User talk:Operator873

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Blocks under flood flag.[change source]

If I am reading the logs correctly you just blocked a bunch of addresses under flood flag. That is a huge nono. To the point where it is almost a remove admin flag issue. But I know it was done without realizing that you can't do that. Flood flag is only for very minor edits. Try to avoid doing that again in the future. The reasoning for it is of course that it causes the blocks to not necessarily be noticed so they avoid the visibility such serious actions require. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting. A Steward said that was ok. Good to know. Operator873talkconnect 15:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah locally you aren't allowed to make any admin actions while using the flood flag. So things like delete etc are also a no go. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Looks like the flood flag page specifically mentions this as an acceptable use of the flood flag. See the second paragraph under When to use the flood flag. Let me know what your thoughts are. Operator873talkconnect 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, freekman when he created that page just copied it from meta so it probably is what they allow. The discussion to add the flood flag locally indicated that no admin actions could be made under the flag. Never noticed that contradiction before. I will have to go back and look for that original discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
When you find that discussion, just let me know. I'll update the flood flag page. If you're unable to locate it, we can attain a consensus on usage of the flag and then move forward from there. I'm a believer in written policies since that's the only way they can be enforced. Operator873talkconnect 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I hear you, though in this case its pretty common sense. Hiding any admin action is just bad, they need to be seen by the community for transparency. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@Djsasso: Not sure if it's "common sense" as you say... Especially since the written policy indicates the contrary. As I said though, lets find that consensus you speak of, update the policy page, and move forward. If we need to determine what the community wants, we can do that too. Operator873talkconnect 16:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Already posted the proposal since our archives are ridiculous to search though. Yeah we can disagree on the common sense of it all. But we all know many editors think admins are a cabal trying to get away with things, so keeping everything under the light seems pretty common sense to me atleast. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, what are you using to determine those accounts are spambots? An abuse filter? Mostly asking since the couple I checked weren't blocked anywhere else. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Are you familiar with Spam blacklist log? You can review account and IP activities that are disapproved on a global level. Once an attempted edit makes it there, I utilize a tool to gain intelligence on the IP address. If the IP does not appear on a proxy list but has attempted automated spam edits, I assume the IP is a zombie computer and use the appropriate block type. It's the same technique used across many, many projects. For accounts, after I block them here, they're reported to the stewards to be locked. Operator873talkconnect 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh don't get me wrong I wasn't suggesting you were doing it wrong or anything. I was genuinely curious how you were doing it to add it to my toolkit so to speak. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I've written a script on my IRC bot which streamlines the process and makes it much easier to gain the needed information quickly. Then I use Tim's Mass Block tool to quickly dispense with the {{blocked proxy}} blocks. That tool is also how I create the talk pages rapidly. Operator873talkconnect 16:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That is pretty cool. Its good to see someone doing it. I have rarely bothered with them unless they are successful in creating an edit because I hadn't seen the point in using my time for accounts that hadn't gotten through the "wall" so to speak. But with some semi-automated way of doing it then I can see more use in it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Going "Rouge"[change source]

To join the secret cabal follow me!Rainbow trout.png


Whack!

For this. Made me smile! Yottie =talk= 19:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yottie: Yeah you should have used {{whale}} hahahaha! Operator873talkconnect 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
WE DON'T HAVE {{whale}}?!?!?! TRAVESTY! Operator873talkconnect 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jumping Humpback whale.jpg


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

For this! Thanks for importing. Yottie =talk= 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yottie happy to help! I'm very happy to see you active! Welcome back! Operator873talkconnect 19:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, it's good to be back. Yottie =talk= 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Help[change source]

Wikipedia keeps glitching out and can't decide whether I'm logged in or not logged in --Jollyeditor (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jollyeditor: If you're currently logged in, you will see your account name, "Jollyeditor", at the very top of the page beside the bell icon. Operator873talkconnect 17:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It's weirdly glitching like it keeps logging me out and logging me back in --Jollyeditor (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jollyeditor: I'd suggest attempting to close your browser, then reopen it. If that fails to work, try rebooting your machine. Operator873talkconnect 17:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

nothing works every edit of mine shows up as ip --2601:601:907F:B7A0:24D9:15BC:2AF8:FC4F (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My account is literally broken --2601:601:907F:B7A0:24D9:15BC:2AF8:FC4F (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What browser are you using? What operating system? Does it log you out every time you refresh the page? Vermont (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Simple English wikipedia is glitched up, other wikimedia wikis work fine --Jollyeditor (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, maybe it's finally stabilizing after I almost died from frustration --Jollyeditor (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have stabilized, now I can actually edit properly --Jollyeditor (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?[change source]

Kyozen123467890 and Kyozen8858 Very similar usernames, seems like sockpuppeting --Jollyeditor (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jollyeditor: I'm not a Checkuser but I'll add it to the request for checkuser page for you. Operator873talkconnect 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, I'm not going to add it at this time. Neither account has been active. We'll assume good faith and wait for activity. Operator873talkconnect 21:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It could be two friends that wanna have similar usernames --Jollyeditor (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

More suspected sockpuppets[change source]

123zaheenmhd and 123zaheen --Jollyeditor (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Rukshana Kapali[change source]

I see you declined the QD on this, due to there being a claim of notability. I don't see such a claim. Would you mind explaining where you see one? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: of course! The author of the article stated the subject is an activist who's been involved in organizing well sourced movements. While a weak claim, I do not believe QD was the route to go with this one. However, if you disagree, you're more than welcome to QD it or send to RfD. Operator873talkconnect 10:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)