Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) |
Fluffernutter (talk | contribs) m →Int21h block for sockpuppetry: there's always that one typo I miss... |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
Regards, --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Regards, --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:This sounds like "And did you stop beating your wife?", to be honest. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
:This sounds like "And did you stop beating your wife?", to be honest. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::These are all questions that either have been answered, cannot be answered due to [[WP:BEANS]] concerns, or are based on faulty premises which assume wrongdoing. If this is your attempt to "resolve" the "dispute" (which is already resolved as best as anyone uninvolved can tell, and has been apologized and compensated for, and exists now only in the mind of Int21h, who refuses to acknowledge apologies or explanations of how the error happened and will be corrected for the future), you really need to go back to the drawing board and try to organize your thoughts again before attempting to draw anyone else into it. [[WP:AUSC]] exists to address complaints about checkuser use, and if you're determined to pursue this you're free to contact them, but I suspect you'll hear the same thing from them that you and Int21h have heard from multiple other editors this week: yes, it appears an error was made; yes, that error has been corrected, explained, apologized for, and discussed among checkusers; and no, that error was not part of a pattern of abuse or incompetence that would make it rise to the level of censuring any checkuser or abritrator involved. There is literally nothing else that can reasonably be requested of the involved users at this point, and continuing to beat the drum of "but something ELSE must happen!" is becoming unreasonable. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 04:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:17, 2 March 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)
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)
Incidently on the mediation acceptance page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Proctor, there is a claim an editor was a sock or meat puppet by some of the very people you have found to actually be such, can that be shown to be cleared up and such allegation be removed if unwarranted so it doesn't effect the mediation?
" Also, for whatever it is worth, it should be noted that the filing editor of this case is also a DR/N volunteer and was asked to step back and contribute to the dispute as a regular editor due to accusations of sock puppetry and lack of impartiality that I have yet to see any evidence of. The editor should be seen and looked at now as an involved party and not a DR/N volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)"
If you google and go to a site called CorporationWiki under "Peter Proctor" and/or John McGinness along with companies Nanoflux, Novelta, Drugscom Inc" up will come this interactive diagram with a web of connections, particularly if you click on Peter Proctors icon there, I do not know if these web of people connections shown, including Proctor with McGinness match your findings or assist in someway.Inhouse expert (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- You would have to talk to Amadscientist if you wish to remove his comments from the RfM page, I can't remove them for him. Thank you for your research, but at this point it doesn't seem to change much unless I am missing something. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You should get the Nobel Prize for the thoroughness of your work I saw. Dr. Proctor is a poster for approx 20 years on a very tight knit community of online hair loss websites as pproctor, where there has been a small group of posters over the years that have created a "hair cult" around him & his products that no one knows if they work relative to FDA treatments as promoted. How could your research findings about sock/meat puppetry be used to identify if the same insidious campaign of Sock/Meat posters here, is occurring there to boost sales from perhaps similar IP's, other methods you used to ID, etc...? Where are the IP's of the accounts you suspended available publicly now? Perhaps if administrators from those sites contacted you & assisted or were assisted by cross referencing IP's, etc... would that be ok? Any ideas of yours how your research could be helpful in regard to others not being mislead by same group elsewhere for profit?Inhouse expert (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)He cannot reveal those IP addresses publicly. That's considered private info.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 1 March 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)
- 122.57.148.12 too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Please read
I have been patient and listened to your comments and been ready to answer any questions you have. Now you are just writing huge walls of text with heavy personal attacks, going on and on about ArbCom and the past which I can't change, and you aren't asking any questions about the incident, which was my original offer to talk to you about. Therefore, i'm done, and am going to go find something better to do. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Please read my message to the ArbCom, as it directly concerns you. Int21h (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
And, to be clear, I think you still have not given me an explanation. You have said you were sorry, about which I could care less, but you haven't told me what happened. Still. What information did you rely on? That is what I asked for from day 1. (Yes, other things were said.) Was it the HTTP headers? Was it my IP? What else is there? Do you know now that there are those of us out there, many of us, who do not want to be easily identified by every scumbag on the Internet? And that we know how? And that its easy and only getting easier? I do not want an apology. I want, at a minimum, an explanation. The fact that you keep ignoring my demands, as ArbCom is, is still quite frustrating. But at least I can edit now while we have this long ... conversation. Int21h (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
|
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work at SPI over the last several months, where you've taken up the work that nobody else wants to do, I am happy to use my 80,000th edit to give you this barnstar. Rschen7754 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks Rschen, and congrats on 80k edits :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- DQ, I saw the dust-up at the Arb talk page, and it made me want to stop by here and offer you a few words of appreciation and support. As it happens, I saw the PProcter SPI case yesterday, and came away from it feeling that you were a Wiki-hero for solving that unfortunate situation. You are doing good work, and it's appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there is such a thing as endorsing a barnstar, please consider me to have just done that :) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- DQ, I saw the dust-up at the Arb talk page, and it made me want to stop by here and offer you a few words of appreciation and support. As it happens, I saw the PProcter SPI case yesterday, and came away from it feeling that you were a Wiki-hero for solving that unfortunate situation. You are doing good work, and it's appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
- Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers
- News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization
- Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'
- WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload
- Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Sandstein 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Int21h block for sockpuppetry
Per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DR, could you please answer the following questions about your erroneous block of the Int21h account for sockpuppetry:
- When making the block, did you take into account the age of the Int21h account (created 29 May 2007) or the fact that it had a clean block log?
- When you informed Int21h of the block[1], you gave the following as your reason:
Why did you feel it necessary to ban the Int21h account immediately with an incomplete block explanation, rather than wait until your investigation was complete and you could provide a full explanation of the block?You have been blocked based on CheckUser evidence that you are clearly abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this is a mistake, you may email me. At this time, until my investigation is complete, i'm not going to release the account names in which are matching with you as this is a big investigation and is not complete, but several CheckUsers have already looked into this offwiki and have verified the results. If you wish not to email me, you can appeal right to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by emailing arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org.
- You also mentioned that several other CheckUsers corroborated your block. Please name them.
- If Int21h was "clearly abusing multiple accounts", why could you not name at least some of the other accounts?
- Did you have any evidence that the Int21h itself account was disrupting the project, or that the sock accounts were assisting the Int21h on talkpages, etc?
- Int21h correctly described the mistake you made on 28 December 2012[2] Did you investigate whether his assertion was correct? Why did it take three weeks to discover that he was correct?
- You have indicated that you wish to retain CheckUser access despite this incident[3]. When you made the block, you placed a template warning that any non-CU admin undoing the block risked losing their admin status.[4] In the future, how can non-CheckUser editors check your blocks and ensure you have not made another mistake?
Regards, --Surturz (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds like "And did you stop beating your wife?", to be honest. --Rschen7754 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- These are all questions that either have been answered, cannot be answered due to WP:BEANS concerns, or are based on faulty premises which assume wrongdoing. If this is your attempt to "resolve" the "dispute" (which is already resolved as best as anyone uninvolved can tell, and has been apologized and compensated for, and exists now only in the mind of Int21h, who refuses to acknowledge apologies or explanations of how the error happened and will be corrected for the future), you really need to go back to the drawing board and try to organize your thoughts again before attempting to draw anyone else into it. WP:AUSC exists to address complaints about checkuser use, and if you're determined to pursue this you're free to contact them, but I suspect you'll hear the same thing from them that you and Int21h have heard from multiple other editors this week: yes, it appears an error was made; yes, that error has been corrected, explained, apologized for, and discussed among checkusers; and no, that error was not part of a pattern of abuse or incompetence that would make it rise to the level of censuring any checkuser or abritrator involved. There is literally nothing else that can reasonably be requested of the involved users at this point, and continuing to beat the drum of "but something ELSE must happen!" is becoming unreasonable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)