Misplaced Pages

User talk:AmandaNP

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rybec (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 2 September 2013 (→Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277: reply to Reaper Eternal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:48, 2 September 2013 by Rybec (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277: reply to Reaper Eternal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Nominate someone to receive a DeltaQuad Award today!

Misplaced Pages:Babel
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.
es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
Search user languages

User:DeltaQuad/Menu

User:DeltaQuad/StatusTemplate User:DeltaQuad/Templates/Off and On WikiBreak

Contact information
  • Email: Email me (Email rules)
  • IRC: @wikipedia/DeltaQuad, under nicks similar to DeltaQuad or FAdmArcher. (See IRC channel at the top for my home)
Archives

User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives

Poop patrol

Hi DQ, any chance of a poop patrol run in time for this weekend? ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the run, but I think it fell over mid way and only did half the queries. Any chance of another, perhaps more complete run? ϢereSpielChequers 00:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking into things, it appears it completed the full run. I can do another one for you, but would like to diagnose any issues before I start it again. Could you point out the issue? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, yes about half the queries were not run, including pubic and staring. ϢereSpielChequers 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing any errors last time. I've set it to run again, and log the output to a file for later reading if there seems to be an issue again. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi DQ that run stopped after 18 queries, and the previous one after 16. the good news is that they were different queries so if you keep running it we will eventually get a full run. My suspicion is that labs has some limit that the program reached. ϢereSpielChequers 09:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Despite what other sources say, this is still TS. It's been having several issues coping with the increased load (not by me) and the internet failing. If I read correctly, I think that is the issue. It's probably time I do a full run from labs. You ok with a full run now? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. ϢereSpielChequers 09:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, she's running now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, the extension to template space is now working well, thanks for that improvement. But it stopped after 20 queries, that's certainly enough to keep me busy for a day or two, but it is still only running a few queries per run. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi DQ ready when you are for the next run. If it is now limited to about twenty queries per run, would it be possible to up the maximum size of each exception report from 50 to 100? ϢereSpielChequers 11:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I just wanted to let you know about this SPI, since you were involved the previous time. Thanks. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Beachsand2004. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to second Rschen7754's call diffs please. Being previously on a case does not mean I remember it well enough to look for what I need in two minutes and be able to run a check. Frankly, I barely remember anything about this case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL, ok. It looks like socks of socks of socks. Beachsand = Thegoods666 = Beachball1234 = Laughing lion of loudness = Time to see the zoo. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM (gm)

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-03

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Biker Biker

Hi! Can you please comment on the above case? --Rschen7754 08:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recommendation sounds good. The only point of the SPI was to disclose the improper use of the accounts. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 08:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
At this point is he required to disclose the accounts on his userpage, or is the SPI sufficient? --Rschen7754 08:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot question

Looking at UAA right now, I see that there are numerous users for which a responding admin has left the "wait until the user edits" template. Is there any way that the bot could be given the task of checking the contributions of such users and leaving a note as soon as the first edit has been made? Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is already a flag, that if added to the black list, will wait till the user has one edit. Example ;(\b)anal(\b):WAIT_TILL_EDIT currently has the wait till edit flag. If you add that to an entry, it will be held at User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-10

LisaBot

When you have a second could you pls check my access to Lisa ? I can't get any commands to work. Thanx, Mlpearc (powwow) 14:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor ‎ (CU results)

May I ask what is going on at Jackadvisor? Your CU results were posted there for 1.5 hours and then deleted and hidden by an admin . Another admin came along and closed the RfC at Eugene Plotkin and moved the page to the nonsense name suggested by Factchecker25, and then locked it up for 3 months. This all seems backwards to me - shouldn't the CU results be posted and then we can decide about the RfC? Any clarification or help would be appreciated. I'll notify User:Obiwankenobi and User:DoRD of this conversation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

as I posted at the close, the results of the sockpuppet investigation would not have changed my close, which was not based on # of votes, but rather the quality of the arguments, and no-one had a better name that was used in RS than the Reebok one. Rest assured this was not a majority vote. I don't know anything about the results of the CU, or why they were revdel'd but this is usually done for a good reason that admins can't/won't reveal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Within that first 1.5 hours after I posted the investigation, I received confidential information that could affect the results of the investigation. I also got another CU to remove the results, because they possibly contained, indirectly, personal information. The investigation is still in progress, so please bear with me. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Having dealt with sockpuppets at that page for a long time now, I can certainly imagine what happened after a certain type of result. I've been very patient and will remain so, but would like to be informed if anything new happens. I'd like to ask you to be very careful in evaluating any claims made by people close to the sockpuppet case. In the underlying criminal case, there are several convicted con-men, that is people convicted in a US court of fraud - theft by deception - which is what insider trading is (and not just in a technical legal sense). So if you are possibly dealing with one of these people, please don't just assume that he or she is telling the truth - please check it out in detail.
I also have to say that I have been the subject of personal attacks at that page multiple times. Nearly every one of these sockpuppets has accused me of having a COI, without any proof or even stating what the COI might be, but the upshot seems to be that "they" are accusing me of being David Pacjin. If that is of any concern to you, please just e-mail me from my user-page and I can disprove that immediately (faster than you can imagine).
Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in processing this. I have restored part of the original result, the other part will have to wait until I hear back from someone, given it's in a reasonable time. I also don't take statements at face value when it comes to sockpuppets, and I always evaluate the claims, though I can't reveal how for obvious reasons. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Teramo

Hi DQ, whenever you have time can you please check out the page. Attilios, a user you have already blocked in the past, has stricken again by reverting the page to his personal version...as usual. Thank you DDF19483 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello DQ. I've left a notice for DDF19483 that he may be indefinitely blocked if he continues to make large changes at Teramo without getting consensus on talk. Such a block could be lifted whenever he agrees to follow policy. Please comment if you have an opinion. I'm notifying you because I see that DDF19483 leaves messages for you occasionally. There was a previous discussion on your talk at User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2012/May#Teramo. I have to admit that there is a temptation to block both editors, but DDF is the one who is being more outrageous at the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

I've been working on User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets with the goal of moving into meta space soon. Basically a guide for newish users that covers the basics, written in a style any editor can understand. Your input on the page/talk page is welcomed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

166.70.0.0/16

Can you look at this range again? It appears that Xmission ( http://xmission.com/ ) offers DSL services in that range. I've got an unblock request from 166.70.226.106 on UTRS.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see two tor exit nodes, which could both be well-blocked by hitting them with 166.70.15.0/24 and 166.70.207.0/30. A quick spot check didn't turn up any other obvious proxies. So I'd recommend reducing the range. Definitely some legit DSL contributors hit by the rangeblock. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Changed per recommendations above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you missed blocking 166.70.15.0/24, which has at least one active tor exit node. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WhiteWriter 12:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-24

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Sorry...

...I know you're swamped with emails, however I do have an unblock on hold pending an email I sent you on the 10th. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ping--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must have been reading your email late at night and marked it read. How I missed seeing this on my talkpage...I don't even know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a tendency to fly under the radar at times...Thanks for your help (again)! --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

ACC

Hi DQ, Elockid would like you to have a look at this request. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OPP bot

Hey DeltaQuad - did anything ever come of your note here regarding a bot for OPP?--Jezebel'sPonyo 21:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Might of, but if anything did it got lost in my last computer reformat a long time ago. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okie dokie. I may get around to dumping all the old closed entries in the archive. But today is Friday, and the weather on the Westerly end of this great country of ours is fab, it will have to wait for another day. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Maurice07: One IP is not enough

Hi DQ. Sorry for disturbing you but if/when you have any time please see this new SPI of Maurice. Thank you. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  22:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad, Dr's recent baseless claims really broke my nerves. He claimed that every action made by me. I see it as a personal revenge. I also wonder what the reason and sent message your talk page but it immediately deleted after five minutes. Not spoken to him in anyway unfortunately. He claims that the IP numbers of the same address. This is really ridiculous. I prove this with a few examples. They are found in the history of some of the articles. Look at:

All IP changes and Dr's claims of IP's were made in Turk Telekom.It's internet access provider in Istanbul and 14 million people live here. Check it: and . The doctor labeled IP addresses, it full of contradictions. For exple: 78.184.196.148 is Istanbul-based but 78.184.244.26 Tekirdağ-based How is known from same building? According to the theory of the Dr.K all of these IP addresses and edits belong to me. While there is no concrete evidence, a user can not blame. I'm banned of Greek-Turkish topic banned, aware of it but I don't think that the user being objective. Thank you. Maurice (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sierraparis or Erythema checkuser results

Hi, DeltaQuad. I had noticed that the colloidal silver pages were a lot less noisy lately, but I didn't realize that Ryanspir had been blocked as a prolific sockpuppet until just a few minutes ago. Looking at that case, it appears that a couple of weeks ago someone flagged Sierraparis (talk · contribs) and Erythema (talk · contribs) as potential socks for a check. Neither came up as related to Ryanspir, but you did make an offhand mention that one of them had a second account that did not – at the time – appear to be in violation of the sockpuppet policy: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanspir/Archive#11 July 2013.

As of a few hours ago, Erythema was topic-banned from medical pages, and Sierraparis cautioned: . Obviously I don't know to whom the second account belonged, how recently it was used, what topics it edited, or – most important – whether or not it belongs to the editor who was topic-banned or just the one who was cautioned. Either way, I suppose, the use of the alternate account for editing medical topics would be problematic, whether as an outright violation of the topic ban, or as evasion of scrutiny.

Can you keep an eye on the situation, and issue any cautions necessary? Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say this exact same thing, with diffs and links and everything! So... what Ten said. Thanks... Zad68 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching for activity for the past few days, and neither of the accounts that matched have edited in the past three days (3 days used for ambiguity). While I note the restriction, the user has not violated that sanction or the sockpuppetry policy directly as I see it. So at this point, I'll just keep an eye on it as best as I can. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-07-29

User:Dragon Rap221

Please unblock user:Dragon Rap221 I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The only point in which I could see you being blocked right now, is if you were not logged in, and also using your IP to contribute, contrary to the sockpuppetry policy. Therefore I do not know what to unblock, or why I should unblock it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Zhaofeng Li 08:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC) 



Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail! 
 It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. 
 Ronhjones  20:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)



The Signpost: 14 August 2013










The Signpost: 21 August 2013










checkuser needed category


"Randomly came across"? Here I thought I had summoned you. Doesn't anyone monitor the category created by {{checkuser needed}} any more?—Kww(talk) 04:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)



I personally don't and I doubt other CUs do. I mean we have stuff from 2011 in there. I think I was just reviewing an expired list on CAT:UNBLOCK. Mostly of why I don't is because it's just another (unmaintained) list to check. I already have ACC, SPI, CU-L, IRC, functionaries-en, and private emails. That's not including UTRS or CAT:UNBLOCK which i'm inactive at. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That picked up all the tlx usages and the ones with |done=yes. Category:Requests for checkuser is empty. Still, if no one is looking, I guess no one is looking. That's a shame: it used to be handy for unblock requests like that one.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)



The Signpost: 28 August 2013










Mail


Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail! 
 It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Cailil   21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277


Please explain your actions. —rybec 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)



A lot of the clerks/CUs are of the opinion that we should just let them win, because we just cannot handle their paid editing. I personally disagree with that, and think that doing something is better than doing nothing. However, I would agree that SPI is just not set up to handle something like this, and that maybe we can still work on this in a userspace page or something. The original plan was that I was going to get CU and then work on this, but since some members of ArbCom seem to have disagreed with that idea.... we're stuck with this. --Rschen7754 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, DeltaQuad closed and archived, without giving a reason, all the outstanding reports on Morning277. I'm asking for an explanation of that. —rybec 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not directly providing a reason there, I didn't feel it was the proper place. I was going to come to your talkpage and notify you when I was done fixing the clerking aspect, but you beat me to it. Personally, my opinion is not that we should let them "win", and I doubt that is how my colleagues think also. I never want people who disrupt Misplaced Pages to win. As I've been talking over with several other checkusers, this has become a very large meatpuppet case. We do not have the power given by the community to 1) CU meatpuppets 2) massively block them without some sort of major disruption. Therefore SPI is not equipped to deal with such cases. With that said, I thank you for all the effort you put in, and if you feel there are still cases that are valid sock cases, you can return them to the SPI page as long as they meet the conditions outlined, so that we are actually targeting socks and not meatpuppets. This is not in any way to try and waste all your hard work. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My requests for check-user attention have been rare: fewer than five, I would say. A check-user request can be declined without closing the report, let alone dozens of reports that did not even have check-user requests in them. As for your second concern, posting hundreds of articles in defiance of a ban isn't disruptive? That's an astonishing assertion.


The activity I have been reporting is described in the first two sentences of WP:SOCK: 
The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry  Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.
 It is an attempt by a group of users who have been banned to post material in spite of the ban. WP:SPI was the appropriate forum for enforcement of WP:SOCK, which does encompass abuse such as this, not merely instances involving a single person. —rybec 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)



As one of the "clerks/CUs  are of the opinion that we should just let them win", I do not feel we are letting them "win". Simply put, from my spot checks, they are almost all utterly Red X Unrelated to each other. (I had them in many countries all over the world.) While paid editing makes many editors angry at the paid editors, it is not banned on the English Misplaced Pages. Most of the recent articles have actually been relatively decently sourced and NPOV. Additionally, the sock puppetry policy does not permit us to block editors solely because they work writing contracts for a banned sockpuppeteer.


However, if you discover accounts violating the sock puppetry policy, feel free to add them back to the case and point out the inappropriate behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry policy covers attempts to evade bans and avoid scrutiny. Hiring people all around the world to make throwaway accounts and repost deleted material obviously falls under that. While paid editing per se is allowed, this particular group of paid editors has been banned by the community. The proper way to allow this company to post to Misplaced Pages would be to first get its ban lifted, not what you're doing here. —rybec 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)