User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2013/June

SPI
Hi, I just wanted to let you know about this SPI, since you were involved the previous time. Thanks. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Beachsand2004. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to second Rschen7754's call diffs please. Being previously on a case does not mean I remember it well enough to look for what I need in two minutes and be able to run a check. Frankly, I barely remember anything about this case. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, ok. It looks like socks of socks of socks.  Beachsand = Thegoods666 = Beachball1234 = Laughing lion of loudness = Time to see the zoo.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM (gm)

 * Replied. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Biker Biker
Hi! Can you please comment on the above case? --Rschen7754 08:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your recommendation sounds good. The only point of the SPI was to disclose the improper use of the accounts. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point is he required to disclose the accounts on his userpage, or is the SPI sufficient? --Rschen7754 08:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot question
Looking at UAA right now, I see that there are numerous users for which a responding admin has left the "wait until the user edits" template. Is there any way that the bot could be given the task of checking the contributions of such users and leaving a note as soon as the first edit has been made? Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is already a flag, that if added to the black list, will wait till the user has one edit. Example  ;(\b)anal(\b):WAIT_TILL_EDIT  currently has the wait till edit flag. If you add that to an entry, it will be held at User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor (CU results)
May I ask what is going on at Jackadvisor? Your CU results were posted there for 1.5 hours and then deleted and hidden by an admin. Another admin came along and closed the RfC at Eugene Plotkin and moved the page to the nonsense name suggested by Factchecker25, and then locked it up for 3 months. This all seems backwards to me - shouldn't the CU results be posted and then we can decide about the RfC? Any clarification or help would be appreciated. I'll notify User:Obiwankenobi and User:DoRD of this conversation. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * as I posted at the close, the results of the sockpuppet investigation would not have changed my close, which was not based on # of votes, but rather the quality of the arguments, and no-one had a better name that was used in RS than the Reebok one. Rest assured this was not a majority vote. I don't know anything about the results of the CU, or why they were revdel'd but this is usually done for a good reason that admins can't/won't reveal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Within that first 1.5 hours after I posted the investigation, I received confidential information that could affect the results of the investigation. I also got another CU to remove the results, because they possibly contained, indirectly, personal information. The investigation is still in progress, so please bear with me. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having dealt with sockpuppets at that page for a long time now, I can certainly imagine what happened after a certain type of result. I've been very patient and will remain so, but would like to be informed if anything new happens.  I'd like to ask you to be very careful in evaluating any claims made by people close to the sockpuppet case.  In the underlying criminal case, there are several convicted con-men, that is people convicted in a US court of fraud - theft by deception - which is what insider trading is (and not just in a technical legal sense). So if you are possibly dealing with one of these people, please don't just assume that he or she is telling the truth - please check it out in detail.
 * I also have to say that I have been the subject of personal attacks at that page multiple times. Nearly every one of these sockpuppets has accused me of having a COI, without any proof or even stating what the COI might be, but the upshot seems to be that "they" are accusing me of being David Pacjin.  If that is of any concern to you, please just e-mail me from my user-page and I can disprove that immediately (faster than you can imagine).
 * Sincerely, Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in processing this. I have restored part of the original result, the other part will have to wait until I hear back from someone, given it's in a reasonable time. I also don't take statements at face value when it comes to sockpuppets, and I always evaluate the claims, though I can't reveal how for obvious reasons. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Teramo
Hi DQ, whenever you have time can you please check out the page. Attilios, a user you have already blocked in the past, has stricken again by reverting the page to his personal version...as usual. Thank you DDF19483 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello DQ. I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DDF19483&diff=560453947&oldid=493473791 left a notice] for DDF19483 that he may be indefinitely blocked if he continues to make large changes at Teramo without getting consensus on talk. Such a block could be lifted whenever he agrees to follow policy. Please comment if you have an opinion. I'm notifying you because I see that DDF19483 leaves messages for you occasionally. There was a previous discussion on your talk at User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2012/May. I have to admit that there is a temptation to block both editors, but DDF is the one who is being more outrageous at the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello DQ. I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DDF19483&diff=560453947&oldid=493473791 left a notice] for DDF19483 that he may be indefinitely blocked if he continues to make large changes at Teramo without getting consensus on talk. Such a block could be lifted whenever he agrees to follow policy. Please comment if you have an opinion. I'm notifying you because I see that DDF19483 leaves messages for you occasionally. There was a previous discussion on your talk at User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2012/May. I have to admit that there is a temptation to block both editors, but DDF is the one who is being more outrageous at the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note
I've been working on User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets with the goal of moving into meta space soon. Basically a guide for newish users that covers the basics, written in a style any editor can understand. Your input on the page/talk page is welcomed. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

166.70.0.0/16
Can you look at this range again? It appears that Xmission ( http://xmission.com/ ) offers DSL services in that range. I've got an unblock request from 166.70.226.106 on UTRS.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see two tor exit nodes, which could both be well-blocked by hitting them with 166.70.15.0/24 and 166.70.207.0/30. A quick spot check didn't turn up any other obvious proxies.  So I'd recommend reducing the range.  Definitely some legit DSL contributors hit by the rangeblock.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/DeltaQuad&dir=prev&offset=20130618005626&limit=2&type=&user=DeltaQuad Changed] per recommendations above. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you missed blocking 166.70.15.0/24, which has at least one active tor exit node. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
WhiteWriterspeaks 12:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)