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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

You blocked me by open proxy, but in my country the internet service company works like this, I would like it to be unlocked in order to continue contributing to the encyclopedia my IP address is 192.254.99.49 and the account name is Polisofik, I am writing with a VPN because it is the only way to communicate with you. A greeting and good afternoon Polisofik (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOP, open proxies may be blocked at any time. The IP address you are referring to is infected with conficker, which is the sort of thing that really should be happening this decade. If this is your own IP, you can plug your IP address into https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ and you'll find some instructions to remove the infection. ST47 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Yournamedodobird is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you blocked this user for personal attacks. However, you've also voted in an ANI against sanctions for the user who was the target of the personal attacks. It seems to me like you're too closely related to this case and it might violate WP:INVOLVED, but I could be wrong. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're going to make an admin action and someone questions you about it, could you please respond? It's irrelevant now, but still it doesn't set a very good precedent. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I see no rationale. Second, I'm not seeing any attempt at trying any other measures first as required by WP:ECP; standard restrictions seem like they would have been effective. Please adjust accordingly. Buffs (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did this question get missed? Buffs (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a page for Jack Massey Welsh, but you have protected it. Please respond! --Makenzie 06 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user his last warning regarding vandalism as you can see so may I ask, if you can keep a close watch on him? I will notify you if the user is doing any more vandalism and you can carry the consequences for the user.
WikiPizzeria (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AgFunder is a legitimate business and happens to be one of the most active foodtech and agtech VCs globally. It's not clear why our page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdleclerc (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the same sock puppetry again in Hernanes. Please, protected the page.--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 154.160.26.23. Question: does a certain level of warning template automatically summon an admin's attention? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that particular user summons my attention through alerts from an abuse filter. ST47 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47, You told me to denounce the vandalism after you have blocked this user, well i ask you for your help, this user (User:Shyobyus) has been placing lies on articles for the last two days, I have reverted them and immediately he has been reverting my editions in a lot of pages claiming that my editions are irrelevant when it is not, I ask you to investigate him, because we are only in a war of editions like in 5 pages, and more pages because it gets into all the articles I edit and dont let me work. I had the same problem with this blocked account User:Generic515 and three more puppets of this account (User:GrandLucky, User:JkMastru, User:Voche537), since he appears every 3 weeks with a new account, I say it because he always attacks the same related pages (about Mexico, mainly Mexico City) and also to my person, ever. Thanks.--BrugesFR (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, all the blocked accounts working on the same Template:Political Divisions of Mexico including the user in question, the template is not edited by anyone else.--BrugesFR (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're an obviously pro-Spain biased user, please, stop you disruptive edits. --Shyobyus (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edition of this user is a clear threat towards me Revision as of 00:17, 16 November 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank) Shyobyus "the last time that you touch the Colonial Mexico articles". I develop the articles of the wikipedia extensively every day, now he will not stop damaging all my editions, If nobody blocks him, he blocks me, what happens--BrugesFR (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint may be superseded by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Generic515. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy service on the AFD for A. Sims! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:204.38.32.173 ‎ is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, revoked talk page access. ST47 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor of the edit on the KingYC instagram scandal that you recently reverted. I have sources that are within the instagram app. Is that referenceable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realazee (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Realazee: Simply put, you find a reliable source that provides neutral and verifiable coverage of that material and you reference that. If there are no news media or scholarly journals that cover the topic, it probably isn't sufficiently notable or verifiable to be included in an encyclopedia - we write biographies, we don't care about minor bits of IG drama that don't have any lasting impact - see WP:10YT. By the way, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place for general questions about editing, and you should sign your messages on "talk" pages by typing ~~~~ after your message - it will be converted to your signature, like this: ST47 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undoing the AfD tag deletion at Nicholas Alahverdian. I am trying to re-list the deletion discussion. Can you help? Many thanks SVUKnight (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVUKnight:, it is listed correctly at [1]. ST47 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now; for some reason I was on the wrong date. Apologies. Not to bother you yet again, but can you provide appropriate guidance on how to request that editors give their input? For an article with over 70 sources and a senior editor's review User:MB, perhaps it may be that the consensus has been reached. Is there a way to ask for people to vote (without persuading them one way or another) that doesn't violate WP:CANVASS? Thanks again for your guidance. SVUKnight (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVUKnight: to put it simply, you shouldn't contact any specific editors to request input. This would give the appearance of canvassing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting is a good place to list AfD debates by category, which allows people to watchlist debates that match their interests. This AfD is already categories under "Authors", "Politicians", and "Rhode Island", but if you can find any other relevant categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat, you can add this debate to them. I'm not sure about the specific procedure, but User:Enterprisey/delsort might be something to look at. ST47 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again much gratitude to you for that. I will do as advised. SVUKnight (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47,

• See this UTRS ticket and I've started a page at the cu wiki to help. It's crude but I recognized several UAs that needed to be recorded. Cheers,
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What would you say to extending the block you previously gave here? As we know, they have abused multiple accounts, and since then they are just here to promote the Aschenborn articles. I wasn't sure why someone participating in sockpuppeting would not get an indef, although I do respect your admin decisions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: here is the SPI for reference. I'm just getting a bit tired of their promotional additions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Are they socking again? Or is this the edit warring at Special:Contributions/Daarkomdie? ST47 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not socking again... I guess I am just complaining that their edits always have to be checked for promotion, and wishing they had gotten the axe. They have smartened up a bit but are still just bloating up Uli Aschenborn to be a Van Gogh of artists. There's obvious COI going on so I have asked them about that at their talk. Of course, I understand blocks are not punitive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I guess I don't see anything that's currently blockable? I have left a more detailed COI warning on their talk page. If they hop accounts again, or fail to disclose their COI before making further edits, we can block. If they do start to communicate, we can help them abide by WP:COI. ST47 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it per your suggestion. Thank you --Nixie9✉ 00:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dieselducy.0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to take this to COIN, but it's so egregious that I wondered what you would do. User Jambonec has been adding promotional links to an online store to Emek for what seems like ages. This first happened with the addition of this to the lede "New release gig posters, prints and merchandise are available for purchase through his online store at: https://www.emekstudios.com" back in 2014. I discovered them and took them out today, but they added them back today. I warned them today, but he says I am incorrect and "Providing links to his direct website is a service to the public"... Let me know if I should go to COIN or if you prefer to take care of it! Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I posted at COIN!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: (ec) Wow that is one heck of a COI issue. I'll drop them a line and throw the article on my watchlist, up to you whether a COIN report would be useful as well. I don't think a block will discourage them much, the way they've been going on for years, might be worth getting some more eyes on it. ST47 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Just out of curiosity, what was this about?

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: It was an attempt at outing, so it was oversighted. ST47 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you left a question on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colemihaljevich/Archive about prior cases. One of the REDIRs which was G5d in the cleanup has been recreated (with no prior interest in the topic) by Josstiyn (talk · contribs) who, from the posts on their talk page, has come from fandom. I've asked for an explanation on their talk page... Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With no participation and a previous prod shouldn't this have been a relist or a soft delete? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the previous prod, but if anything, that would be an argument against a "soft delete", since a soft delete is supposedly pretending that it was prodded and no one removed the prod notice. If you like (and believe it would be successful), I'll revert and relist, but in general, I think that deletion with WP:DRV as the avenue for restoration is a perfectly fine outcome for unopposed AfD nominations. ST47 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please relist it so it has a chance of a clearer result, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ST47 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks, will try to make a comment/vote there later Atlantic306 (talk)

Hello, ST47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Philip Cross (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I did receive this and will need to consult with others before replying. ST47 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the page deleted? Original argument -> lack of references to external sources -> was satisfied by updating the article with legitimate sources. The delete discussion, last proof provided, was NOT refuted by anyone. 0xSkyy (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: The consensus was clearly to delete, you were the only person arguing in favor of keeping the article. Further, when I saw that you had added additional sources, I relisted the discussion for an extra week, to give the maximum opportunity to take your added sources into account. No one changed their opinion from delete to keep, and no new users participated in the discussion. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: The "voting" (which deletion process is NOT) happened on 15 November 2019, I proposed not to delete on 22 November 2019 (Improving the article after that), by that time other "voters" had ignored the article, as there are no comments/refusal on the matter from other editors.

The delete proposer User:Graywalls had started to contribute to the article itself (via Talk Page) (And Article changes).

I believe the delete was made in error.

0xSkyy (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the delete proposer changed their mind, they could have indicated this on the deletion discussion, they did not. WP:DRV is a venue to discuss re-creating an article that was deleted after a deletion discussion, if you think you can make a policy-based argument for notability, you may do so there. However, the deletion discussion was properly closed. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: I forgot to ping you. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Deletion,_moving_and_featuring clearly states

Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus.
Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus.

Which I believe was not done.

As the most important argument: lack of mainstream coverage: was refuted objectively, by citing sources from reliable sources for example Washington Post & The Verge; as can be clearly seen in the delete discussion.

3 out of 4 editors never came back to discussion (after 15 November 2019) & delete proposer was not ably to refute my last claim on the discussion.

0xSkyy (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: The editors who proposed the article for deletion or commented in support of deleting it aren't required to respond to every comment that you make - the assumption is that they haven't changed their mind unless they specifically state that they have. Wikipedia operates on rough consensus, and while you're right that the strength of arguments are taken into account, it would take a fairly convincing argument to overturn a 4-to-1 ratio in favor of deletion. More, Graywalls did reply to your 21 November comment, and again to your 22 November comment, refuting your arguments. The fact that you got the "last word" does not override all the other users who commented. ST47 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Again Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Deletion,_moving_and_featuring,

me having the last word would directly imply my reasoning to keep was accurate.

Original Claim:

1.) Device Not Notable (i.e. Notable = False )

2.) Content only mirrors phonearena = True

Reason: No Valid Sources/References added to article (15 November 2019)

1.) References to Reliable Sources such as The Washington Post, The Verge, Ars Technica & several others added (around 22 November 2019).

2.) Content updated from reliable reference.

As per Notability_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Sourcing :

Notability is demonstrated using reliable sources according to the corresponding Wikipedia guideline. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that credible sources "exercise some form of editorial control."

Updated Article:

1.) Notable = True,

2.) Content only mirrors phonearena = False

0xSkyy (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: I don't really know why you keep linking me to policies that you must know that I've already read. You having the last word only implies that your threshold for exhaustion with a given debate is higher than the other participants'. I noted that you had added additional sources to the article, and I also noted that none of the other participants at the AfD argued to keep the article, even after relisting the discussion for an extra week. Your request for me to overturn my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaomi Mi Pad is declined. WP:DRV is your appeal avenue. ST47 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:,

1.) I'm referencing policies to explain where I am coming from, not to make you read them. I'm linking to them because I find wiki markup linking convenient & I like to link.

2.) Actually none of the editors besides the original article proposer (User:Graywalls) argued anything, as visible in deletion discussion.

3.) User:Graywalls Stopped replying after 23 November 2019 as I added reliable sources for the article and updated article content accordingly since 22, 23, 24 November .... and discussion shifted to Article Talk Page.

0xSkyy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I" has asked for a deletion review of Xiaomi Mi Pad. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.0xSkyy (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ST47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Buggie111 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buggie111: Since there wasn't any private information associated with your message, I'll reply here. You're welcome, and I will keep an eye on it, however I expect that the semi-protection on the AfD will help to limit the amount of sockpuppetry that will go on. ST47 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, thanks for taking care of the histmerge business at Mawsua, the related SPI, and with keeping the related AfD in order... this article is the irksome gift that keeps on giving. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of those days that you wish you could just ban everyone, eh? I'm pretty sure these accounts are socks of the Upwork user who originally started the draft...guess they decided that following policy was just too difficult. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Hi Dear , i made changes to the article of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tina_Akhoondtabar . Please review again . Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.239.225.214 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ST47. Just want to say thank you for your assistance on my request for sockpuppetry investigation. It's my first time to make such request, and I must say I am still groping in the dark how to go about it. But thank you for your assistance, the process has become much clearer for me now. Thank you, I appreciate it.

P.S.

@ST47: I appreciate your work and also got what you meant in your last note. Yes, I would gladly help. Thank you.

Migsmigss (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to look into it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rvoskoboynikov, but there's nothing there. Did you conduct the case and close it all by yourself, without any other input, and no defence by the accused? Ain't that a violation of the rules? I'm very concerned about pressure applied on users participating in AfDs and think that any administrative actions surrounding these should be totally transparent, to prevent suspicion of manipulations. So, I would like to know if it was you who added all those unsigned notes to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders. Imho this practice effectively is a harrassment of the participants and should be subject to oversight by the stewards. Gray62 (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Rvoskoboynikov where we can keep the conversation in one place.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Berean Hunter: I've deleted the Talk page as it was created for an improper purpose. Feel free to undo my deletion if you wish. As far as I'm concerned, Gray62's comments here, there, and elsewhere are at this point blockable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spying on me and I hereby want to be deleted from all Wikipedia's checking bots (in particular yours) or I will complain to ArbCom! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBalling (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZBalling: When you set off an edit filter, it is logged. No spying bots involved. ST47 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

logged --> you reacted --> edited my page where I said not to write ---> it is a bot --> you have access to what I did, when I DID not do anything wrong --> I NEVER was disrupting or vandaling anything --> I have more than 500 good edits --> you set on @Acroterion: on me who fu*** thretened to bloke me. I think you should be blocked for what you did. I want a consensus from Administrators' noticeboard. Immediatelly. Do not care how. ZBalling (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that didn't go well for him. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 Hello, he did it again. — here.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and again he does it, inserting deceiving edit summary.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that you just keep calling them "vandal". Don't either of you have anything better to do? ST47 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ST47 quite the opposite, I can't think of anything worse. but this is the 4th or 5th time I'm trying to draw anyone's attention. frustrating.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this, would removing talk page access be a good idea? Reyk _YO! 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about what an admin would think of this continual removal of content. I reverted, but do they have any justification in the claim it's apolitical attack? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

understanding and explaining

Thank you for beginning quality articles from Clearing the neighbourhood to Uttama Prajakeeya Party, for dealing with Sockpuppet investigations and deletion discussions, for understanding and explaining what an IBAN is not, - repeating (19 December 2008): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2321 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47 hope you are well. I am requesting your assistance with this user Special:Contributions/Vinlev since he's an SPA that seems to be creating, editing, and defending articles about himself, but I have no way to prove that. Can you please have a look at the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas? Thank you. Dr42 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first link that I should have put into the sockpuppet investigation of Holosh. Paleontologist99 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST, thanks for looking into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diva166. A follow-up query: This user is no-doubt using their user pages as repositories for these cast lists, like here. To thwart their disruption, it seems like deleting these pages would be helpful, but that would remove all the CU tagging. Options seem to be:

1. Leave it alone.
2. I could delete the articles and you could re-tag.
3. I could delete the articles and tag them myself.

I haven't experienced this particular scenario much, so I'm curious what you think. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Ah, interesting. I would guess that they probably have a local copy of that as well, but if you want to try deleting it, I have no objections. Either re-tag the userpage yourself, or just delete the page and then selectively restore the revision with the sockpuppet tag? ST47 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like your selective restoration idea. I learned something new today! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please CheckUser to determine whether Jlocs and Qzxv5 are not the same person? Because it seems that Bbb23 closed the SPI cases without checking and when I opened the case again, he threatened to block me instead. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CU and admin shopping is not going to work in your favor, Flix11. I suggest you heed bbb23’s advice. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm in a slightly complicated situation and I was wondering if you could help me out... I'm a university student and the final coursework one of my courses (Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies) consists of writing a new article on Wikipedia. On November 27 my article draft (Security Token Offering) was refused. On the following day, I added more information to it in order to fix what was requested, but it hasn't been reviewed since. I understand Wikipedia's policy estimates up to 4 months for review, but the professor said today that everyone that doesn't get an accepted article until December 20 will fail the course (even though that is a bit out of my hands). Thus, I was wondering if we could somehow work together to make some sort of meaningful contribution happen until then?

Sorry for bothering you this way, and thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasvrma (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a class from a professor who is not a jerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very true... But on the topic of the question above, should I take that as a no? --Lucasvrma 19:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A no from me, but I'm just an interloper. You asked ST47, and they haven't responded yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Another admin has reviewed and approved the draft.) ST47 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, I noticed you blocked 101.108.124.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) last month as a proxy account, and another account was similarly blocked 80.211.32.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Another IP (91.191.173.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a very similar post to the same article (compare [2] [3]), and I thought it looked like a block evasion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no block evasion here. Wallyfromdilbert is repeatedly removing information from the article Rodney Reed despite a consensus established by Bueller 007 at Talk:Rodney Reed to keep this information in. Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly cites the same fictitious "violations" of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, despite the fact that his claims have been refuted numerous times at the talk page. Wallyfromdilbert refuses to engage these refutations, and is instead resorting to censorship and unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry.[4] This is a clear example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:BOOMERANG. 91.191.173.92 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that there is a "consensus" to include the information on that article, but I do think that Wally's arguments do not hold water. He has insinuated there is a consensus against including the suggested material, but that was based on a BLPN whose issues have been resolved by switching to reliable secondary sources. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: The 101. and 80. IPs were both fairly routine proxy blocks under WP:NOP. I have confirmed and blocked the 91. IP as well. I haven't looked in to the underlying dispute at Talk:Rodney Reed, but open proxies shouldn't be being used to create an illusion of stronger consensus than actually exists. ST47 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I unfortunately do not know a lot about how IPs/proxies work, and so I rely on you more experienced and knowledgeable editors and admins. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block user:169.199.224.105 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Just want to make sure you know your work is appreciated Has a Username (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ST47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Interstellarity (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your email. Interstellarity (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked Special:Contributions/31.14.72.0/24. There have been no edits from that range since March but the block is affecting a known-good editor, see User talk:Peter Horn#Block appeal. Would there be any problem if I unblock that range? Or perhaps better would be to allow logged-in users? Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. The IP range is a Softlayer hosting range, it should not be unblocked. ST47 (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ST47, I need your assistance. I seem to be unable to see the latest messages published on my Talk page, I don't know why. I could only see them by inspecting the Edit history log, but not the actual published message on my Talk page. I'm not sure what's wrong, but I know there's something wrong. I hope you could assist me on this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was sorted out. There was a defective HTML comment. ST47 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, ST47. Yep, I just saw it got fixed moments ago, and was about to remove this message. But still, thanks for replying. Appreciate it.

Migsmigss (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering how old an account's activity can be before it is considered 'stale' for checkuser? Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: The data is only kept for 90 days, so if they haven't edited within that time period, the account is stale. ST47 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I was not aware of that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me? I am trying to fix minor mistakes on a few pages that people made that are incorrect. Nathankres (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathankres: What are you talking about? I didn't block you. ST47 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはST47たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 19:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

I still don't understand why my account is blocked or what to do about it. You wrote that it was because of a pvn. I don't really understand the Wikipedia article explaining what at PVN is, but in any case the Pvn you cited is described on the Wikipedia article about it as, if I get it right, an ad blocker. Why should a Wikipedia account-holding computer not use an ad blocker? in any case, I had never heard of the PVN you mentioned. I searched for it on my computer, and nothing came up. How can I find it to remove it? Kdammers (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 didn't say "PVN". Look at Virtual private network.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have time, can use protect the above article, currently subject to unexplained deletions? Thanks, Denisarona (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? See WP:RFPP. ST47 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was obvious - you are an administrator. So thanks. Denisarona (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a question of the closure only a request to allow recreation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello ST47:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static))) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hey ST, thanks for getting the latest Arthurcurry70 sock. In your opinion, would the edits made by the others here and here constitute significant changes? They seem mostly cosmetic to me and I know that if I cleaned up an article that turned out to have been created by a sock/UPE, I wouldn't mind being deleted. Thoughts? I'm really not a fan of these UPE people. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cyphoidbomb:, I'd agree that both of those are eligible for G5. They've had some cleanup and copyediting from other users, but the majority of the text in the article's current version is still from the sockpuppet. ST47 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks mate. Merry new year. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I’m currently blocked from editing because of this IP range block. That range belongs to Cloudflare and I’m using their Cloudflare Warp VPN product (see https://1.1.1.1/) which has both free and paid versions. This provides extra security, speed and IPv6 which I would not normally get through my ISP.

The same IP range may also belong to the servers which handle Cloudflare workers – "serverless" containers which allow custom user code. I can see that these could potentially be used for abuse, which may be why they were blocked in the first place. But I’d like to request a review to see if an alternative or perhaps a smaller range could be applied instead. My IP in this case is 8.39.202.49, but I could not post this message until I disabled the VPN. Thanks in advance. SimonEast (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonEast: Yeah, I've heard of CloudFlare Warp. I'm pretty sure I use their DNS server for my phone. However, their VPN service is an open proxy, which means that it is blocked from editing Wikipedia to prevent abuse. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

According to an OTRS ticket your recent edit to David L. Englin restored old/out of date information. I haven't had the chance to look into the exact diffs, and from your edit summary it sounds like you were just rewriting things, but I thought I'd ask. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@Primefac: The subject removed negative material, which I restored with an additional reference (and did some other refactoring of the page as well). ST47 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no Idea why I have been blocked. I am just constantly being blocked for no reason. I haven't even really gotten on the site and I already blocked. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the David Ruffin page, the edits are minor edits and are not of vandalism. It also correct names and adds introduction to section. apologize for the inconvience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.142.32 (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the entire /64 range given that multiple individual IPv6 addresses were blocked and some unblocked ones were being disruptive as well. Block log. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ST47. You protected Autodesk Maya last October in response to this ANI complaint. There was persistent edit warring by IP socks to add unsourced movie titles. Now, after protection expired on December 20, the same edit war has returned and persisted with new IP addresses. (For example, this edit yesterday persists with essentially the same edit undone by your BANREVERT edit in October.) Could you please restore the protection and extend it for at least one year. I would do this myself but having attempted to create discussion on the talk page, I could be considered involved. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will do. ST47 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jkofidittir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a paid editor from my organization ZEE5/Zee Entertainment Enterprise, I have noticed that a lot of pages created by our team have been deleted in the past and I also understand that its important to adhere to WP: Guidelines. However, here I am to inform you that I have announced that I am an employee of ZEE on my Userpage and will also be submitting the articles with the Declaration in summary. Please help me understand if there's anything else that I need to do to submit articles on behalf of my organization. Thank you. MeliMeli21 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jkofidittir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]