→Please read: fmt |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 340: | Line 340: | ||
::You seek to minimize a complete and permanent emergency ban with absolutely no discussion, and no good reason for the ban to be emergency, as a simple mistake. The fact that it was an emergency ban with no prior discussion, even though I was obviously not being disruptive, is why I believe, yess still believe, it was malicious. Why else the emergency? Why else the complete lack of discussion even after the ban? Oh, right, ''you sent me emails'' that I magically didn't get, which ''is in no way your fault''. Just another mistake I guess. But what mistake can possibly be more destructive? What, prey tell, is not a simple mistake then? How many is too many for you to step down? For you to be removed? How many? How many good editors must never be heard from again? [[User:Int21h|Int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]]) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
::You seek to minimize a complete and permanent emergency ban with absolutely no discussion, and no good reason for the ban to be emergency, as a simple mistake. The fact that it was an emergency ban with no prior discussion, even though I was obviously not being disruptive, is why I believe, yess still believe, it was malicious. Why else the emergency? Why else the complete lack of discussion even after the ban? Oh, right, ''you sent me emails'' that I magically didn't get, which ''is in no way your fault''. Just another mistake I guess. But what mistake can possibly be more destructive? What, prey tell, is not a simple mistake then? How many is too many for you to step down? For you to be removed? How many? How many good editors must never be heard from again? [[User:Int21h|Int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]]) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::You were blocked, not banned, and it has since been lifted, let's keep that factor straight. Yes, you were emergency blocked by me. I understand you were frustrated with the block, and I don't blame you for your language used, and I'm not asking for an apology, nor have I asked for one in the past. There was a private discussion off-wiki with other CheckUsers in which ANY checkuser here on enwiki had the ability to review. I got three others to certify the results and two of those three to agree to an emergency block (they all agreed to a block if answers didn't satisfy), and then I made the block. I have not persecuted others, and that's another attack at me, but your still upset with me, so i'll let that go. All blocks I make are with reason justified under Wikipedia Policy, and the moment different light comes to, I reverse it. I do not seek to minimize it, I just seek to have a civil discussion if you wish, and no, civil is not going after my flags and the rest of ArbCom's positions. I'm not going to force you to believe anything, I'll let you come to your own conclusions. Also, the email I did send in reply is pasted below this thread and I can give you exact technical information about it. It was a disruptive mistake to your editing, I will absolutely agree with that. I will not however resign my flags unless I or my fellow CheckUser'''s''' or a good chunk of administrators agree that my opinion and judgement are clouded to the point where I can't hold an objective opinion. Again, you can still believe what you wish, I'm not forcing anything on you. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]] [[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue">(ʞlɐʇ)</font>]] 07:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Email}} |
|||
<poem> |
|||
From: DeltaQuad Wikipedia <address@removed.com> |
|||
To: Int21h <address@removed.com> |
|||
Date: Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:13:43 -0500 |
|||
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail |
|||
Just so you know, I have unblocked your account an left an apology on your talkpage. |
|||
DeltaQuad |
|||
English Wikipedia Administrator and Checkuser |
|||
</poem> |
|||
{{cob}} |
Revision as of 07:51, 27 February 2013
Wikipedia:Babel | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Search user languages |
User:DeltaQuad/Menu
User:DeltaQuad/StatusTemplate
User:DeltaQuad/Templates/Off and On WikiBreak
Contact information
|
---|
|
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)
- Ok, she's running now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. ϢereSpielChequers 09:51, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks, yes about half the queries were not run, including pubic and staring. ϢereSpielChequers 01:23, 31 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)
- The limit given by the software is 100, and I still don't know what it's catching on. I'll watch it now as I launch it for another run. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Committee invitation
Hi, I would like to invite you to apply to join the IEG Advisory Committee on Meta. --Pine✉ 09:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
bugzilla 32234
Has there been any discussions onwiki about bugzilla:32234 - it appears to have languished a very long time. We probably need to nudge the shell group. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't know the devs had turned down my view of consensus there. :/ That's disappointing, but I agree with others that they might of just tl;dr'd it too much and/or seen it wrong. Since the original discussion, I don't remember anything else onwiki, but then again, I haven't been glued to watching for any new discussions on it. 05:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- See User_talk:This, that and the other#bug_32234. Looks like your consensus decision cant be implemented. it is however a good decision imo. --John Vandenberg (chat) 07:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Over there I suggested using AbuseFilter for the purpose. Have you done any AbuseFilter configuration? Can you see any problems with implementing it that way? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have done limited abuse filter configuration, I don't see any immediate problem, but i'd have to look into it to be sure. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've created an edit filter and it has a hit; see TTO's talk page for details. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have done limited abuse filter configuration, I don't see any immediate problem, but i'd have to look into it to be sure. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Over there I suggested using AbuseFilter for the purpose. Have you done any AbuseFilter configuration? Can you see any problems with implementing it that way? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Reactivation of ACC account
I would like to have my ACC account reactivated. Please help. Jab843 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jab843, I was just writing you an email about this (because of your IRC message). Since you are in good standing with the community, identified to the WMF foundation and are returning from inactivity, I have approved your ACC account. Please take a read through Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide to familiarize yourself with ACC and Wikipedia policies and take a tour around the ACC interface to make yourself comfortable with some of the changes that have been made since you have helped here. I look forward to working with you. -- Cheers, Riley 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response! What is the new procedure for the IRC as it would not let me join, look forward to hearing from you, as always you can email me at the address associated with the ACC account! Hope you are having a great day! Jab843 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- For privacy reasons, #wikipedia-en-accounts (the ACC channel) has been made private. To get into the channel, you have to be invited in and have be identified to NickServ (see here to find out how). Once you register (or already have), just join #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg and ping me (type "Riley"). :) -- Cheers, Riley 22:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response! What is the new procedure for the IRC as it would not let me join, look forward to hearing from you, as always you can email me at the address associated with the ACC account! Hope you are having a great day! Jab843 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed Sockpuppet investigations
Hi DeltaQuad, I came across another sock for the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakaisinai7/Archive User:Blainesam. What's the procedure for monitoring this? -SFK2 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)It is sometimes possible to report very obvious sockpuppets to WP:AIV, but usually you would go to WP:SPI and enter a new report for this user (use the form provided).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The account above is already blocked as a sock, or is there another account? If you're just talking about adding the account to the SPI case, since the user is tagged as a sock, it isn't really necessary. —DoRD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
UAA-SPI
Not a problem ... just doing my job and letting others do theirs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, just thought I would let you know why I reverted you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 January 2013
- In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention
- Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics
- WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess
- Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests
- News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate
- Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012
- Arbitration report: Doncram continues
- Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Block of User:RoTi37
I'm a little worried that the block of User:RoTi37 will just make things worse, especially since the other editor surpassed the three-revert limit himself, but wasn't blocked. I was trying to offer some ideas at Talk:Jonas Valančiūnas and get some other people involved. RoTi37 actually was commenting there, but now he won't be able to.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer some thoughts. I don't agree with RoTi37's methods, but there is some merit to his arguments. Zagalejo^^^ 07:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, DQ, I've looked a bit at the issues here, including the report filed at WP:ANEW by User:Duhon. After looking first at the history of the article without looking at the user history, my immediate reaction was to block both editors as they both violated 3RR. Only one comment by Zagalejo I don't get is that User:RoTi37 "did leave the last edit to the article alone". I don' believe that's acccurate; the last editor to revert was RoTi37. I'm not crazy about an unblock request that doesn't expressly acknowledge fault but blames the blocking admin for not blocking "the other guy", but in this instance, there is some merit to it.
- There are a few alternatives available at this point. One would be to reduce RoTi's block to 24 hours and block Duhon for 24 hours. Another would be to unblock RoTi and issue stern warnings to both editors, essentially prohibiting them from editing the article for a period of time to avoid a block. Another would be to unblock RoTi and lock the article - I don't see that it matters which version is locked in - there's no content policy breach to worry about here. Looks to me like you may have gone off-wiki since blocking RoTi, so you're blissfully (smile) unaware of Zagalejo's and my comments. I'm not going to take any action right this moment.
- As an aside, based on a quick glance at the two editors, there may be enough to support RoTi's allegation that Duhon is a sock. That doesn't, of course, excuse RoTi's behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify something: RoTi37 held back on reverting DaHuzyBru's last edit, even though that restored what Duhon was trying to say. I saw that as a bit of progress. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have blocked either one at that point, since I wanted to keep the talk page discussion moving forward. I might have fully protected the article, because neither version was blatantly wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi guys, thanks for your comments. I have looked things over and didn't realize at the time that he had held back from reverting DaHuzyBru's edits, as I thought it was a direct revert of this edit. Even with that though, I still feel the block was correct. As an admin, I can't stick on one side of the argument or the other when using my tools. I gave fair warning that more reverting would result in blocking for not just him, but also notified the other party with the exact same warning. Despite this, he continued on to edit war. The reason why I didn't block both of them at first is because neither were warned about the possibility of blocking, and it would have been unfair imo, to just go and block both. I didn't protect the page either as it was just these two editors warring over the one part (as I saw it at the time, now there are obviously 3 involved). There was no point in admin protecting it, and stopping all editors from editing when it was just the two of them. Since it's now pointed out to me that he did exercise some restraint I willing to unblock him on the condition that he seeks consensus before continuing to revert. Again, I still feel that the original block was justified, because he did continue to edit war, but for the sake of allowing him to discuss, I'm willing to let him contribute. Also for the record, I did not see the ANEW report, I don't have AN boards on my watchlist at all, I originally came across the issue at RFPP and watchlisted the page.
- As for socks being possibly being involved, that hasn't been proven, and no blocks have been issued, and it's not immediately obvious its a sock, so I can't factor that into the edit warring. Any thing to do with socking should be brought up at SPI, and I will deal with it there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I now understand what Zagalejo meant (thanks). DQ, thanks for listening. I agree the block was justified based on what you knew and the history. I too don't like warning someone and then not following through. Anyway, let's hope that both editors behave. I haven't decided whether I'm going to file an SPI report. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify something: RoTi37 held back on reverting DaHuzyBru's last edit, even though that restored what Duhon was trying to say. I saw that as a bit of progress. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have blocked either one at that point, since I wanted to keep the talk page discussion moving forward. I might have fully protected the article, because neither version was blatantly wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You should file an SPI report on Duhon and Brodey. Just checking the contribs of both users for five minutes I found this:
-both had an intense interest in Hollywood North between June 11 and June 12 2011
-both had made edits to Estella Warren on 10 June 2011
-beginning in May 2006 both had began an interest in Stephen Colbert
-on 17 January 2013 Brodey edits the Mexican-American War and on 18 January 2013 Duhon edits the Texas annexation
-24-25 July 2012 Duhon undoes edits to Beatrice Rosen 4 times within 24 hours, and on 27 July 2012 Brodey edits Beatrice Rosen 3 times
-I bring up Enes Kanter's height and weight listings on Wikipedia and how they are not congruent with his NBA profile on the Valanciunas Talk page on 20:34 30 January 2013 to Duhon, and at 22:01 30 January 2013 Brodey changes Enes Kanter's height and weight to match his NBA profile.
-in 2006, both Duhon and Brodey seemed to be concerned with the cleaning up of "lingo" on Borat Sagdiyev.
This is five minutes of random looking for suspicious congruences. I'm sure if you file an SPI, and scrutinize closely you'll find that there are a lot more dating back 7 years. This is just some proof that there is some substance to the sock suspicion. RoTi37 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is not our job to file SPIs for you. If you want an SPI filed, then that's your job. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
NickCochrane SPI
Hi DQ. Thank you for your diligent work in this SPI. In the NickCochrane SPI, User:Pburka has suspicions that NickCochrane might actually be User:Yohowithrum, a user who was blocked for multiple account violations. Both accounts have remarkably similar article interests and the NickCochrane actually deleted comments about the now-blocked Yohowithrum's COI.[1] Cochrane's account was created soon after Yohowithrum was blocked. Can you possibly do a CU on this account? I put it up in the SPI . Thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I took a look at this when I ran the original check, the evidence is quite flaky. The best I could give you is a meatpuppet but i'm not even sure about that. That's why I didn't include him in my results. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Daft SPI – URGENT
Okay, thanks for your advice. Given that I have been one of the two main targets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft in the past (see the archive), can you please accept my assurance that this guy Cdomm is okay and should not have been nominated. Especially as the nominator did not provide any diffs and clearly jumped to a conclusion on the knee-jerk principle. In other words, please CLOSE the SPI IMMEDIATELY and leave this guy alone for now unless he does something else to make me and others in WP:CRIC think the worse of him. The overall situation with sockpuppet mania does not exactly help WP so please take notice of someone who has been active on the site for most of the last seven years and has provided nearly 50,000 constructive edits. Thank you. ----Jack | talk page 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
- Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles
- News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun
- Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
- In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
- Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Findblogging
The master's spirit is wandering around Israel-Turkey relations again... Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- InfinityBandit, who had similar contributions to World cup 35 is Unrelated. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not that one. User:RiverNiles2 and maybe another too. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed EILATisr (talk · contribs) and RiverNiles2 (talk · contribs). Very Likely Findblogging is related. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also add Deutschwell (talk · contribs) as Confirmed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed EILATisr (talk · contribs) and RiverNiles2 (talk · contribs). Very Likely Findblogging is related. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not that one. User:RiverNiles2 and maybe another too. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Wac-a-mole session
G'day DQ, thanks for your quick and effective action on the Vojvodina socks. No doubt this is not over, but at least some deterrence effect has been achieved. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, but some of those categories where actually quite legit. No need for revert of that... --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nja, only several edits actually, i already restored that... --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you guys are talking about 118.99.76.171, that's Oldhouse2012. WhiteWriter, i'm perfectly within my rights to revert him, and your perfectly within your rights to revert me, i'm not stopping you, you just take responsibility for the edit. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was thanking you for your action on the Oldhouse2012 socks. I am also reverting the sock edits, but as you point out, WW is well within his rights to restore them (but then they are his edits, not a sock's). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Aahah, such a diplomatic conversation! :) :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was thanking you for your action on the Oldhouse2012 socks. I am also reverting the sock edits, but as you point out, WW is well within his rights to restore them (but then they are his edits, not a sock's). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you guys are talking about 118.99.76.171, that's Oldhouse2012. WhiteWriter, i'm perfectly within my rights to revert him, and your perfectly within your rights to revert me, i'm not stopping you, you just take responsibility for the edit. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nja, only several edits actually, i already restored that... --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I won't argue strongly, and your placing the block will ease my eyes and fingers, but is a week-long block necessary? If anything it looks like we have a sock making the same edits rather than a problem with a whole bunch of newbie/IP's. (I'd rather they just be summarily blocked if they haven't already been.) Since I wasn't privy to the block request or discussion don't take this as a major complaint. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I responded to an SPI and to RFPP requests. The protection was not because of the SPI case, but because most of the IPs have been vandalizing and have been reverted. A week could be a little long, but it's not out of the ballpark since this will be in the news over the next few days and get even more attention. The only two that I know to be the same are the users on that SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:03, 7 February 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
- I'll drop you a reply sometime in the next 48 hours, but i'm off to bed for now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to appear dense; this user has been recently blocked as a sockpuppet, and is requesting unblock. The comment at the SPI is not immediately clear to me; it is "CU blank case needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)". There are other sock accounts unequivocably demonstrated, and an IP which the user in question does not deny using, but claims it to be dynamic. As you know I have no CU facility and can only go on your findings; the difficulty is that I do not quite understand what they are! So, in a word please, is this user a checkuser-proven sockpuppet account? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- (tps) This is the comment where DQ confirmed the sockpuppetry. I've just had another look at it due to the unblock request, and found and blocked another sock, Redneck Dylan. —DoRD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, yes it is as DoRD pointed out above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Unblock on hold
Could look at the unblock request at User talk:Elnichole? It refers to this range block that you placed. Thanks in advance. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied, i'm not comfortable at all handing out IPBE just yet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
To help sweeten your day as you have sweetened the day of many others around you. Jab843 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
Replied
I've replied at SPI. It's the ability to continue socking that has me perplexed, not the mechanics of him being able to access his talk page.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales can probably be unprotected
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dbromage/Archive. One side of the edit war was indef'd due to SPI. I have lifted the protection at the article and think the template probably doesn't need it anymore either. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I killed the protection. (Which apparently was indef O_o) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
What should be done about
the removal of an AfD notice replacing it with the misplaced articles for creation submission template at Tofael – the tea stall boy. There's a live AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofael – the tea stall boy and in any case it was probably a speedy candidate but I decided to go to AfD rather than delete. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Normally I would say just take it back to AfC, but the AfD has already started. If the community comes to a consensus that it's not notable, then it shouldn't exist anyway. Maybe note in the AfD that it was going to go back to AfC, not that it will do much. Otherwise, it's probably best if we let the AfD take it's course so that the AFC doesn't hit the mainspace and then gets to be nom'd for deletion and trashed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, makes sense. I wasn't sure whether there was something I didn't know about AFC. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sock check: additional user
Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pproctor, thanks to your analysis, I uncovered yet another potential sock that may be associated with that investigation. I've added the user name to that page. Could you take a look and, if appropriate, also analyze that new name? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 February 2013
- Featured content: A lousy week
- WikiProject report: Just the Facts
- In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute
- Discussion report: WebCite proposal
- Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 13 February 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--WhiteWriterspeaks 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I would just like to tell someone that the IPs 87.232.1.48 , 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 are probably used by one and the same person to give the impression that there is a name change consensus at the Murder of Travis Alexander article. 87.232.1.48 and 134.226.254.178 are almost certainly the same person using the exact same reasonings and the same kind of "over the top" language. If you have the time could you check it out as it is kind of bad to use more then one IP to give the impression of consensus at an articles talk page discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Geolocation puts them all in the same country, so it's possible they are all related. One was definitely a school IP, the other one seems to be a home IP, and the last one seems to be related to the home IP. Since there is only one contribution from each of the two IPs, I can't be completely sure, but from a quick look it appears that they are the same, though i'm not sure there was a disruptive intent to deceive as they just could have edited from different locations. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Shankysupercool
I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Shankysupercool which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it's already been resolved. Thanks for letting me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You have mail!!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 albert square (talk • contribs)
Hi DQ. I'm just letting you know that I've lifted the block on Zerosprite. I've seen a number of newer users cock up talkpage editing since HotCat was universally enabled, and it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to accept that this is what's happened here. If you disagree, or if I've missed something important, do please tell me. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good and looks like he's contributing positively. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Help with a page move
Hello, a consensus has been reached to re-name the page Beef Mince to Ground Beef. I believe the help of an administrator would be needed to take it to the next step. Brodey (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article doesn't seem to be move-protected. If you click on the move button (next to the history button) and explain it with something like "per talk page discussion", I don't think you'll have any problems. Greengreengreenred 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes but the term "Ground Beef" is already being used as a re-direct for "Beef Mice" when i tried to move the page it recommended contacting an admin. Brodey (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Another possible MMA sock
Hi, DeltaQuad. I suspect Green Man 20 (talk · contribs) is a MMA sockpuppet. He registered just two weeks ago, and now is !voting keep in many MMA-related AfD's. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed with Entity of the Void (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Mail again
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Same stuff... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Message added 13:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 18 February 2013
- WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines
- Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit
- In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press
- Featured content: Featured content gets schooled
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My rights
Hello! As you know, I am an OTRS member since long. But my rights over here at Commons en.wiki don't reflect that. When inquired at the OTRS Cafe i was told that probably the respective Project's sysops could fix that. Hence here. Could you please fix it? Proof of me being an OTRS member. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You will need to go to commons:Commons:BN to request the OTRS flag; it is only available on Commons. --Rschen7754 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Dharmadhyaksha, so there is no OTRS flag here on enwiki, and I don't have the Bureaucrat flag over at commons, but if you ask at over at the 'crats noticeboard on commons, they should be able to help. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Aah! So sorry! I meant here at en.wiki, not Commons. (Copy pasted it.) I have asked another sysop to do that at Commons, will wait for their response and then get to the link Rschen pointed. Strange that we don't have such flag. I thought everything starts here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
AE Nado158
You mentioned you didn't like him calling other people sockpuppets. The third problem I mentioned originally, removing lots of partially referenced text as no reference, POV, and then again as this not changed the fact that there are not references, POV ect, that he described at AE with:
- also I saw a large part of the text without sources and who was added again and again by someone, or from the new user Shokatz. To me its looked like POV, I thought it was a sock. And because there are no sources for this was given, I decided to remove it. But I was never rude, etc. [2]
Didn't he just effectively double down on the "people-are-socks" problem there, in addition to continuing to claim that there are no sources despite the simple fact there were two sources (one link to wikisource and one external ref link) in the removed text?
I'm asking because you proposed the topic of the ban to be limited to in a manner that doesn't cover this topic (not even broadly construed). I think he needs to stay away from all sorts of contentious Serbian nationalist topics where he's continued to make serious errors despite warnings, not just one particular segment where the edits were so egregiously bad that they couldn't be explained as "errors". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like anyone calling people sockpuppets without evidence. I do see your point though and somehow I missed that topic area when proposing the topic ban. I have asked other admins how to word that specific topic as Serbia seems too broad to ban, though I'm open to options that will work. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Have i rights? May I express my opinion? Is that all I have said to my defense unimportant? meaningless? I have no rights? Why is shared from the beginning in black and white? Why do all the good things I've done is overlooked? Why is not asked for my opinion? I have shown that I was right in relation to the socks? Why ist overlooked Why? Do somebody asked me about the Zemun case?--Nado158 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I read over your comments and did not feel that your responses were compelling enough that you were contributing positively to the topic area. Also, editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Also on KillerChihuahua's talkpage, I felt that a full ban of the Serbia was a bit overboard and stated that there. I did not ask for a specific opinion from you, as I thought you provided it in your response. I don't feel that every admin has to ask you every question about your editing. Regarding the socks, you have not provided evidence to backup all of your sock accusations. That's why I proposed what I did. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, i wrote about 98% Serbian sport, especially about football, but also basketball etc., I never had a problem with nobody. I improved a lot of articles, wrote about players and stadiums etc. I create also a lot of articles about sport. I get even a barn star. You can all see this on my Wikipedia edit history etc. Please allow me to write about Serbian sports. This have nothing to do with politics and is not a controvers topics. I'm only come because of sports to wikipedia, only the last months I am moved a little bit to other topics. But my main topic, my beloved topic is sport, this is a topic which interrested me 120%. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia, why so a hard punishment. I made mistakes in politic topics, but I never hat a problem with sports. You banned me because of my mistakes about controvers politic topics, but why i banned also for sport, although i never made mistakes there and although I was never prosecuted there?I think its right to punish for things who someone done wrong, but I never made mistakes there and i was never prosecuted there. I have no other interest area here and I had to wait a year to get back to improve Serbian sporting articles or update. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia.--Nado158 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Qassam3983
User:2.133.92.82 seems to be a sock of him, he keeps trying to un-strikeout Qassam3983's vote on Talk:Depiction of Israel in Palestinian textbooks. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
IP range ban of 75.187.64.0/20?
Just wondering what was the reasoning behind the range ban of 75.187.64.0/20 for a month. I assume this will require a lot of people in my neck of the woods to login in order to edit. Could you please enlighten me as to why this was necessary? I couldn't find a justification anywhere. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong place. Also, why are there so many indefinite range bans? Are they all open proxies or what? Is there a place I can find that out? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- The rangeblock is not indefinite. It expires on 02:43, March 3, 2013 as the message on your screen should indicate. The reason behind it is in this template. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can see that this particular one is not indefinite. What were the instances of vandalism that resulted in this range ban? I'm not asking it for it to be lifted early, I'm just wondering what led to it. Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- We can't reveal the exact reason for the range block without violating the Privacy policy. Basically, though, someone was creating a large number of sockpuppet accounts on the range, so DQ blocked it to prevent that from continuing. It is a step we would prefer to avoid, but sometimes it is necessary. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can see that this particular one is not indefinite. What were the instances of vandalism that resulted in this range ban? I'm not asking it for it to be lifted early, I'm just wondering what led to it. Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
i have opened a discussion at WP:AN regarding an unblock request by this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't one I directly blocked, I only reblocked after the socking was found, but nonetheless, thanks for the notice. I might find sometime to review things, and if I do, i'll stop by and comment, otherwise i'll leave this to the community. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Log
Hi. I just wanted to remind you that you forgot to log this sanction [3] at Wikipedia:ARBAA2#2013_2. Regards, Grandmaster 22:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please read
Please read my message to the ArbCom, as it directly concerns you. Int21h (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
- I appreciate your reply. Its a little late and a dollar short, but at least you said something of substance finally. And yes, I will continue on this trail, even though I know it does not lead to paradise. On the contrary, I know this will get me nothing but very powerful enemies and attacks from all directions. No one ever said doing the right thing was going to make you popular.
- And your [censored] right I made personal attacks. I was banned. Not just banned, but emergency banned outta nowhere with no effective means to bring it to the attention of the community. My conduct was in no way covered by Wikipedia policy, given this affair has little or nothing to do with Wikipedia, besides the Wikipedia ArbCom being the source of your privledge which I seek to revoke (if only temporarily). My personal attacks ended as soon as your personal attack ended. I do not accept your apology nor will I tender one. The fact that ArbCom has let 3 other CheckUsers that obviously made the same ridiculously outrageous mistake just adds fuel to my fire. I will not troll them: I will seek to have their CheckUser status revoked. Please, please do not confuse the two.
- I will not "troll" you. I did not even think we would ever carry on a conversation. If you consider this whole affair to be "trolling" by me, then I think this only gives more weight to my hunch that this is only the tip of the iceberg, that you ban users for things that do not warrant bans, and definitely not emergency bans with no public or even private discussion, and no much as even a shred of proof to refute. Your refusal to provide proof would likely have been a death knell for these so-called "appeals" for many others you have likely persecuted. How many "simple mistakes" you have made and how many good, competent editors are now banned for life? They cannot say, to be sure, because they have been silenced. I consider myself to be lucky that, yes, apparently there is someone on this board that is not incompetent. And I definitely think that should come up if and when they renew their membership. But they should renew their request for membership, in competition against everyone else who will potentially run.
- You seek to minimize a complete and permanent emergency ban with absolutely no discussion, and no good reason for the ban to be emergency, as a simple mistake. The fact that it was an emergency ban with no prior discussion, even though I was obviously not being disruptive, is why I believe, yess still believe, it was malicious. Why else the emergency? Why else the complete lack of discussion even after the ban? Oh, right, you sent me emails that I magically didn't get, which is in no way your fault. Just another mistake I guess. But what mistake can possibly be more destructive? What, prey tell, is not a simple mistake then? How many is too many for you to step down? For you to be removed? How many? How many good editors must never be heard from again? Int21h (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- You were blocked, not banned, and it has since been lifted, let's keep that factor straight. Yes, you were emergency blocked by me. I understand you were frustrated with the block, and I don't blame you for your language used, and I'm not asking for an apology, nor have I asked for one in the past. There was a private discussion off-wiki with other CheckUsers in which ANY checkuser here on enwiki had the ability to review. I got three others to certify the results and two of those three to agree to an emergency block (they all agreed to a block if answers didn't satisfy), and then I made the block. I have not persecuted others, and that's another attack at me, but your still upset with me, so i'll let that go. All blocks I make are with reason justified under Wikipedia Policy, and the moment different light comes to, I reverse it. I do not seek to minimize it, I just seek to have a civil discussion if you wish, and no, civil is not going after my flags and the rest of ArbCom's positions. I'm not going to force you to believe anything, I'll let you come to your own conclusions. Also, the email I did send in reply is pasted below this thread and I can give you exact technical information about it. It was a disruptive mistake to your editing, I will absolutely agree with that. I will not however resign my flags unless I or my fellow CheckUsers or a good chunk of administrators agree that my opinion and judgement are clouded to the point where I can't hold an objective opinion. Again, you can still believe what you wish, I'm not forcing anything on you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- You seek to minimize a complete and permanent emergency ban with absolutely no discussion, and no good reason for the ban to be emergency, as a simple mistake. The fact that it was an emergency ban with no prior discussion, even though I was obviously not being disruptive, is why I believe, yess still believe, it was malicious. Why else the emergency? Why else the complete lack of discussion even after the ban? Oh, right, you sent me emails that I magically didn't get, which is in no way your fault. Just another mistake I guess. But what mistake can possibly be more destructive? What, prey tell, is not a simple mistake then? How many is too many for you to step down? For you to be removed? How many? How many good editors must never be heard from again? Int21h (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Email
|
---|
From: DeltaQuad Wikipedia <address@removed.com> |