User talk:ST47
Ports of open proxies
@NahidSultan (WMF) and Slakr: Can you please tell me if it is possible to remove from the messages about blocking open proxies the ports through which you can connect to them? Our checkuser Q-bit array have a bot, that blocks IP's that your bot's block. Other wikis may not block this IP's and your publishing of ports of these servers may help vandals in small wikis. ·Carn·!? 13:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ST47 — could you help me and point me to a thread that discussed that bot messages should include proxy ports? ·Carn·!? 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Carn: I am not aware of any such thread. I doubt that anyone is using these proxies by getting the IPs and port numbers from my block messages, they are already widely available on the internet. On the other hand, the port numbers allow others to perform an initial check to see if the proxy is still open, for example, if they are responding to an unblock request. If there is interest in blocking them globally, I would be able to support that effort, but I'm not able to pursue it on my own. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry to intrude into this conversation. On the Russian Wikipedia we had a couple of LTAs who used the proxy lists gathered from the block log of the ProcseeBot. These attacks were quite hard to counter, as the LTAs always had a fresh list of checked and working proxies. The attacks ceased only after I started to relay the blocks from the English Wikipedia to the Russian. Now the Ruwiki is more or less protected from this type of attack, but other wikis are still quite vulnerable. Is it perhaps an option to encrypt or somehow obfuscate the ports of the proxies? The concerned people (e.g. admins) knowing the encryption rules would be able to re-check if the proxy is still active, but the abusers won't be able to "recycle" the proxies to harm other projects. I use similar approach in my bot: proxy data is contained in the block log, but is encrypted. -- Q-bit array (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Carn: I am not aware of any such thread. I doubt that anyone is using these proxies by getting the IPs and port numbers from my block messages, they are already widely available on the internet. On the other hand, the port numbers allow others to perform an initial check to see if the proxy is still open, for example, if they are responding to an unblock request. If there is interest in blocking them globally, I would be able to support that effort, but I'm not able to pursue it on my own. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Re: Reported open proxies
Hello, about 6 months ago I reported an anonymous vandal who was keeping using proxies to make vandalisms. The first proxies were blocked by your bot, while the other proxy, 185.162.126.65, was blocked by you and his edits undone. I think that the vandal has come back, but this time he registered a username in order not to be recognized easily: "Møstbarr". His vandalism in the page "Boscotrecase" is the same done by the 3 blocked proxy IPs, a disruption of its phonetic transcription, and he did similar edits in other pages too. I though you could take care of him again, let me know if you are willing to. Have a good day. Elbaylump (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, have you read my message? Please let me know, thanks! Elbaylump (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@ST47: Elbaylump (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi ST47, just to inform you that this Elbaylump is just a Lascava sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lascava/Archive). Speaking of which, he might have sone other users around, like Vigneslouis (already blocked on en.wiki). Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| One year! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
please run CU check thank you very much sir
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 156.219.58.255 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am Paptilian, learning. Thanks for your kindness.
I see my errors on Sandbox creating. From now on it's User:Paptilian/ . One quick question, when I create a sub page, all that is necessary would be to create /subpage? or is User:Paptilian/subpage necessary? I've read the former is sufficient, but I like perfection. Thanks again. I'm watching this page answer. p.Paptilian (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Ts5Gb54145bg76ddrmwe
I was just about to message you about this user, right before you blocked them as a CheckUser violation. I figured it was a sock of Reliable source fan, who you also blocked with the same message. Who are these accounts socks of? Is there a master? Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: They are socks of each other, and of this SPI. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)