This user is an administrator, oversighter and checkuser.
This user has a bot (inactive)
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
User language
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français.
Users by language

To leave me a message, click this link

Help request from Marathi Wikipedia[edit]


In July 2014 after a discussion with User:Nemo_bis Marathi Wikipedia local file upload was made sysop only and other users are directed to commons. since Jan to June period there are lot of Marathi language and Marathi Wikipedia celebrations and to get a emotional connect photothon events are arranged so Marathi Wikipedia wants to make it flexible for a specific time span Jan to June and allow local file upload from Jan to June. I want your support in filining a relevant bug at Phabricator (I have not been able to log in there at learning phabricator related aspects for me will take longer time . Actually I made the same request to User:Nemo_bis on his meta talk page he seems to be active but not responding may be he is busy in some other activities). Local discussion page on Marathi Wikipedia for your ref

Looking forward to your kind support

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What you are desiring is nothing to do with stewards, either in design or implementation, so my support or otherwise is moot. If your community desires to have uploads, that would be a decision by consensus, followed by a phabricator request, nothing more, nothing less. I would suggest that your licensing templates would be worthwhile getting right ahead of that time. There is currently a project running on meta that can give you assistance if you need it. Good luck with your deliberations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you now realize[edit]

who the real disruptor is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That is nasty and unworthy. You didn't like it when others made such comments about you, so you should know to not make them about others. While you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean that it should be shared, and especially not on my talk page.
The community debates don't get degenerate due to one person. The community needs to try consensus, not make their community project a debating forum, where an individual is a winner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I've never asked that any account be globally locked. Maybe you missed Cirt manipulating checkusers on Wikipedia to block Miszatomic there, based on behavior on wikis other than Wikipedia. Maybe you also missed Cirt blocking him on all wikis where he (Cirt) is an admin. Doesn't this abuse of power make you sick? Maybe not... ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't said you did. You appeared here with a snarky comment, and I responded.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to take your advice[edit]

Billinghurst, I am trying to take your advice.

I've taken direct actions based on your advice.

You've asked me to provide evidence.

I've provided evidence and DIFF links.

You've asked me to use community processes.

I've voluntarily taken the initiative to start those community processes.

Please understand that I do wish to listen to you and hear your advice.

But I do also think that these accounts are related, and since the former is stale (last edit from 2007), we need to use behavioral evidence and DIFF links to compare it to the latter.

-- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You see the words, but you don't actually listen. Take a moment and stop, read, listen, and think. You are running around trying to get someone globally locked contra to the policy. You have not allowed this person to make their case, or to dispute your commentary. You simply have blocked them out and are making accusations based on circumstance. I try to give you guidance, and ask you to be more gentle and think of the community, and progress this matter fairly. I don't see it. Let people talk, let people comment. That everyone wishes to debate point by point, is completely unhelpful. At this point of time, I see rush, and with righteousness. Please put your fairness hat on, and think how you would like to be treated, or you would like a friend to be treated in such a case.
You know that I do not like vandalism. You know that I don't like abuse of the system. You know that I try to be fair. There is investigative process and data analysis under way. The community is safe, just let process flow.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"You know that I do not like vandalism. You know that I don't like abuse of the system. You know that I try to be fair. There is investigative process and data analysis under way." Thank you, Billinghurst, I'm glad to hear you say these things. I agree with you. I'll try to take your advice. Thank you and good luck with the investigative process and data analysis under way, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Two more data points for your investigative process and data analysis = one and two. Hope that's helpful information, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Locations all over the place?[edit]

How is this user able to hop all around the world like this?

Is this related?

May I file a different, separate Checkuser request for this activity?

-- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that a checkuser request is going to help? Those are the respective IP addresses of anonymous user(s), there is no further secret information. Never completely trust IP reverse DNS, or IP data information sources to be accurate for geo-location.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I just thought it was a worthwhile idea, is all. Worthy of looking into for further investigation. But those above IP addresses and the behavior pattern involved show they are all controlled by the same individual, quite likely. It'd be nice to have more active Checkuser investigation at Wikiquote to cut down on this sort of vandalism and disruption and socking, which we unfortunately have quite a bit of at Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have undertaken a review of the vandalism at enWQ, and commented as such, and at this point the investigation is continuing. You know quite well from your time as a checkuser that it just converts usernames to IP addresses, and it is not a magic bullet. As said, the investigation is continuing, and jumping to conclusions and rushing to decisions is not helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't. But if you look at the contributions from the above listed links, we at the Wikiquote community are certainly getting weary of that sort of vandalism, whoever it's coming from. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Understand, and from my initial investigation, we would be hitting a large ranges of a mobile telephone provider, that is dynamic ranges, and also a different large broadband provider over several ranges, and uncertain on whether static or dynamic. I haven't run collateral damage checks, nor conversed specifically with other CU to see how they are managing this vandal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. It is most confusing how they are able to appear from those locations all over the globe linked, above. -- Cirt (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure of your data set and not sure that I need to be. This is irrelevant to the analysis that I have undertaken, and I don't need to explain single IP contributions, nor need to. On their own they are symptomatic, not necessarily diagnostic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Example of one of our ongoing problems on Wikiquote = please see here, please, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant socking at this user talk page, disrupting the page, and driving that user talk page to need to be semi-protected. We need help investigating stuff like that. It could indeed be separate from other recent socking investigations, or not. But it'd certainly be helpful perhaps to get a few blocks of those folks, and IPs, and sock accounts, and perhaps even rangeblocks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If a community has ongoing vandal issues and account blocking alone is insufficient, then IP range blocks can be investigated. The place for that is SRUC and stewards look for ranges, and any collateral damage. Situation normal. I have data for enWQ about the vandal, we have the technology to make that data available to stewards, and in this case, I need to check for collateral damage if blocks are imposed. There also needs to be a process for enWQ to handle cases of collateral damage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That linked to Steward requests/Username changes, do you mean a different page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Tyslop. You know the page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: You have at least two different xwiki vandals at the moment. I think that you need a change of approach. Just quietly stomp them with no fuss. Don't name them, just use LTA and move on. I think that the process of use like enWP is just giving them a scorecard approach. Every time you all jump up and run around they get their jollies. Have a general discussion in your admin channels that allows all administrators to be able to refer your known vandals to stewards with a standing permission, and a permalink to the discussion. Most of these xwiki vandals we can stomp pretty quickly once we see them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've used rangeblocks in the past quite effectively, and perhaps combined with key phrases from AbuseFilter, but the rangeblocks in a targeted fashion were able to quiet everything down for up to a year I think I recall. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
For example, with this set of IP addresses listed here, there's quite a few that are correlated in a tight area, going back a significant period of time on Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have undertaken CU checks based on the data that I have seen from the Miszatomic case, and applied some local blocks. It is going to take a while to weed out the whole sockfarm that he has built over the years. Some is going to get through but we can just keep hitting it quietly, slowing it down and paring out the data. I will think about whether addressing his ISP or telco will be of value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very very much. Any rangeblocks would be most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


It should be easy to find the first edit where the vandal claimed his password was "Zarbon", if you can see deleted pages. I'm almost sure he said it when creating a user page for one of his socks, which was then deleted. Unfortunately I can't see deleted edits, but if you can, just look at the edits from the vandals blocked around 15–16 January and I believe you will find it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me do my job my way, if that is okay.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at your comments on Wikipedia, and just saw this. Is "Salvidrim!" a checkuser, or is he just very incompetent? How did he know it was "block evasion" and not a troll pretending to be M? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I will deal with the crosswiki implications as I have time. Those communities are self-managing and accountable for their actions. People can make whatever statements they like respective, or irrespective, of the facts and the circumstances. An evidence base, not jumping to conclusions, and acting mindfully usually bring the best results in my experience.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work clearing this up. I'll just insist once more, that I don't believe User:Mizsatomic (blocked for alleged "block evasion") is the actual Miszatomic. The account was not checked (and apparently "Salvidrim!" didn't get your point). ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
enWP is not a stewards' territory, and as an admin there it is of no consequence to me if a sock is blocked. If it is our little treasure, then it will show up among other searches. At this stage it is noise and seems unimportant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, it was just unblocked. It may cause Miszatomic to be blocked again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Which bit of "enWP is not part of steward's territory" is unclear? People are blocked and unblocked at enWP all the time, and there exists a process to appeal a block. I do not see that this case is now different. Previously, I had data gathered as part of an investigation that gave me a different view of that case, and that view I expressed, nothing more, nothing less. Take off your cape, and put your undies on under your clothes. 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Hello Dear, Please block user Jagroto net [1] spamming.Regards Grind24 (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Please put all future requests at SRG.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Grind24 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #143[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #144[edit]


Good morning! Thanks for warning us about crosswiki spamming on "Τζαουάντ Ραμαζανιού". Article is now locked, as proposed. Thanks again! --Ttzavaras (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. --Ttzavaras (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts[edit]

On why the bot seems to be ignoring me? --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, maybe helpful, though not resolutionary in itself ...

[22:24] <sDrewth> rights Herbythyme
[22:25] <COIBot> Herbythyme is not found in any of the trusted groups: sysop, bot, bureaucrat, rollbacker, founder, steward, checkuser, editor, reviewer, staff
[22:25] <sDrewth> rights Billinghurst

[22:25] <COIBot> Billinghurst is sysop on w:en, s:en, meta; steward on meta; checkuser on s:en, meta; reviewer on s:la
Need to talk to Beetstra about why it isn't identifying your rights. I will add you to the settings file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Herbythyme:Edited the file, try again.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Weird - I'd been through the mental process that I was a sysop and therefore didn't need to be "added". Appreciated --Herby talk thyme 11:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You should have come here earlier, I could have told you were mental. Re rights, that is reality versus design and time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Mental - pot - kettle. Anyhow there is nothing to suggest any great activity in the reports however at a quick look through there is some evidence of collusion/planning in that a number of domains resolve to the same IPs. It is certainly possible (...) that a hosting IP had been used to create the accounts. Worth keeping an eye on I think. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Mental - at best you are not losing distance on my lead. The IPs are trackable through COIBot's work (reverse links), and the community could also look to the logic that is in place for enWP's revertlist which allows a rollback based on base IP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #145[edit]


Hi! Back in July 2012, you have globally locked this user. The only edit of theirs I can find is a single live edit on enwiki, creating w:en:American Standard International School of Dhaka (although they may have deleted edits on projects where I am not admin). Now, they have sent UTRS appeal #13196 (which you should have access to), and it seems mostly reasonable (COI edits can be dealt with locally if need be), and I was wondering if there were circumstances I am not aware of that led to the global block? Otherwise, what do you think about a potential unlocking of the account? Thanks in advance! Salvidrim! 05:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: July 2012? <shrug> I don't remember last week. I have unlocked the account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, You can protect my personal and talk pages[2] in perpetuity?--6AND5 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 6AND5, Usually we wont act if there are active local admins. If you want i can forward this request to a local admin.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #146[edit]

Masking changes[edit]

Hello Billinghurst, I need your assistance. Could you please mask 3 earliest edits on my talk page on EN Wiki. It's for privacy reasons. Since probably I won't be unblocked yet, I have nobody to ask for help. Thanks in advance. --Munja (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Munjanes: I don't have authority to undertake standard oversight at English Wikipedia. Please see the request process and the email request address at w:Wikipedia:Oversight.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)