Open main menu

Destroyer 27Edit

Dear Sasquatch,

Since I am a new user I know very little about how Wikipedia works. I also don't know if it was proper to respond on the noticeboard page. Since I was named and thereby had received a notification, I thought I must present my side. If I mustn't, in such cases, I henceforth won't.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 6:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

She’ll probably block you for a year for typing a letter Tigerslayer2699753 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Sasquatch! ♥Edit

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

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)


ThanksEdit

Thank you for this. I just felt there were too many red flags. best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

HoneypotEdit

Thanks for cleaning up the mess here but it's probably worth leaving it unprotected as a honeypot ;) Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I was actually considering that as well. I think I'm just going to temporarily SALT it to slow down the craziness for today and then we can re-evaluate if things returns. Sasquatch t|c 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the next step is a filter. I'll work on that one. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
I really want to thank you for blocking user:Vivekshukla21. This user has been messing up Wikipedia for months. CLCStudent (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@CLCStudent: I really don't understand the argument of how naming India's first prime minister is a "political issue" despite it already being in the page. Absolutely unbelievable amount of WP:OWN and edit warring. I also want to thank you for all your efforts in reverting and listing vandalism. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It was definitely my pleasure! CLCStudent (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:49.150.112.179Edit

Hi,

I don't think the edits made to User Talk:49.150.112.179 is patent nonsense. The user was clearly trying to create an article.

Whether or not the article was any good, probably not, but I think it would have been better to not delete it outright. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: I don't think Adam Levine, Bree Olsen, Renee Zellweger and John Newman ever participated in MegaMan related content called "Don't let Israelites GO!" or "Drill it deep, deeper, DEEPEST!". Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL, you're right. I only looked at the page briefly and thought it looked like someone trying to make an article. I should have looked closer, sorry. Sounds like a a candidate for Wikipedia:Still_more_Best_of_BJAODN. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: Hahaha, it may very well be. I can copy it to your sandbox if you wish to preserve it for the archives. Sasquatch t|c 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Haha, go ahead! I would appreciate it! Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 02:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: Done. Sasquatch t|c 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!Rockstonetalk to me! 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
thanks for your feedback on my name.

i have requested a name change. Vseospecialist (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Range blockEdit

At User talk:1.144.108.193, in answer to a query of mine about whether a block was too long, you said "In retrospect, I agree the block should have been made shorter. I will unblock the range." Perhaps ironically, reading your message there made it seem rather more likely that the length of the block was not too long, and might even be considered too short, because having seen the edits from the other IP range that you linked to I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Joining this section, per my request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Request_IP_range_lock_due_to_abuse_on_day_of_the_year_pages this vandal is back again at July 3 and July 9 with the exact same problem as last time. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: @Redalert2fan: Yeah, I was hoping the IP vandal had just jumped to another range, but these are the kinds of things you just have to wait and see for. I've always been a firm believer that unblocks are cheap and we can just re-assess later as behavior comes up. I'll try to look into it later today if no other admin has already. Sasquatch t|c 18:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Redalert2fan: and Sasquatch: When I wrote above "I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month", I considered adding something like "...and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been going on much longer than that", and I now see I would have been right. Even though the proportion of disruptive editing is high, I would be reluctant to block IP ranges with significant amounts of constructive editing for the very long period that would be necessary, so perhaps the way forward is to go through the tedious process of 365 semi-protections. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No, 366. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Yeah, that may have to be the solution. Either option is disruptive to legitimate editors, so these are never easy decisions to make, but protecting the date pages may be less disruptive overall as non-confirmed users can still make edit requests at the talk page. Sasquatch t|c 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. For now I have re-blocked 1.144.108.0/22 for two weeks to buy some time. If we do protect the articles, we can lift that block, but I can't even consider putting in the time required for all those protections now, or even a significant proportion of them.
If there were any way of checking, I would be willing to bet very heavily that the IP editor who made the unblock request, and who since the unblock has posted on numerous IP-block-related talk pages, is the date editor. Nothing that I could put forward as proof, but the whole tenor and tone of the editing is that which I have learnt over the years is typical of an editor who thinks he or she should be allowed to do anything they like and resents being prevented, and not at all typical of the attitude of a genuine innocent bystander caught up in collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Unfortunately once again the disruptive edits have returned, for example 1.144.111.219 & 1.129.105.137 + many more on a lot of different dates. This person just seems to write down on their calendar when their block expires and continue ignoring everything... -Redalert2fan (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Now who's hounding who?Edit

[1] Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Drop it already. JesseRafe is not hounding your edits. They appear to have made an edit to Suzi Leather independently, you reverted, they reverted back. Start an RFC if you want more input like you have said already multiple times. Hounding is when a user systematically goes through someone's edits on unrelated topics and issues to confront them. There is no evidence, other than a dispute about the manual of style, that JesseRafe has done such a thing. I suggest you learn to address things more collaboratively with that editor if you have an issue rather than throwing out spurious complaints. Sasquatch t|c 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:War Operation Plan ResponseEdit

This user has accused me of being a paedophile and being a severely sick individual. He also accused Wikipedia personnel of harboring and protecting me. This is libellous and a violation of BLP. can you take action against them please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS Request #25745Edit

Howdy, I should welcome your views at this appeal, please. Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorted; thanks for your help. Just Chilling (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your re-block of 2a01:114f:904:1f00::/64Edit

Just giving you a heads-up that this editor has also used 37.248.161.175 and 83.23.239.38. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: No activity from those IPs recently. If you find a new active one, report it to AIV. This is typical of a IP hopping long term abuse user where they hop from between public wifi spots. A block is usually not necessary on old IPs. Sasquatch t|c 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge requestEdit

Can you merge the following 2 titles Madhuraswapnam and Madhura Swapanam. Both are same movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.197.164.181 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sasquatch".