BuickCenturyDriver (talk | contribs) |
→Int21h block for sockpuppetry: re, were done here |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
== Int21h block for sockpuppetry == |
== Int21h block for sockpuppetry == |
||
{{hat|1=I left my final comments below, and this discussion is now closed. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]] [[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue">(ʞlɐʇ)</font>]] 12:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
Per [[WP:ADMINACCT]] and [[WP:DR]], could you please answer the following questions about your erroneous block of the Int21h account 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AInt21h&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 29 May 2007]) or the fact that it had a clean block log? |
* When making the block, did you take into account the age of the Int21h account (created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AInt21h&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 29 May 2007]) or the fact that it had a clean block log? |
||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:::::::Finally, I am not threatening you with anything - I'm not even an admin. Please realise it would be very easy for me to say nothing and that it is reasonably scary demanding answers from a CheckUser about governance issues. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::Finally, I am not threatening you with anything - I'm not even an admin. Please realise it would be very easy for me to say nothing and that it is reasonably scary demanding answers from a CheckUser about governance issues. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I'm sufficiently concerned with the tack that you are choosing to take here - you are acting like your own self-appointed [[WP:AUSC|Audit Subcommittee]]. Functionaries are bound by privacy rules, and DeltaQuad '''cannot''' release the names of the CUs who were involved, or he could lose access to the tool '''on those grounds alone'''. CheckUser is ''not'' subject to the dispute resolution process, contrary to what you believe; it is under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, the stewards, and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, due to the privacy matters involved. FWIW I am only a SPI clerk and not a CheckUser, oversighter, or ArbCom member. Now please let the matter rest. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::I'm sufficiently concerned with the tack that you are choosing to take here - you are acting like your own self-appointed [[WP:AUSC|Audit Subcommittee]]. Functionaries are bound by privacy rules, and DeltaQuad '''cannot''' release the names of the CUs who were involved, or he could lose access to the tool '''on those grounds alone'''. CheckUser is ''not'' subject to the dispute resolution process, contrary to what you believe; it is under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, the stewards, and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, due to the privacy matters involved. FWIW I am only a SPI clerk and not a CheckUser, oversighter, or ArbCom member. Now please let the matter rest. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I would be telling you who ran the checks against Int21h, which is data contained in the checkuser log which you don't have access to and is covered by the Privacy policy. To release data from the checkuser log, or from the resource that contains these names is not only inappropriate, it's against policy to reveal that private data. I'm also not going to ask my fellow functionaries to go through what i've gone through to satisfy your curiosity, or for you to question them about these matters, and that's completely unprofessional. A similar thread like this was posted sometime last year on the [[Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Request_the_log_checked_to_see_if_I_have_been_CUed_secretly|on the checkuser talkpage]] and was declined and forwarded to the Audit Subcommittee. There was no misunderstanding, I made three direct statements about what I thought was going on, and asked them to certify it or not. Your directly questioning my ability to read, if not my ability to tell the truth. I told you the results of that above. If you don't trust my word on that, I'm sorry, take it up with [[WP:AUSC|the Audit Subcommittee]]. It's not my information to release. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]] [[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue">(ʞlɐʇ)</font>]] 12:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
*@DeltaQuad, I just wanted to thank you for being so forthright and trying to resolve this difficult situation. I have a great deal of respect for you and thank you for your many years of service you have volunteered to the project. |
*@DeltaQuad, I just wanted to thank you for being so forthright and trying to resolve this difficult situation. I have a great deal of respect for you and thank you for your many years of service you have volunteered to the project. |
||
*@Others, There is nobody on this project that hates bad blocks more than I do—and something needs to be done to fix it. DeltaQuad made a mistake, admitted it and fixed it as best they could. If you have any history with the project, you will know that, in the past, it was rare for a CheckUser to admit their mistakes and there are bad blocks still in place. This is not the case with DeltaQuad and focusing on DQ is actually harmful to the cause of fixing all our bad blocks because DQ is one of our best functionaries who actually admits mistakes and tries to fix them. My suggestion would be to focus on the policies and educating our userbase so the bad blocks don't happen to others in the future. Please give this suggestion some serious consideration. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.87|64.40.54.87]] ([[User talk:64.40.54.87|talk]]) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) <small>Moved per request [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeltaQuad/IP&diff=541786945&oldid=503437359]</small> |
*@Others, There is nobody on this project that hates bad blocks more than I do—and something needs to be done to fix it. DeltaQuad made a mistake, admitted it and fixed it as best they could. If you have any history with the project, you will know that, in the past, it was rare for a CheckUser to admit their mistakes and there are bad blocks still in place. This is not the case with DeltaQuad and focusing on DQ is actually harmful to the cause of fixing all our bad blocks because DQ is one of our best functionaries who actually admits mistakes and tries to fix them. My suggestion would be to focus on the policies and educating our userbase so the bad blocks don't happen to others in the future. Please give this suggestion some serious consideration. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.87|64.40.54.87]] ([[User talk:64.40.54.87|talk]]) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) <small>Moved per request [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeltaQuad/IP&diff=541786945&oldid=503437359]</small> |
Revision as of 12:41, 3 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)
- Thanks for the complement. As Jasper mentions above, I can't release some of that info because of the Privacy policy. My methods just come from being trained by others at SPI and from experience. Though for for practical reasons I don't write public documents nor provide information for profit in this regard. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:14, 2 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
I left my final comments below, and this discussion is now closed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DR, could you please answer the following questions about your erroneous block of the Int21h account for sockpuppetry:
Regards, --Surturz (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
|
- @DeltaQuad, I just wanted to thank you for being so forthright and trying to resolve this difficult situation. I have a great deal of respect for you and thank you for your many years of service you have volunteered to the project.
- @Others, There is nobody on this project that hates bad blocks more than I do—and something needs to be done to fix it. DeltaQuad made a mistake, admitted it and fixed it as best they could. If you have any history with the project, you will know that, in the past, it was rare for a CheckUser to admit their mistakes and there are bad blocks still in place. This is not the case with DeltaQuad and focusing on DQ is actually harmful to the cause of fixing all our bad blocks because DQ is one of our best functionaries who actually admits mistakes and tries to fix them. My suggestion would be to focus on the policies and educating our userbase so the bad blocks don't happen to others in the future. Please give this suggestion some serious consideration. Thank you. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Moved per request [12]
OTRS question
OTRS has received an email from someone claiming they were blocked by you.
Not their user name, but their IP.
The IP they listed is not the same as an IP you blocked to day, but close enough that there may be a typo.
They claim they cannot log into their account because they forgot their password and they can't request a new password because they cannot log in.
I'm a little out of my depth here.
Am I correct that the password reset page does not require being logged in to use? That wouldn't make much sense, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do not need to be logged in to do a password reset, though I have heard that if the IP your trying to use is blocked, you can't use password reset. So I would send him a reset, and if he's blocked further, he will have to appeal via UTRS. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted another user on the page that you might find helpful in determining what's going on with it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:22, 3 March 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.
–BuickCenturyDriver 12:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)