any discussion if an author is able to cure the problem that led to the deletion. ST47 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I think you're right. I was contemplating doing the same, even though the DRV is compelling, this is in fact a request for reduction of page protection rather than anything else. I suspect someone might WP:POINTily AfD it again, but it would probably survive handily and instead we should just hold off until after Nov 3. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm told that a merge discussion was started, but then reverted on the basis that the AN thread consitutes a binding content decision.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The merge discussion was started at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. Some of the tags were removed (not by me) but the talk page section is still present and open. It seems like some people there have decided to nominate at AfD if she loses, instead. ST47 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add citiation https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/expensifys-ceo-emailed-all-of-his-users-to-encourage-them-to-protect-democracy-vote-for-biden to the expensify page and you won't let me finish editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.77.181 (talk • contribs)

• @71.202.77.181: Okay, that seems like a plausible source. I'll unprotect the article, if you expand the section at all, please make sure that it's neutral and supported by the source. ST47 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I lives in China and I need to use proxy to visit and edit Wikipedia.Fungchilong (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fungchilong:  Done! ST47 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ST47. I am a Wikipedian who comes from mainland China. Because of my country's restriction, I have to use some proxies to visit and edit Wikipedia. But my proxies are blocked sometimes. I can't edit en-Wikipedia. I hope that you can grant me an IPBE flag. And I can promise I will not do vandalism.

As a Wikipedian, I have GIPBE and zh-wikipedia's local IPBE. I also have made more than 2,000 edits in zh-wikipedia. And I never do vandalism. I think I am enough to get this flag.

In the end, I hope you will accept my request. Thanks for your help, sir.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@波斯波莉斯:  Done! ST47 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Can you grant me a long-term flag? It is too short for me to edit.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forget this years is 2020, not 2021. I am so sorry.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created and edited the page for Smooth-On Inc. which was deleted. After adding multiple sources and citing them, I feel this article holds as much notoriety as Air Products & Chemicals, Burroughs & Chapin, Malheur Bell and White Weld & Co.. Can you explain why these articles hold more notoriety than the article I wrote? Thank you. Hondo2160 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hondo2160: We have a fairly detailed policy page on articles about businesses at WP:NCORP. It describes how we evaluate whether a company is sufficiently notable based on the independent and reliable sources that give us information about that company, and not by comparing to other articles that exist. If you've reviewed WP:NCORP and think you can meet its requirements, then I can move the article back to the draft state, you can work on it, and it can be reviewed again. Otherwise, you can suggest it as an article at WP:RA. ST47 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: If you could move the article to the draft state, I think we can meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. I will review in detail and edit the article appropriately. Thank you for the clarification regarding comparison to other articles. Hondo2160 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, ST47. By the way, I am just a freshman in en-wiki. If I have some mistakes, pls let me know. Best wishes!

波斯波莉斯 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Will you please block 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) since IPs on this range have been persistently harassing and vandalizing pages I edited and my talk pages for months. Not only in enwiki but also across several wikis like idwiki and commonswiki. Its sisters, 120.188.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) and 114.5.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) (also 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) on ENWIKI) are now globally blocked for this exact reason. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just try special:contribs/114.4.216.0/21 instead 173.56.224.210 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a US citizen, the page should say so. If he isn't, then it should note that he is making campaign contributions in violation of US law.

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

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

My edit to that page was not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Everything that was added is currently happening in that town. A simple search for the trump train New Braunfels will point you to a majority of the things I posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josesman2000 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Josesman2000: WP:NPOV and WP:RS cannot possibly support your claim that New Braunfels is the most racist city in the United States of America. ST47 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if I change that line to "New Braunfels is the site of a lot of racist activity? I mean you can do any search on that city right now and you will see what is going on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josesman2000 (talk • contribs)

you reverted a lot of edits saying "rv vandalism". My edit wasn't vandalism, was it? i just didn't revert to the clean version--98.116.128.15 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Lisa Fithian. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ST47 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My Rebuttal: With all due respect: What is a more reliable source than HER OWN FACE WITH LIPS MOVING and WORDS COMING OUT OF HER FACE.

WP:RS. ST47 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case was.denied and has been appealed. It's a a very important.case. You just.could have put one.of those ^{[citation needed]} things.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)00:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You blocked 136.179.0.0/16 as a colocation block. I have some evidence that this is used by Mobilitie.com to offer wifi; see UTRS appeal #36842 for IP address 136.179.21.82. ultratools claims this range is from 136.179.21.64-136.179.21.95. What are your thoughts? Any way to break up the /16 block to allow anon editing from the Mobilitie range, if appropriate? --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have deleted an article Kalinga Literary Festival with reason Incorrect copy/paste page move. It was a policy violation by the editor who created it, and I appreciated your action. Its my pleasure to write the article as a new one without violating Wikipedia policies, because its the important festival which keeps literature connected with today's advanced & developed world. Please guide me for the same. Waiting to hear a positive note from you. Thanking you Raavi Mohanty (talk)

Hey there, an editor in good standing has asked me to to undelete Draft:State of Siege: 26/11, which has been the subject of creation by sock operators, and likely a paid editing ring. I feel kind of gross about undeleting it, but they want to build upon what was there. Have you done this? How do you feel about it? Am I just being stupid? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't have a problem with restoring it to draft, provided that the editor intends to improve and submit it. The prose is pretty useless, but at least they wouldn't have to create the infobox and episode list from scratch. I would probably grant this request, advising the user that they really should go through AfC due to the history of promotional drafts for this article. ST47 (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your input is much appreciated. I'll do just that. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I just wanted to say thank you for your help in protecting the North–South divide in Taiwan and identifying the IGBA sockpuppets. Keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47

Eric Scerri contacted me saying he's unable to edit from 185.169.255.0/24. He has experienced such issues before. After the most recent episode, he was advised to turn off his VPN, and that solved the problem. Turning off the VPN now does not work.

The error message says he has been blocked as the IP address is believed to be an open or anonymising proxy.

Could you help please? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—usernamekiran (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 156.219.58.255 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, about 6 months ago I reported an anonymous vandal who was keeping using proxies to make vandalisms. The first proxies were blocked by your bot, while the other proxy, 185.162.126.65, was blocked by you and his edits undone. I think that the vandal has come back, but this time he registered a username in order not to be recognized easily: "Møstbarr". His vandalism in the page "Boscotrecase" is the same done by the 3 blocked proxy IPs, a disruption of its phonetic transcription, and he did similar edits in other pages too. I though you could take care of him again, let me know if you are willing to. Have a good day. Elbaylump (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you read my message? Please let me know, thanks! Elbaylump (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Elbaylump (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, just to inform you that this Elbaylump is just a Lascava sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lascava/Archive). Speaking of which, he might have sone other users around, like Vigneslouis (already blocked on en.wiki). Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see my errors on Sandbox creating. From now on it's User:Paptilian/ . One quick question, when I create a sub page, all that is necessary would be to create /subpage? or is User:Paptilian/subpage necessary? I've read the former is sufficient, but I like perfection. Thanks again. I'm watching this page answer. p.Paptilian (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to message you about this user, right before you blocked them as a CheckUser violation. I figured it was a sock of Reliable source fan, who you also blocked with the same message. Who are these accounts socks of? Is there a master? Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: They are socks of each other, and of this SPI. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan (WMF) and Slakr: Can you please tell me if it is possible to remove from the messages about blocking open proxies the ports through which you can connect to them? Our checkuser Q-bit array have a bot, that blocks IP's that your bot's block. Other wikis may not block this IP's and your publishing of ports of these servers may help vandals in small wikis. ·Carn·!? 13:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47 — could you help me and point me to a thread that discussed that bot messages should include proxy ports? ·Carn·!? 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carn: I am not aware of any such thread. I doubt that anyone is using these proxies by getting the IPs and port numbers from my block messages, they are already widely available on the internet. On the other hand, the port numbers allow others to perform an initial check to see if the proxy is still open, for example, if they are responding to an unblock request. If there is interest in blocking them globally, I would be able to support that effort, but I'm not able to pursue it on my own. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry to intrude into this conversation. On the Russian Wikipedia we had a couple of LTAs who used the proxy lists gathered from the block log of the ProcseeBot. These attacks were quite hard to counter, as the LTAs always had a fresh list of checked and working proxies. The attacks ceased only after I started to relay the blocks from the English Wikipedia to the Russian. Now the Ruwiki is more or less protected from this type of attack, but other wikis are still quite vulnerable. Is it perhaps an option to encrypt or somehow obfuscate the ports of the proxies? The concerned people (e.g. admins) knowing the encryption rules would be able to re-check if the proxy is still active, but the abusers won't be able to "recycle" the proxies to harm other projects. I use similar approach in my bot: proxy data is contained in the block log, but is encrypted. -- Q-bit array (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that these vandals are using the block log rather than any of the easily searchable proxy lists on Google to find proxies? ST47 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ST47,

I have a question for you. TheImaCow found all of these unregistered accounts that have talk pages and tagged about 30 pages for CSD for being nonexistent users. I checked quite a few of them and, yes, they were talk pages for nonexistent editors so they were deleted. TheImaCow has since alerted me on my talk page to User:TheImaCow/U2 which lists 1500 more instances of these existing talk pages for nonexistent accounts! One thing to point out is that these accounts cover a widespan of years going back to 2009 and 2010 but some are as recent as this year. I did notice one account that had a closely related name to the nonexistent account who seemed to be using it as a talk page rather than simply changing their username. But I only see one instance of this so far.

I'm coming to you because I noticed some of the user accounts were marked as sockpuppets including one that you tagged. But, these are unregistered accounts so I'm not sure how this can be true. Also, many have notices from editors or admins on the talk page but, again, the account is not only not active nor has 0 edits but is completely unregistered.

Before we take on examining them, tagging them or deleting any more, I thought I'd ask another admin if you have any explanation for these pages existing, why some are labeled as sockpuppets and why an editor or admin would post notices or start engaging with these nonexistent accounts. Could some of these be the old name for a renamed account? Or could an editor have a talk page link that didn't go to their own talk page but to one of these talk pages? If there were just a couple of dozen instances of this happening, I think either explanation is possible but 1500+ cases? Any insight would be appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the user talk pages but I see user pages as well. I looked at User:Indigenous Women and PL 280 for instance and this is clearly an example of a draft being put in the wrong space. But this isn't the case with most of the pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Most of these are hidden usernames. Either globally by a steward, or locally by an oversighter. In that case, you shouldn't be able to see any user creation or block log, and Special:Contributions will say the user doesn't exist. If they don't appear on m:Special:CentralAuth either, they were globally locked and hidden. If they do, they were hidden only locally. (I'm having trouble finding the suppression logs for many of them, but that may be due to changes in how the software works over the years...for example, see m:Special:CentralAuth/Ryulong_is_a_sock_puppet_Bot - I bet you can't see that block log entry at Special:Contributions/Ryulong_is_a_sock_puppet_Bot, but I can't find a suppression log for it. In fact, I can't even see that log entry. I think this is the old Oversight extension.)

A few were renamed, for example, A123bs

Some of them I don't understand at all, like this post, because Ninjamari2020 has never been renamed, so I'm not sure why Clarityfiend's post went there.

I think these are all safe to delete. The only ones I would keep would be users that were renamed, and those should probably be moved or redirected to the new username. ST47 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something to try, as a mortal admin, is try and block them. You can get a link from POPUPs or add it to the URL, for example like this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I came to the right admin. I can see why the ones that TheImaCow first CSD tagged were oversighted because they were names like User:LizIsAPedophile. Most of them were insulting and targeting admins and checkusers. But that doesn't explain the majority of ones on the master list.

I can see your example with the Ryulong account that appears as a blocked account on one page and doesn't appear on another. That would explain some of these older accounts. I didn't think there was a suppression log but maybe that is only available to oversighters. But the talk pages, where editors and admins are posting notices is still puzzling because if they were renames, wouldn't these pages get moved over to the new name?

Zzuuzz, I don't really understand your advice but then I just know the standard way to block accounts and I'm not a prolific blocker. Any way, something curious to wonder about on a Saturday. I don't think TheImaCow knew everything that would result from their coding experiment! I'll check back and start to work on some of these accounts but with 1500+ accounts, it's not going to be done in one sitting but over a month or longer. They should be examined and not deleted in one batch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yeah, only about 1/3 of them are blocked and hidden. Some more are locked and globally hidden without being locally blocked. Another big set of these are either drafts that were created in the wrong place, or pages that were moved to the wrong userspace, or similar typos, I think they are all deletable.

On the renames, I believe that global renamers have a checkbox that they can use to move userpages and user talk pages. I don't know why they wouldn't move userpages, but I suppose they are humans and could occasionally make a mistake.

What Zzuuzz meant is that, if you want to know the status of a user like User:X, you can go to Special:Block/X. If the account is locked and hidden, you will see a message like "The account X is already locked globally." on Special:Block, even though you will not be able to see that anywhere else. ST47 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is a cool feature. I'm so glad I asked about this case, I learned a lot from you two today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Could you please take a look at this appeal on UTRS? You're down as the blocking admin but when I've clicked on the contributions and the block log I'm unable to find any block at all? Not too sure what's happened.-- 5 albert square (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already unblocked. ST47 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder that but there's no block showing in the block log. There's also nothing to indicate that it's been blocked in the past-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's because it was a rangeblock. https://rangeblockfinder.toolforge.org/ is a handy tool for that. ST47 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it now, thanks for that. I'll bookmark that for future :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 92.244.246.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & Toolforge.org ProxyCheck.

The proxycheck field says it's not a proxy, but the IPQualityScore says it is, and also lists it as having been involved in recent abuse. Do you know why do they indicate a different result? --Pudeo (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for User:ST47/ACECascade and User:ST47/ACECascade2:

These pages have Multiline table in list lint errors. Wikipedians have been hard at work to eradicate this lint error from Wikipedia, and most of the remaining errors are on just these two pages. To fix these errors please remove the asterisk (*) at the beginning of each line on these two pages. It's that simple! The pages will display almost the same. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing User:ST47/ACECascade. It would be great if you can fix User:ST47/ACECascade2 also. At this point, over half the remaining Multiline table in list lint errors are coming from just that one page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Xaosflux took care of it, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "02:12, 2 December 2019 ST47 blocked 23.229.0.0/19 talk with an expiration time of 3 years (account creation blocked) ({{colocationwebhost}} )"

This block has caused some distress and disruption – see User_talk:7&6=thirteen#This block is a mistake. The guidance of Global blocks is that "Global blocks should, wherever practicable and sensible, be placed with the anonymous only flag on." It appears that setting this flag would have avoided the problem and prevented other accounts in good standing from being blocked too. Please explain why this was not done.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Andrew Davidson, ST47 didn't make a global block (in general, administrators do not make global blocks, that's a steward thing). There is a global block on that range, but that was set by a steward in 2018 (on 23.229.0.0/17), and that is also a hardblock (hardblock = the anon-only flag is not set), just like ST47's. As for why it's a hardblock, I presume that it is because it's a webhost block. Standard practice is to hardblock webhost ranges because there is no good reason for a webhost to be editing Wikipedia. The global block log gives further insight - there has been a lot of spam coming out of this range for several years. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, hardblocks are routinely used for IP ranges that behave as open proxies, including hosting and cloud service providers. This is because such ranges could otherwise easily be abused for sockpuppetry in a way which evades both blocks and checkuser. They can be hard-blocked both locally and globally, but of course as an enwiki admin I can only block locally. ST47 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else in the discussion suggested that the block was ST47's. I have been back through the correspondence to check and the original message was:

Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by Trijnstel (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open proxy: webhost leaking spam.
Start of block: 13:11, 16 May 2018
Expiry of block: 13:11, 16 May 2023
Your current IP address is 23.229.103.57 and the blocked range is 23.229.0.0/17.

So, perhaps there have been overlapping blocks at both local and global level. As the global block seems to be the one which first mattered and I am still not satisfied that this is being done properly, I shall take the issue up with Trijnstel at meta. Apologies for any confusion but the incident is quite complex and confusing and so I want to get to the bottom of it so that it is fully understood. The WMF plan to restrict the access of volunteers to IP addresses and a good understanding of the technicalities will be needed for the resulting discussions.

Happy New Year. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Rigscapes a sock? whos? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness:  Inconclusive. They are probably a sock, but CheckUser is a dead end because they were on a proxy, so there's nothing to compare against. Were there any other recent accounts that were attacking you in this way? ST47 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar things have happened before from several new accounts, but it was a couple years ago.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ero kawaii because User:Vuerqex/userboxes/erokawa is listed at MfD. Would you userfy what was at Ero kawaii to my userspace? Warm regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, wanted to follow up on this check you did back in October. The IP is back doing the same controversial removals at 2020 California Proposition 16, and since you've got more info on the socking problems, I wanted to run it by you before blocking per WP:DUCK in case I'm missing something. IMO looks like they're smart, so I hope you keep good notes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, is there any special reason User:174.37.137.139 still needs to be on MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist? There is reference to an old ticket (possibly CU?) Ticket:2014070810024206. I checked with Billinghurst but he doesn't recall. Asking you as you were the latest blocker. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I do not have access to that ticket, however, I'm guessing that it was someone's personal VPN/Proxy. In any case, the IP address is not being used anymore, and can probably be removed from the whitelist. ST47 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm assuming it is "stale" and removing it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---