Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DoRD/Archive 11) (bot |
→My talkpage brouhaha: correction |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm assuming that these are OSOW and TTAAC going at one another, and I'm seeing this sort of behavior across multiple articles. Is the answer here to just RBI? Thanks, [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm assuming that these are OSOW and TTAAC going at one another, and I'm seeing this sort of behavior across multiple articles. Is the answer here to just RBI? Thanks, [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:You're welcome. It's a rather unfortunate situation, sadly. OSOW may have made some useful contributions, but in the end, is little more than a troll, and RBI is going to be my response when I see him. I'm disappointed that TTAAC has resorted to socking, though. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
:You're welcome. It's a rather unfortunate situation, sadly. OSOW may have made some useful contributions, but in the end, is little more than a troll, and RBI is going to be my response when I see him. <s>I'm disappointed that TTAAC has resorted to socking, though.</s> —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Well. After looking at the available evidence, [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]], it appears that I jumped to conclusions, because it seems that {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} is an ongoing victim of a OSOW [[joe job]]. My apologies, TTAAC. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:38, 19 January 2017
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
RevDel
Hi DORD, Hope all is well, Could you (or any talkpage stalkers here) revdel this and this please, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done, but since it fell within another policy's realm, this probably wasn't the best place to request it. Thanks for the report. —DoRD (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Brilliant thank you, Ah sorry I wasn't sure sure which was best, Anyway thanks again for your help, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Walleinaxiom96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Time: Jan 06, 2017 13:35:32
Message: Hi, I don't have access to any info; please advise on the appeal and suitability for a 6 month Standard Offer?
Notes:
- If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
- Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.
--UTRSBot (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Spi case
Why don't you (and others) check this case? : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. I have shown many proofs with diffs. I hope you do not tell me that it is "stale". Because I have pinged many checkusers but nobody cared it, unfortunately. It is an ongoing vandalism,for at least 1-2 years. I hope you could stop it. 46.221.187.97 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, @Barek:, @PhilKnight:; it would be nice, if you read the current and previous cases and do the necessary (range block for physical ips and indefinite block for proxies). Because it seems that the editor obviously not here to build an encylopedia. Kind regards. 46.221.187.97 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Well, it was not filed correctly, so it doesn't have the templates required for the SPI bots to see it and list it, so this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps you should compare it to one of the open cases to see what is missing and make the necessary corrections. I've been busy all day today, so I'm not inclined to even look at it tonight, to be honest. —DoRD (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm..thanks. Actually i copied the previous case and just re-filed it. I did not open a new case, since i thought that it was not the first case regarding the same editor. Anyway, thank you. At least, you have explained the problem. 46.221.160.180 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The range block thing
Hi, DoRD. Re the range block thing on Widr's page: I get a big kick out of rangeblocking IPv6 ranges, because it's not what I expect of myself; usually my role is the helpless little old lady asking the techies for help while crocheting an antimacassar, kind of thing — but ha, I do rangeblocks! (And because it makes me feel useful. There's really not much point in blocking IPv6 addresses one by one.) My understanding of what I do is superficial, though, and I would like to improve it. So, a) how do you see what customer the /64 is assigned to (I didn't know, I just knew that it's 99% likely to be one customer) and b) how did you find the blocked single addresses? If you don't mind explaining these things, I'd appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC).
- I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I've learned a few things through my CU work, and perhaps one of my more knowledgeable talk page stalkers will have something to add. Anyway, most traditional (cable, DSL, etc.) ISPs, particularly in North America, assign a /64 to each subscriber, so it's usually safe to assume that the range belongs to one residence or organization. However, for wireless ranges, the /64 rule of thumb doesn't hold true because devices can be assigned nearly any address out of the full range belonging to the ISP. But you probably already knew that part. As for finding the single blocks, I ran a check of the range to see if there were any accounts on it (there weren't) and noticed the existing blocks. The CU results also helped me to determine that the range was one subscriber because the user agent strings were all pretty much the same. The blocked addresses could probably have been found by clicking on each IP's contributions in the list, too, but that route would be a bit unwieldy in cases where the address changes frequently. —DoRD (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My talkpage brouhaha
Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm assuming that these are OSOW and TTAAC going at one another, and I'm seeing this sort of behavior across multiple articles. Is the answer here to just RBI? Thanks, GABgab 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's a rather unfortunate situation, sadly. OSOW may have made some useful contributions, but in the end, is little more than a troll, and RBI is going to be my response when I see him.
I'm disappointed that TTAAC has resorted to socking, though.—DoRD (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) - Well. After looking at the available evidence, GAB, it appears that I jumped to conclusions, because it seems that TheTimesAreAChanging is an ongoing victim of a OSOW joe job. My apologies, TTAAC. —DoRD (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)