This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would like to commit myself on the case of Daccono. In my opinion, Iaaasi and Daccono are two different people ,however, they are in cahoots with each other. If you take a glance at Daccono's edit history, you will see that he edited Wikipedia 16 times this year and he did not edit Wikipedia at all between 4 January, 2011 and 1 June 2011.
On 11 May, 2011, one of the confirmed sockpuppets of Iaaasi had made a demand to see Stubes99 to be community banned (i.e. It is very curious how this guy who is socking on a daily basis and has insulted editors (incluiding personal attacks against the admins Tiptoey and Diannaa) is still unbanned) and then his desire was fulfilled at Daccono's request on 17 June, 2011.
Recently, Daccono attempted at having me blocked twice, even though he edited Wikipedia 16 times this year as I mentioned above. With his reqests, he turned to that administrator, who blocked me last time, hoping that this administrator has the propensity to block me. But when I click onto his diffs ,which he intended to corroborate his attempts at block shopping with, I always stumble upon Iaaasi's edits:
In his first attempt at having me blocked ,Nmate.27s_block , the third and fourth diffs are quotes for a discussion at WP ANI ,which was initiated by Iaaasi, the fifth and sixth ones are quotes for the talk page of Iaaasi, and the seventh one is that when I deleted Iaaasi's comment on an another user's talk page.
In his second attempt at having me blocked ,User Nmate being uncivil again, the forth diff is a quote for a discussion at WP Realible Sources noticeboard, which was initiated by Iaaasi. Withal, these diffs are from his peramanently inactive period ,which was between 4 January, 2011 and 1 June 2011 when he did not edit Wikipedia at all. And in addition, I have encountered Daccono on Wikipedia three times herehere and here.
So it is quite suspicious that he is eager to have me blocked after such meagre antecedent of my common past with him and that his diffs about my alleged incivility come from my common past with Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Looked over and found nothing specific to issue a block on and it's some interesting facts, but not enough to solidly connect as a meat puppet. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)03:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That was weird. I have access to that queue, yet I can't access the ticket through the direct link you posted, but I could open it by merely using the search function. Prolly a bug. Anyways, there's not a whole lot I more can do about that ticket… But thanks for your assistance! Asav | Talk(Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team)01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahh socks, that changes my whole reasoning for the protection. Marked down semi. Let me know if they come back, file a SPI and just note it here, and I will nuke them and get them out of your way. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what he's trying to say...I see a webhost, and on that specific IP I see that they are running an OpenSSH, Domain service on 53, thttpd on 80, and a squid web proxy on 3128 and that's without looking at the results of the one I blocked...Any idea how this is not a web host? -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)02:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think his point was that it's not an open proxy, and I haven't looked closely but that seems to be the case. But I'm not getting involved. I tend to think admins should be made aware of collateral (as well as non-collateral) in their blocks, and that's the main reason I stopped by. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's a load, one that I can go through, but I need you to create separate sections for ones that are new and stale, I can only protect new ones per policy (actually a whole different page would be easier, for TW's sake). -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, DeltaQuad: you're the sixth recipient of the Executive Director's barnstar, which I'm awarding occasionally to editors who're making a significant contribution to the projects. You've been nominated by User:Philippe (WMF) for all your work handling e-mails from people who are trying to get unblocked. Philippe says you process an enormous amount of those requests, you never lose your temper, and you're really effective at getting people's problems resolved. Thank you, and congratulations! If you want, you (or anyone) can nominate other people for this award, by putting a message on my talk page. Sue Gardner (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Done Sorry for all this delay, I remember checking up on you a few times, but I didn't see much. Anyway, thanks for also being the first tester of my training program. Good luck. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)21:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
How to create accounts for people affected by anon-only IP blocks or rangeblocks
Hello DQ. I see your name very frequently at unblock-en-l and I notice that you offer to create accounts sometimes. This is something I've never done (create an account for someone else), but I observe that admins can click on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup&uselang=en-acc. Is this something that should be available to me, or do I need to ask for approval somewhere. Would using this interface place the new account in my own creation log? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ed, approval not needed at all, and you have the right link. It will show up in your user creation log like it does in mine. Like here, but note i have so many because I do WP:ACC also. :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)21:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I tried to log in to the Account Creation tool with the account I used to have, but it has been disabled for inactivity. Do you know who needs to approve reactivating it? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have had it reactivated for you, remember you don't need to have that to create an account, and when dealing with unblock-en-l you should use the link directly above. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I was able to log in. Courcelles has indicated that if a user at unblock-en-l is affected by a checkuser block they should be sent over to WP:ACC for a decision. It would be useful to follow up to see if the person gets their request into the ACC system. The interface for account creators to handle requests there appears quite elegant; I wonder if unblock-en-l could use an interface like that? EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide there is a bunch of info displayed about each requester in green print. I don't see any green-printed information when I zoom in on a user in the actual ACC. Is it supposed to be only for checkusers? Unclear how to tell if somebody is coming in to ACC from a blocked range unless the reviewers can see this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If you click reserve this request it will show you the those links + the IP address of the requester (user-agent available to CUs only). I'm working on having stwalkerster (although it's probably not going to happen that soon) about a separate link, so it's reserved for us to confer back to unblock-en-l for, but nothing is in place for that right now. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that did it. I have to reserve the request to see the green links, and then I can unreserve it if I don't want to handle it. There is currently a five-day backlog on ACC requests that require a checkuser review. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, and that`s normal, hopefully with the new CU appointments that goes down. Only 1 or 2 active CUs have access. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)17:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think DQ was proposing a button to click in the ACC interface that would give a link to the protected data. Such a link could then be posted as part of a discussion at unblock-en-l and the editors subscribed to that list could see it. The question (in my mind) is how to tell whether the request to ACC is coming from a blocked address. If it's from a person using an IP blocked by a checkuser then you mustn't create an account for them without asking. The info in question is shown at File:ACCZoom.PNG. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The IP that the user is on when they submit the request is given to you, and the link i'm talking about a separate link so we know they are differed from unblock-en-l. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)17:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's like two paths leading to the same road. We defer to unblock-en-l with a special URL (instead of the normal one) and that way it is separated and held for an unblock-en-l member to review at ACC. That part is not active, and hasn't been coded yet. Now to see the IP address normally as we do for all requests you must reserve the request. Those then have links to block logs, etc. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}}
Hi, I appreciate your answering to my petition, but since it was a negative, what's your advice in dealing with this guy? I know my request was extreme, but it'a lot of work to knock off this kind of vandalism... Ipsumesse (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Primarily this needs to be reported when it happens, I can't action on a month old stuff. And which particular IPs are you having issues with? -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but I didn't report it 'cause I underestimated the problem. Now this guy is editing from moving-IP's, and he's quite a recurring character. I did a little tracking of his edits in the last weeks, with a detail of the exact changes, where and when. I can send it to your mail if you'd like to check it out and get a better idea of the problem. Of course, you can then double-check whatever info you want by your own. Just let me know. Ipsumesse (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, and did look over it, sorry forgot to reply. As sad as it is to say, without him focusing on one article (aka maybe three reverted edits, with no other IPs) we can't protect it, and there is no way to block his dynamic IP...so it's just reverting them at this time is the best we can do, sorry to disappoint. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, don't worry. You aren't the one causing the problem here. Hopefully, the one who is will just surrender someday... Thanks anyway, and if you think of anything else that might be helpful, please let me know in my user's page. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not understanding how these were all tests, but the content could have been deleted under CSDG1 aka no meaningful content. Was a mess of scratched out charts that weren't even set up properly. Let me know if you have further questions. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)04:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}}
Please tell me what a string of numbers (my signature) has to do with the discussion, when I removed the entirety of my comments before any additional comments were made. Explain how it is vandalism to not have words put in my mouth by forcing a signature on the comments. How does that string of number improve the quality of the discussion when they make it appear that I have left on the talk page comments that I almost immediately removed after making them. Let me present a hypothetical to you. Suppose someone hacked into your computer, made racial slurs on a talk page and left your signature, and then there were subsequent comments made to your comments. Would you allow your signature to remain after the racial slurs, as if you endorsed them? Same principle, just a different set of circumstances. You are being entirely unreasonable. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}}
A user by name Sitush is systematically vandalising these pages - by removing entries and adding entries on the verge of defamation, by quoting from funny sources. He is motivated and is gold-plating his community of toddy-tappers..
He should be blocked from editing these pages immediately to maintian credibility of wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnithan1956 (talk • contribs)
Umm...vandalism is the wrong word, he is actually just following our Reliable sources policy and he doesn't need to be blocked. He is actually only removing and it's edit warring that you got blocked for. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)16:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the appointment round by submitting additional questions to candidates. Given that the candidates have spent time fielding your questions, it would be appreciated if you would comment on their handling of your questions publicly or privately. –xenotalk12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep I've hoped to comment publically and privately, and thanks for the reminder, i'll get that done ASAP. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
