I wonder if you could advise on the right course of action on a weird issue I have. I’m asking you because you have familiarity with some of the background as you posted in this thread. I’ve had some involvement with that issue with the user in question. Over the last 24 hours I’ve had three notifications of multiple failed attempts to login to my account. I don’t know why, but I decided to check when the user in question had been editing WP and they broadly coincided with the login attempts - 24 hours ago, 14 hours ago and a couple of hours ago. I then asked another editor who had been involved in that issue with the user whether they had had failed login attempts - they had 2 failed login attempts with exactly the same timings as my last two. I don’t know where to go with this or whether checkuser can be deployed in some way. Can you advise what I should/could do? DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only advice I can give is to have a very good password and consider implementing two factor authentication. There is little to be done with people creating these warnings. I don't think checkusers can see the IP doing it. Even if they don't feel they can guess your password they may just be doing it to annoy you. A strong password and 2FA is all you need, after that you can ignore it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have had a number of attempts, it does not concern me since my password is extremely secure and I have 2FA on my account so whoever is doing it, na-na-na-na-NA! HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Regardless of your final opinion. Thank you for the review. :-) Buffs (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to help him. But, I'm not gonna make that mistake, again. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there are quite a few non-productive comments on Talk:The Daily Wire by Buffs
I’m not sure why it wasn’t declined long ago. It’s argumentative with little apparent recognition of what they’ve done wrong.
Stop complaining & let the partial block run its course.
You're kind of relentlessly aggressive; people don't like that, on WP and in real life.
your argumentation style certainly can come off as borderline bludgeon-y and tendentious.
I'll close this to prevent further digging.
let the matter go
drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
FWIW, I've deleted my post from the aforementioned discussion at The Daily Wire article, in order to appease Buffs. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry for what I did. I thought that what I did was acceptable because he appeared in the category "Wikipedia People." I did this for a lot of people because other people have done the same for other editors. Could you delete the rest that I have tagged for deletion? Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All-Around Amazing Barnstar | ||
You do lots of good.Here is a barnstar for you.Keep doing good here Pyramids09 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
You stepped up and gave closure when no other admins were willing to do so; I genuinely appreciate it despite our differences of opinion. Buffs (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT and WP:PROXYING; when it was removed as block evasion, it should not have been restored, and instead of restoring a blocked sock's comments the user could have just made a new section. Im not sure why you dont have a problem with people proxy editing for scrutiny evading sockpuppets, but just in case you were not being condescending and were actually asking me where I got the rules from, there ya go. Oh, the standards bit, that must have been condescending though. Guess my hope was misplaced. Ah well. nableezy - 01:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighInBC: I think you've stretched the limits of "broadly construed" a bit too far with your block of JPL. The post in question has nothing to do with a religious figure in itself, it simply refers to the general rules surrounding notability of heads of academic institutions. Had JPL specifically contributed to the actual AFD for Samuel E. Waldron, or if their academic notability thoughts pertained specifically to religious people then I'd agree with you, but having thoughts on general issues of WP notability guidelines that aren't religion-focused is not part of his topic ban. Please could you reconsider the block, or at least put it to the community at ANI. — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021 | ||
---|---|---|
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots. Overall
September 2019
October 2019
November 2019
December 2019
In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.) |
Revoke their Talk page acess too, they will just abuse you endlessly otherwise. They are a sock of User:AbigblueworldMako001 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Don't use the common block reasons or drop-down bar, type my main account now. Mako001 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]