User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/September

GOCE September activities

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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 [1], 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¢ © 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? --Subha^Utter2me! 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

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• 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 ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sent it to work. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi DeltaQuad ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia: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

• 82.113.122.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.136.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They are adding the exact same stuff as Aparhan and Greczia to several articles and are engaging in edit warring.

• Aparhan (talk · contribs)
• Greczia (talk · contribs)

Mendsetting (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Both of those are confirmed open proxies, blocked 6 months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 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 [2] then he changed his story and admitted he was a sock [3]. You said this would be a "final warning" for logged out editing [4].

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 [5]. —Cupco 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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. —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!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:46, 8 September 2012 (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.

SMS ^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)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anderson.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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 Wikipedia: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  Likely Technoquat (talk · contribs).  Not possible 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¢ © 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

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• 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 [6]. 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. [7]

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 {{confirmed}} results with regards to GyorgyFerenc (talk · contribs) and Doncsecz (talk · contribs) (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, ⇒SWATJester ^{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 AndrésSnape (talk · contribs). -- 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. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sent her out to work. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WT:PC2012/RfC_1#Thanks, and Signpost

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. </sarcasm> 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#Thanks, and Signpost ... 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

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• 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‍水 09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi DQ, I'm ready when you are:) ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1848 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

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 AmandaNP/Archives/2012. 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

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• 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)