User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/September

CheckUser
"CU will not draw a connection between an IP and a user except in rare circumstances of abuse." You know, I've been told this before, and I really don't know why it doesn't penetrate into my thick skull. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ok. :) It's good to still file an SPI for sanctions if they are needed anyway. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI
Regarding the SPI which you recently closed, the problem is that the editor voted in a requested move twice, both as an IP editor, and as an account. This definitely qualifies as malicious sockpuppetry, no? It is important to establish whether or not he is a sock, so that if he is, his vote should be struck. Athenean (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does look like it's the same user. He's already indef blocked though, and admins evaluate the RfC, not vote-count when closing. Nothing really to do here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another IP in the same (Talk:Tenedos) requested move which I suspect is one of the registered users, used here as a second tool. (IP: 79.129.111.236) Worse than that suspicion is the fact that the IP user, in a move to slander the requested move, called the proposed name adding "shat", in reference to you know what. I removed that comment and the IP did not oppose, complain or try to revert, confirming its slander intention. I kindly request this IP to also be checked and warned, as maybe due to my removing its previous comment (a second one is still there), it was ignored and omitted from the checkuser request regarding the activities on the same discussion page. --E4024 (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:192.54.145.146
Modified your block and wanted to drop you a note. Block previous to yours was 1 month, then the IP is trolling on the unblock request, then accepted his own unblock request, etc. Since this is the second time for the same sock issue, and should be an indef if it was a logged in user, plus this other stuff, I bumped your 72 hours to 3 months and no talk page access. Ping me if there is an issue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't look too much back into it, but after I saw the block log, it looks fine. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The user with several IPs
Hello there. My user name has somehow been involved in an SPI that you made the relevant usercheck. I am decided not to say anything at the related forum and am simply waiting for the SPI to close; so that after that I may be able to explain you about the number of IPs I may be using and the reason. I will access you by mail, in order not to disclose my private information in public, as soon as the case is closed. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding block on IP address
Hi,

I am Subha. I am really sorry for mishap. We are trying to set a Wikipedia club in Chandigarh. The IP address 115.252.32.0/20 is blocked for vandalism and as we have new editors who are facing problem with asking more members to join there is a sheer need of IP block exempt. Can you please suggest what needs to be done from our end? --SubhaUtter2me! 10:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :) We all make mistakes. So in regards to that specific range, it's actually a checkuserblock which usually relates to sockpuppets. My recommendation would vary for the number of people you are trying to register from that range. You actually will not need an IP Block Exemption to edit from that range, it only blocks logged out users and account creation. If it's less than 6, I would suggest they request an account at ACC. If more than that, we can either talk about giving you the account creator right, or we can make some other arrangement by email. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't understand
Tried to login under my phone account and the IP is blocked but, I can login with my main account which I'm on now ? Mlpearc ( powwow ) 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Already talked with you on this. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol
Hi DQ, I'm ready for the next run if its convenient for you. Ta  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent it to work. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi DeltaQuad ! I have started my second editor review at Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Tirgil34 socks
They are adding the exact same stuff as Aparhan and Greczia to several articles and are engaging in edit warring. Mendsetting (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of those are confirmed open proxies, blocked 6 months. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike D 26
Hello, I just wanted to make you aware of this report to SPI.

The IP editor in August/September 2012 is making unsourced edits on the same topics as in April 2012, demographics and Inland Empire, California. The IP editor has been warned repeatedly on this issue over the past several months. The IP's edits in August were highly disruptive--they added a lot of unsourced information. The IP is also an admitted sockpuppet. In fact, it is worse than that. The IP initially lied and said he wasn't a sock then he changed his story and admitted he was a sock. You said this would be a "final warning" for logged out editing.

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look in the morning. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

GNAA
You might want to have a look at User:Maractus userpage and contributions per. &mdash; Cup co  21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to ask for me to run a Checkuser on Maractus to see if it's LiteralKa, i'm going to need more behavioral evidence than that to run a check, as that is insufficient to connect the two users. And we also don't check on the basis that it's from GNAA. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Padmalakshmisx
Hi, by any chance could you have a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me) 04:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone is already on it, and I have protected it anyway. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
S M S  Talk 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Calm as Midnight
Hi. I see you  blocked Calm  as Midnight probably  after using  the CU tool. I also  had a strong  suspicion  that  it might  be a a sock  of Anderson, and probably  also  the same account  as Voiyworthy. If this is so, it  would help  us to  know or do  we have to  go  the official  route and open  an SPI to  get confirmation that  they  are all  editing  from  new Zealand now that  they  have already  been blocked? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Anderson.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SPI is open, and working with a little bit of a mess here, and I am looking into that account, preliminary doesn't seem related, but need some time to check, SPI is open at Sockpuppet investigations/Anderson. I'll come back here in a bit and reply fully. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow up: Voiyworthy is extremely .  that this is Anderson, IMO. The results for Anderson are at the investigation linked above. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

IPv6
Is is me, or did you just block 18,446,744,073,709.551,616 IP addresses with that /64 block? Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that's a small block (as discussed on IRC). There's very little chance of collateral here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Doncsecz as a sockpuppet of Stubes99
Hello DeltaQuad,

I was astonished to see that Doncsecz was blocked as a sockpuppet of Stubes99. It is true that he began sockpuppeting in order to evade a block given him for a duration of 24 hours, and it was also told Doncsecz by the blocking administrator that s\he seriously considered a much longer (2 weeks to 1 month) block due to Doncsecz's previous history of edit warring. So if Doncsecz had received a longer block for block evasion, it may have been in order. However, it is unlikely that Doncsecz is Stubes99.
 * Doncsecz's primary interesting field in Wikipedia covers the Slovenian language and culture, and if you examine what toolserver.org says about these two users, you may also see that Doncsecz has no too much in common with Stubes99:


 * 1) Doncsecz
 * 2) Stubes99
 * 3) Celebration1981 (sock of Stubes99)
 * 4) Celebration81 (sock of Stubes99)

But, if we see it with toolserver comparsion, it envinces certain articles that they both edited:
 * 1)

However, none of the articles edited by them both covers the primary interesting field of Doncsecz which relates to the Slovenian language and culture, and Doncsecz has been around on Wikipedia since 2007, they (Doncsecz and Stubes99) both come from the same country, which is Hungary. So it does not come as a surprise to me that there are some articles in Wikipedia that they both edited; given that they are both interested to edit articles which relate to history. --Nmate (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Replying here to keep things all in once place). Hi Nmate, DeltQuad. I'd like to start by saying I did express some skepticism regarding this connection. While maybe I did not make it clear enough, the main reason for my block was not that there was an established connection between Doncsecz and Stubess but instead DeltaQuad's  results with regards to  and  (I'll note that I have not personally reviewed the CheckUser evidence). While DeltaQuad might feel differently I have no issues with this block being reviewed via the normal channels (ie: any uninvolved administrator). Let me know if anyone has any questions,  Tiptoety  talk 19:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm completely open to second administrator reviews. I think I'm actually going to look over the evidence you have above, and take a deeper look into the behavioral aspect as the technical one wasn't completely conclusive. I hope to do that sometime tomorrow because I have to be up real early and I need some good sleep tonight. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, both you and Tip. I will note the technical evidence was strong (ie confirmed as stated above) that the two users, independent of Stubes99, were related. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll note that he is continuing to use IPs to evade his block and has now admitted that GyorgyFerenc is in fact his sockpuppet.  Tiptoety  talk 20:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well crap, I obviously didn't look hard enough. There is not a good amount of conclusive evidence to draw a link here, in fact, there is counter-evidence. Thanks for bringing this up, i'll go amend the archive, Tiptoety can move it around as needed/reblock/retag/whatever as needed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to revise it.--Nmate (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * DeltaQuad, please see my question at the investigation case page when you have a moment. It's not clear to this outsider what is now to be done with the investigation, though I do gather that you all agree this is not Stubes89. AGK  [•] 12:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Block question
Hi DQ,

Special:Contributions/OMGuyZ indicates you blocked this user for a checkuser violation. There's no block message on his talk page, nor any link to related discussion. Could you clarify where this violation came from, and who he is a sock/master of? Thanks, &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  12:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I keep forgetting the box that allows me to tag socks. They are now tagged as socks of . -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol
Hi DQ, I think I'm back on a weekly schedule! Ready for the next one already, and if poop patrol can be run before Friday it would be good as I'm running a training session and these make for a good exercise.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent her out to work. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WT:PC2012/RfC_1
Hi DQ, just a pointer to discussion following Blade's close of this RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just got a request from an IP on my talk page to change it's to its in your Wikiquette closing statement ... apparently because I edited your talk page last :) Any objection? - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely completely object. Heh. Hell no, I'm fine with it, go ahead, I constantly mess grammar up. :P -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just didn't know how you felt about edits after the "please don't edit" box went up ... okay, doing. Btw, Fluffy just responded over at the section below WT:PC2012/RfC_1 ... any thoughts one way or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and post tomorrow, and the please don't edit box, that's mainly for the discussion not to be edited. If the wording of my close (aka the meaning) isn't changed, then i'm fine with it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

173.61.192.214
Hi. Please be aware of this log. Thanks. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user
Hi DeltaQuad. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol
Hi DQ, I'm ready when you are:)  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page. Happy reviewing!  TheSpecialUser TSU
 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My SPI
Hello, I notice you dealt with my SPI. As I am not a sockpuppet (and have actually contributed anonymously for a long time), do I need to find some way of providing exculpatory evidence? The instigator of the investigation is now seemingly going around fishing for behavioural evidence elsewhere, and it seems more like an attempt to get rid of someone they disagree with than to stop malicious behaviour. Apologies if this is trivial/not your concern/bad etiquette in this sort of situation. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this back up. Your right, the SPI has turned into a fishing expedition, completely not what I wanted and not what I meant for the SPI to do. I have closed down the SPI. At this time there is nothing that you have to do to defend yourself. If you wish (and please note this is not by any means a requirement and completely your option), you can leave a comment in my email box about your past editing history, and if this case comes up again, then I would be willing to speak on your behalf. But again, it's not likely it will come up again in my opinion, and that is totally optional. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)