Jump to content

User talk:ST47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Memon KutianaWala (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 19 August 2020 (Personal?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thursday
07
November
2024
19:17 UTC
Archives
0x00
0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F
0x10
0|1|2|3|4


Request the IP block exemption

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

Blocking

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

@Cwmhiraeth: First, most IP addresses are dynamic, and can eventually be assigned to a different end user. So IP addresses should rarely be blocked indefinitely. I maintain a report at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips and occasionally try to correct accidental indef blocks of IPs addresses.
In this specific case of an IPv6 address, you only blocked a single IP address (Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:DA62:8500:B400:C198:2CA6:82AF). In IPv6, typically a single customer will have access to a whole range of IP addresses, which we call a /64. This means that the first 4 "sections" of the IP address will stay the same, but the last 4 can change. This might happen automatically, or if the user turns their device off and back on. Apparently they did in this case, because the same user continued to make similar edits using other IP addresses: Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:DA62:8500:0:0:0:0/64 (see edits from July 17th to July 27th). I also maintain a report on this at User:ST47/overspecific v6 blocks, and there's an essay written for a non-technical audience on this topic at WP:/64.
So, I widened the range block from a single IP (which is highly unlikely to ever be used again) to the appropriate range, but also shortened it to three months. That's probably still excessive given the very short history from this specific IP, but I was doing a bunch of these last night and didn't look too closely at the specific block durations. ST47 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

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

CheckUser question

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

@Lazer-kitty: That account, Zestkick, has not been used in more than 90 days, and therefore there is no CheckUser data available for it. ST47 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well dang, I did not know that. Thanks for the quick response. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal?

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