User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2013/September

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.

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Cailil ^talk 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your actions. —rybec 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the clerks/CUs are of the opinion that we should just let them win, because we just cannot handle their paid editing. I personally disagree with that, and think that doing something is better than doing nothing. However, I would agree that SPI is just not set up to handle something like this, and that maybe we can still work on this in a userspace page or something. The original plan was that I was going to get CU and then work on this, but since some members of ArbCom seem to have disagreed with that idea.... we're stuck with this. --Rschen7754 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, DeltaQuad closed and archived, without giving a reason, all the outstanding reports on Morning277. I'm asking for an explanation of that. —rybec 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not directly providing a reason there, I didn't feel it was the proper place. I was going to come to your talkpage and notify you when I was done fixing the clerking aspect, but you beat me to it. Personally, my opinion is not that we should let them "win", and I doubt that is how my colleagues think also. I never want people who disrupt Wikipedia to win. As I've been talking over with several other checkusers, this has become a very large meatpuppet case. We do not have the power given by the community to 1) CU meatpuppets 2) massively block them without some sort of major disruption. Therefore SPI is not equipped to deal with such cases. With that said, I thank you for all the effort you put in, and if you feel there are still cases that are valid sock cases, you can return them to the SPI page as long as they meet the conditions outlined, so that we are actually targeting socks and not meatpuppets. This is not in any way to try and waste all your hard work. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My requests for check-user attention have been rare: fewer than five, I would say. A check-user request can be declined without closing the report, let alone dozens of reports that did not even have check-user requests in them. As for your second concern, posting hundreds of articles in defiance of a ban isn't disruptive? That's an astonishing assertion.

The activity I have been reporting is described in the first two sentences of WP:SOCK:

The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry [...] Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

It is an attempt by a group of users who have been banned to post material in spite of the ban. WP:SPI was the appropriate forum for enforcement of WP:SOCK, which does encompass abuse such as this, not merely instances involving a single person. —rybec 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As one of the "clerks/CUs [who] are of the opinion that we should just let them win", I do not feel we are letting them "win". Simply put, from my spot checks, they are almost all utterly  Unrelated to each other. (I had them in many countries all over the world.) While paid editing makes many editors angry at the paid editors, it is not banned on the English Wikipedia. Most of the recent articles have actually been relatively decently sourced and NPOV. Additionally, the sock puppetry policy does not permit us to block editors solely because they work writing contracts for a banned sockpuppeteer.

However, if you discover accounts violating the sock puppetry policy, feel free to add them back to the case and point out the inappropriate behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry policy covers attempts to evade bans and avoid scrutiny. Hiring people all around the world to make throwaway accounts and repost deleted material obviously falls under that. While paid editing per se is allowed, this particular group of paid editors has been banned by the community. The proper way to allow this company to post to Wikipedia would be to first get its ban lifted, not what you're doing here. —rybec 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bans apply to the person, not to his associates. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this up for discussion at WP:SPI. —rybec 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they can: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." WP:MEAT. --Rschen7754 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello DQ. You helped in this SP investigation that I was involved in, in submitting evidence. As I had never done an SPI before this, or encountered CheckUser before, I did not follow the results. The other admin in the investigation, blocked the users (not sure exact amount of time for each), but was your post of "All accounts Confirmed. No comment with respect to IP address(es)" the results of CheckUser? Are you able to talk to others about the results? Mainly I am just wondering if CheckUser confirmed what myself and the other submitting user felt, that it was indeed someone with multiple accounts. Thank you for your help in that investigation, and any clarification now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It means that all the accounts that were listed there are in fact the same user. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault. I gathered that, but just wanted further clarification. It will help knowing that was indeed the outcome if it becomes an issue down the road if some of the users get unblocked (which I think is the case). Thank you once again for the help, and now the clarification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you check my recent David Beals blocks and see if a rangeblock is possible? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Has there been new activity since the last block? IIRC, a rangeblock might have been possible, but I don't think I saw enough abuse. But then again i'm not exactly looking at the results right now. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 20:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked last night several times, and it's not even remotely possible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Monitoring one of my filters came up with a weird batch of parallel edits. Think these are all open proxies? The links go to the filter trips.

• 139.192.208.207
• 78.153.102.25
• 80.102.220.152
• 190.229.122.59
• 94.155.181.118

—Kww(talk) 20:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

2.39.234.160 joined the crowd today. They're either open or part of an anonymizer service, so I've blocked them all for a month. Feel free to investigate if your are interested.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

...no I'm kidding. Hey, you blocked Storm8182 for something; maybe you're interested in Stormfront81 as well. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You have blocked this editor, on September 3rd, for sockpuppetry. I have no reason to doubt you, but it appears that the WP:SPI page which you originated does not contain any data. Could I ask you if possible to clarify the situation, as the editor has requested unblock and response without information is difficult. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My error; page is archived. In mitigation I will say that the usual link was apparently omitted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to purge and the link will show up. --Rschen7754 21:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit, assuming that, after three and a half years, the case is no longer open. Please re-revert if I am wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything you can do at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC that would either substantiate my belief that the IPs were part of a proxy network or disprove it? I'm certainly of the belief that the usage was illegal, but it would be nice to have either refutation or support.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you helped out and blocked an ip back in February for harrassment and tendentious editing. He's back again, I was going to take it easy until he deleted a bunch of references and some other fixes along with restoring his own (uncited, still). He is also using a second ip (not as a puppet), User:24.136.28.106. I dunno where to report this, maybe you can help? thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope to be sure that vandalism died down for this article. The page is infrequently edited recently. Lower down protection? --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)