User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive35

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser block

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I've removed your block on 2A02:C7D:4E32:F100:A4EE:1685:3DA9:AB6 (talk · contribs) since the /64 is covered by my {{CheckUser block}}. (See Special:BlockList/2a02:c7d:4e32:f100::.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI new edit by user you had previously warned

I noticed you put a "Final Warning" on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:38.101.37.34 for putting non-notable people in alumni sections -- I wanted to let you know that they just recently added a (since undid) non-notable alumni to the Wentworth Institute of Technology page 2601:191:8380:26E4:8D0C:399B:1021:9C05 (talk)

Thank you, on it! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked from editing for no reason

Hey, so the block has passed, but I checked my talk page and noticed that I was apparently blocked for editing Fear. I made no edits to it, nor had I visited the page. I've gotten other messages saying that I edited something even though I did not.

Anyways, just wanted to address that.

66.76.23.166 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You can see in the contribution history that someone using this IP address did edit Fear multiple times in February. The block wasn't necessarily for a specific edit, but rather for the aggregate of bad edits from that address, regardless if it was from one person or not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'm actually at school rn and a ton of people in my class are using the same IP as I do, so it may be one of them.

But, it may have been a group of idiots wanting to vandalize Wikipedia. I think everyone has the same messages as I do.

On my talk page, people were talking about Fortnite, like "You have failed and have nearly been banned for oranges." Those edits were made by some other guy in my class, and not me.

People can be idiots sometimes.

Very good idea Husan Rekim Al Haraj (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Very good idea Husan Rekim Al Haraj (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you check....

The latest entry on my talk page, to make sure it's on the up-and-up, in light of [1]. Please let me know if you believe it wise to follow through on my promise. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no page on the "brothers" as far as I'm aware. The page on Ed that was deleted was created by a banned troll, (who successfully masqueraded as a good faith newbie user until they were blocked and showed their true colors in June of 2018). The requesting account was created a few months after that, and the tone of their writing and topic choices are suspiciously familiar. I'm going to file an SPI to be sure. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Krassenstein Article

Ohnoitsjamie Hello I'm relatively new and exploring new territory, i.e. deleted Articles. Saw the recent news about the Krassenstein Brothers ban from Twitter, came to Wikipedia, found a deleted Article and now I'm wondering 1) why was it deleted? They seem noteable. 2) Now that they are back in the news, are they noteable now? Mostly I'm wondering about how to tell why the Article got deleted, because I suspect that the Article's creator got banned for multiple accounts and I wonder if the Article didn't get deleted for that reason. Also more weirdness; my attempt at a "ping" text results in a deleted user page.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that you're new, and I suspect that you already know why it was deleted. I'm certainly not going to restore the text on the request from a user who's idoiosyncratic writing style is uncannily similar that that of a blocked account.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm surprised to learn I have any kind of "writing style" at all. But okay. FYI I don't really care about whether the Article gets resurrected or not. Like I said this is a learning exercise. I see lots of RS on the topic, and a deleted account, and restricted information on why it was deleted, and no response to my question as to whether or not it's noteworthy now. But okay. Moving on...Tym Whittier (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"I'm certainly not going to restore the text on the request from a user who's idoiosyncratic writing style is uncannily similar that that of a blocked account." Well I just discovered the "sockpuppet investigation" thing. At first I thought I was accused of being "Jeff2345" something-or-other, but now it looks like I'm supposed to be "LovelyGirl7". I'm not, nor have I ever been, either of those two accounts. However, to dispel any notions I might have that the motivations behind the accusation are less that "pure", could you please provide me one example of text that has been written by either of these accounts (or any others) that is "idiosyncratic" (<--The correct spelling of the word) and/or "uncannily similar"? I'm paranoid enough as it is, and it would do me a lot of good to know this is an legitimate, "good faith" and/or honest effort to root out a sock puppet, vs. "something else". Otherwise, I'm content to let Wikipedia Policy, rules, guidelines, whatever play themselves out. Mostly I'm concerned with how long this cloud is going to hang over me, and what impact it might have in the future.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's great, but you're not going to restore the Krassenstein article, so I suggest you take your pursuits elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I note here on your talk page that you've ignored a polite request to substantiate your belief in a "idiosyncratic writing style" that is "uncannily similar", and "strikingly similar" to some Sock Account. You cared enough to use the words in order to influence other Editors (and now I assume Administrators), and yet instead of backing them up, you've attempted to shoehorn other allegations instead. This is classic manipulative technique, whether you know what you are doing or not. An intelligent Administrator will notice this inability to support your own allegation, and your dogged determination to achieve a desired outcome no matter what the cost is to the truth, and Wikipedia policy, ideals, etc... I'll let the IP address thing speak for itself. Suggest you "put down the stick" and go back to doing whatever it is you do, and let me get back to learning how to Edit Wikipedia. FYI I won't ask for the boomerang thing, because I have a higher goal here than causing problems for others, but that doesn't mean some Administrator won't do it anyways. I guess it all depends on if you've done this kind of thing before, and how willing you are to admit that you are wrong. Strategically, your biggest mistake is that you failed to prepare for the possibility that you are wrong. You're wrong. Had you done more "due diligence" you might have seen it for yourself. Had you phrased your accusations in more tempered terms, you might have more credibility, and a path to "backtrack" from when it turns out you were wrong. That's a strategic statement. The more "human" statement is I really don't care what all the background is. Maybe you are really this protective of this Article and maybe you just really hate this troll this much. Maybe instead of all of that, you should consider the "why" of the foundational principals of Wikipedia, and exactly what it is that you are trying to protect? What if everyone did this, i.e. used your example as a role model. One of my core beliefs is "Leadership is by Example", and in case you aren't aware, making an accusation like this is a form of Leadership, which you've volunteered to assume. With Leadership comes power (the ability to get someone's account blocked, or whatever), and also with Leadership comes Responsibility, meaning you are responsible for your actions, and responsibility means accountability. I suspect the Administrator that reviews this investigation (whatever the correct language is) will look at your conduct with the same objective eye that they will view mine. AFAIC, I'm the less experienced Editor making (more or less) the same kinds of mistakes one would expect from an inexperienced Editor that makes a good-faith effort to both "Be Bold" while trying to learn, and contribute. My mistakes speak for themselves, and if I have to, I can do a good job of "contributing" as well. In fact this post is one example. Look at how much you are either learning, or refusing to learn, during this whole investigation (meaning the choice is up to you). Again, on the "human" level, I have no animosity towards you, or anyone else. I'm sure it's frustrating to have to deal with a lot of this stuff, but even though that is true, there's still an institutional responsibility involved. Wikipedia must protect itself from trolls, but it also must protect itself from Editors that make false allegations in an effort to get someone blocked, out of some sense of "this is ours, not yours", or whatever. If I felt like digging, I could probably come up with some kind of analysis. Thus far, from my perspective with regard to the Article on Gab, it appears to me to be primarily ideological (it's our leftist Article and not your right-wing Article), but I don't think that's true for your case. Not sure what it IS though. Anyways, that's the offer. Either reconsider and take another, and more constructive tack, or I'll be forced to spend the time & energy trying to hammer all of the above into a shape that better conforms to Wikipedia policies for sock investigations.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and as an addendum, I don't mean "manipulative" in the human-to-human sense of the word; I mean "manipulation of process", specifically the Wikipedia Process for Sock Investigations. I may not know much Wikipedia Policy, but I understand institutions and bureaucracies in a general sense. The have systems to protect things, and they have systems to prevent those systems from being corrupted. What you've done is made an attempt at corrupting the process of of protecting Wikipedia from trolls (or whatever). Probably not the first time this has happened. As a Leader you have a basic minimum of responsibility, i.e. (and known in other realms) as "due diligence". Failing to do the due diligence us a symptom of the corruption of process. Deliberately, inadvertently, IDK. What matters is the outcome is the same, and it's bad.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. That said, I'm not here for debate and discussion, nor was I seeking a performance review. I'm here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. If I had been fairly certain that you were LovelyGirl7, I would've already blocked you per WP:DUCK. I was not sure, so I sought additional opinions from others familiar with the matter. I still strongly suspect that you are not as "new" as you claim to be, and I'm not sure if you're really here to build an encyclopedia. If you are here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, go forth and do that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

unwarranted blocking

Please be more careful about who you're blocking and why. Three times, I have been blocked by you for alleged vandalism. I have never made changes to any Wikipedia article that can in any way be interpreted as vandalism. The vast majority of my Wikipedia edits are minor grammatical changes. In keeping with Wikipedia's articles on assuming good faith, I'm going to assume that, rather than being an intentional bully, you honestly think you're doing the right thing -- although if that's the case, your interpretation of what counts as "vandalism" is completely indefensible. All I'm asking is that you in turn exercise good faith and stop jumping to the conclusion that edits you don't happen to agree with are somehow "vandalism." Perhaps a review on Wikipedia's definition and policies regarding actual vandalism might be helpful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.223.156 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback. Unfortunately, there aren't any blocks on the IP that you're currently using, so I have no idea which blocks you are talking about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, based on what you've just said, and also based on my own brief research, I'm going to change the nature of my complaint. If I'm taking the time to edit Wikipedia, it's usually on my iPhone. I don't know how to look up my iPhone IP address other than to use "what's my IP" websites, all of which give me different answers, none of them geographically accurate. I don't know anything about IP addresses -- I don't know if the inaccurate geographical IP results are common, or problematic, or what. I suppose it's possible that this might even lead to genuine confusion on Wikipedia's IP tracking. (Or maybe it's not possible, I honestly don't know how any of that works.) If that's the explanation, it would make sense to me that a well-meaning editor would see vandalism made by one user and, through no fault of his own, attribute it to a different user with a similar "floating IP." Again, I'm not standing behind any of this, just positing it as a theory. However, if any of this is even possible, it illustrates all the more reason to exercise caution when blocking people based only on their IP address. You could end up blocking the wrong person. I'm pointing this out to you in particular because you're the one who keeps blocking me. Again, I'm assuming you mean well. But it's getting annoying to repeatedly see "You have been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. Reason for the block: vandalism."

Incidentally, I am aware that such misunderstandings might be avoided if I could simply log in with a username before making changes, but I was once targeted for harrassment by a fellow Wikipedia user, and it got so disturbing, I frankly don't feel safe keeping an easily trackable username. Wikipedia was unable / unwilling to help me, as my complaint / plea for help got caught up in an endless online debate, while the harasser continued his constant assaults, which got very ugly. I don't want to ever risk going through that again, which is why I refuse to use official usernames on Wikipedia. (I don't have much of a trackable social media presence anymore due to the same incident.)

At the risk of repeating myself, I again want to emphasize that I assume that you're trying to be constructive, but in blocking people based on IP, you've -- perhaps through no fault of your own -- repeatedly blocked the Wikipedia equivalent of an innocent bystander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.223.156 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunately unavoidable that constructive editors are affected by blocks on dynamic IPs (i.e, IPs that frequently get reassigned to different users/devices). We have no way of knowing how "stable" an IP is; that is, how long it will be assigned to a given user. In some cases, we need to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandalism. Anytime I block a range, I examine the edits from that range first and do my best to avoid blocking ranges where a fair amount of constructive edits are originating from. Regarding the harassment issues you had when you created and account, did you report the issues to WP:ANI or a similar venue? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

I noticed you blocked an editor here. Shortly after, they created this account, which has now morphed into this account. I've spent much time cleaning up after this editor. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely a competence issue with most of the edits, but I don't think they are in bad faith, and the main account wasn't under an active block. Not obvious block evasion, they might just keep forgetting their credentials (which goes back to WP:CIR). I'm on my way out the door, but feel free to give them some warnings for poor sourcing/test edits, etc. If they aren't able to figure out how Wikipedia works, we can block then. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The edits are definitely in good faith. They don't seem to get it though. I'll keep on it. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The block placed on KevinCarlo27

Hi Ohnoitsjamie! It's been awhile since we've last talked! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! :-) I just wanted to let you know that I changed the 72 hour block you placed on KevinCarlo27 to be indefinite and due to repeated BLP violations in his edit summaries and talk page edits. They contained unsubstantiated accusations about (and toward) Mariel Rodriguez Padilla, on top of blatant insults and obnoxious rants about that person. I think that an indefinite block here is the best response to the edits made. If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or if you disagree with the change I made to the block (and notice), please let me know (just make sure to ping me in your response here) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you and come to an agreeable solution. I doubt you'll mind what I did at all and I'm sure you'll agree, but I wanted to message you and give you a heads up just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Good call. I was on the fence about that at the time of the block, but looking at the edits again, I don't see much hope for good edits from that user. P.S. Now I have this song stuck in my head. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nina Cuso

Hello. Are you aware that this article you nominated for deletion on 13 June 2018 was recreated 4 months later, all complete with the COI tag? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The restored version was nearly identical to the deleted version, so it was eligible for CSD:G4. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Broken reference

There's no website at this location you quoted: http://www.cuso-vso.org/about-cuso-vso/our-history So I don't understand your comment. Deb (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I repaired the link. A blocked sockpuppet had deleted the link to CUSO, presumably because the sock recreated an afd-deleted article about a subject with that surname and did not like that it redirected to a Canadian organization. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

I wanted to congratulate you on becoming part of the evil "They" who are trying to suppress information. --VViking_TalkEdits 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that I have not "contributed to the Science of Invisibility." In fact, I sent the Institute For The Science Of Invisibility a check for $49.95 last year (and got a free backpack for my tax-deductible contribution). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mechanical Keyboarder

Mechanical Keyboarder is another one to keep an eye on regarding adolescent topics. And regardless of adolescent topics, the editor adds unsourced "clarifications" to articles. I'm not saying that the editor is a sock of anyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious, but that account has been around awhile. Thanks for the heads up!

Indefinite block of IP address

You blocked an IP address indefinitely. The block is good and heck, you might want to consider revoking talk page access, given their continued trolling. But probably a shorter block, given it's an IP. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that. Shortened, talk page protected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Answer

[2] Ok, I didn't know. In Croatian Wiki you can not remove any message, blocks, warnings, etc. if you remove them, even in your talk page you will be blocked. Bye.-- Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I restored this users talk page blanking. Per Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages, removing messages from your own talk page is permitted as long as they're unrelated to active unblock requests. I also noted in the edit summary that the user cannot unilaterally forbid others from attempt to communicate with them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That is counterproductive on Croatian Wikipedia because on that way you disrespected person you are talking to. Bye--Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, IP adress deleted your message and I was announced for a new "old" messsage. Bye.-- Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bye.—- Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B015:775D:B5FD:54B8:9D8D:6554 (talk)

DC Police page

I noticed you locked that page for vandalism. If I want to put some new info in there how do I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:9A00:2010:A106:0:0:0:553 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

2001:8003:27AF:8300::0/64 has returned for more vandalsim

Hi, jamie. Giving you a heads-up that 2001:8003:27AF:8300::0/64 is back and has been joined by 58.164.13.122. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Milind Deora

Hey there! A couple days, I made some copyedits to Milind Deora. The next day, you reverted them, with the edit summary "inept spamming". I don't know what you were referring to, but I assume it was just a mistake (the one thing you removed that I didn't add was a citation in the "External Links" heading, so maybe that played some role).

No harm done, but please do be careful when reverting!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops, not sure how that happened; meant to just remove the botched spam link from the references heading. Thanks for catching that, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=26103

You've got mail  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

need a good laugh?

Look at the UTRS queue.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A fascinating hobby. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jamie, thanks for your action here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Jaylanb185

An indefinite block will be needed here as an obvious sock of the IP you just blocked: 2600:1700:9A90:5990:6405:2E2C:973E:CA7C Amaury • 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC

2406:3400:30F:B9D0:74E2:58C:AAA4:944D (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

beautytohealth.com

Site beautytohealth.com is blacklisted by some Autobots used by competitors. We tried to add a link and that' when we knew it is blacklisted. Please check ips and usernames to verify.

You are barking up the wrong tree. That site doesn't come close to meet WP:MEDRS guidelines, and as such I have no interest in seeing it removed from the meta blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting any mentions on Wikipedia. I would appreciate if the website is removed from the blacklist.

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean that anyone can spam any website on wikipedia and get it blacklisted?

question-begging aside, this has already been answered on the blacklist page; try reading the response again. Your site is not blacklisted locally on Wikipedia; it is blacklisted globally on meta. You can take your petition to meta, and I'll be happy to chime in with my $A0.02 there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)