User talk:ST47
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | 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 |
The Signpost: 29 November 2021
- In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021
- Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained
- From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?
- Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021
- Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent
- Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?
- WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
- Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior
- Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword
A possible connection to a checkuser block you did
You blocked User:Wiki person that edits (intentionally not linked) with a checkuser block without specifying more details. I have seen a new account, User:EnWikiFactChecker, editing in similar areas. I do not hear quacking, but something feels...off with the account. Not sure where to report, but since it was your CU block on the first account, you might know where to go with the second. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Seemed obvious to me. I blocked without tags because that's apparently what others wish. C.Fred, the master is LEKReports, and I assume someone will request a glock.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I misread the tagging issue, so have now tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: That's what was missing in my brain, the master. Thanks for jogging the memory. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- @C.Fred:,
Confirmed to TheLEKReports, Two three one two and Pagecreators are confirmed as well. All are blocked and tagged. ST47 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @C.Fred:,
- @Bbb23: That's what was missing in my brain, the master. Thanks for jogging the memory. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I misread the tagging issue, so have now tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Temporarily blocked, but not any more
Hi ST47. I was blocked from editing earlier today and saw the message "Editing from 2C0F:F4C0:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 has been blocked (disabled)", relating to a block apparently applied by you. I am no longer blocked. Just to make sure, should I apply to be IP-block exempted or not necessary? Regards, and have a great weekend. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia:, it sounds like that block isn't affecting you anymore, but in any case, I have lifted it. ST47 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, ST47. Thanks for looking into it and for the action taken. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
NYPL ip blocked as P2P proxy
The bot erroneously blocked 65.88.88.93 as a P2P proxy/VPN. The network 65.88.88.0/24 is one of the address pools used by NYPL, and is perfectly legitimate. More interesting is the comment that suggests that this was an API-based action. Which API would that be? Don't have the time to look into the bot particulars. 69.193.135.254 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is possible that the IP range is shared or that some computer on that IP has been infected with malware that is causing it to proxy malicious traffic. The block is correct, and due to its short duration, it will be lifted in short order if the IP is no longer showing signs of being a proxy. ST47 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- ??? Of course it is a shared ip range, didn't you check the address? A simple whois/donain tools search would have given all the info. The entire /24 range is not blocked, afaik only this address is. What is the API that determined that this is a proxy and why did it single out that address? Btw, it is extremely unlikely that the Library IT dept. would overlook this. This is a fully staffed network with thousands of nodes and way above average security track record. It would be next to impossible to run proxy software on a public/user node, especially one that could be so easily detected by whatever tools the bot uses. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, have to amend the above. It seems that user devices (as distinct from Library assets) are allocated ips from the same ranges that Library nodes use. Not the place to expand on this, but between masking, subnetting, and translation, it is entirely possible that a user's own laptop could get an ip also used by the Library's own computers. Obviously, the Library cannot guarantee the security profile of visitor devices. I agree that little can be done about this. Obviously a "bad" visitor computer triggered this, thereby limiting other visitors' experience. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- ??? Of course it is a shared ip range, didn't you check the address? A simple whois/donain tools search would have given all the info. The entire /24 range is not blocked, afaik only this address is. What is the API that determined that this is a proxy and why did it single out that address? Btw, it is extremely unlikely that the Library IT dept. would overlook this. This is a fully staffed network with thousands of nodes and way above average security track record. It would be next to impossible to run proxy software on a public/user node, especially one that could be so easily detected by whatever tools the bot uses. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)