User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/October

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.

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you check the request for unblock and/or IP block exemption at User talk:Heracletus? You placed the block, and it needs a CU, I think, too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC). 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.

See also User talk:Cheryl Cosim ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And User talk:203.111.224.89.... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And User talk:T3: Tulfo Brothers... I don't get it: if they're getting hit with MY autoblock, how are they still creating accounts? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the best way I can explain it, is go find a dev or file a bug. Autoblocks don't seem to be working properly in this case. With that said, yes the block is doing it's job, but it was meant to be followed up on, so thank you for dropping by. I have issued additional blocks and hope to see some things quiet down, though it might still take another bit to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance that the bot could pick up new usernames with the number "69" in them? A good deal of those are VOAs I've found and it could be helpful. Probably would work best with the "low confidence" note. Connormah (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done here. Also added the wait till edit flag. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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.— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Cowboy (talk • contribs)

Recieved, i'll reply by the latest monday. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a user complaining about the G5 deletion of a page by Kick Flip Casper (talk). He isn't mentioned at the SPI, but since it's a checkuser block, I presume he is a confirmed sock?

That's an impressive list, getting on towards Morning277 proportions. Is there any idea who is behind it? Shall I ask the complainer (who says "have a publicist to write out our story") who his paid publicist is? JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya 112 socks, and more that are probably listed in my email, are blocked, but I forgot to tag. Most of the reports about this master come to me by email as i'm familiar with this one sock, and the sooner it's CU'd, the better. It's about 20 socks each round sadly. But yes, the page is validly deleted because it was a banned user attempting to write articles for people. We don't know who the public full name is of the person, I think all I have is a first name. But ya, to say the least, that specific one is like uber- Confirmed if there is such a thing, due to off-wiki evidence. That specific IP you have is not a target of the investigation in any way, shape or form. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing speedy tags on an article created by User:Bagnume - looks like a sock. I don't know Iaaasi's trademarks, though. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is - just seen the admission. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely him, CU even confirms. Several webhosts just blocked. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello DeltaQuad,

I wanted to have the decision made by King of Hearts reviewed over the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024. I usually don't go out of my way and bother admins but believe me, I would only do so if I am sure that there's merit to my concerns. I think King of Heart's decision to close the case for "lack of WP:DUCK-type behavioral evidence" is unsubstantiated. This is quite strange because King of Hearts closed a previous SPI involving the same account by blocking several SPA IP's with far less evidence (see the archived 07 April 2014 SPI report). The evidence provided is the exact same as the one provided in the most recent report, but now there's even more so. I could provide much more if I wanted to, but I didn't want to clutter an already cluttered report. Besides, there's more than enough evidence. The checkuser didn't go through and right when I contacted King of Hearts on his TP to see what he could do about the SPI, I was rebuked by the master sockpuppet (E4024) who only edited because he was using a different computer, throwing the entire guilt off him. Unfortunately, admins have bought the bait. At any rate, I'm surprised King of Hearts has made such a judgement, though I believe he acted in good faith. I am simply requesting to have the decision revised and to reexamine the evidence. Also, please look at Dr.K's comment which is very convincing. If you can give it 5 minutes of your time, I know you'll be convinced, just as I am, that this is a SPA. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Enjoy your WikiBreak!

Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you come back early from your break, it might help if you'd chime in at WP:AN#UAA backlog. Basically, the bot's marked a couple of usernames purely because of their length, and I've requested input on what to do; I assume that you've dealt with this situation before, so you may well be able to give useful input. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey DQ,

I was trying to view edit filter 638's history but was denied access - do you need to have the edit filter manager perm set to view non-public filter histories?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's what you need. Also, left something for you on Func-en. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What a pain. I was just curious who created it as I run most of the related SPI checks. I want to know who to thank! Regarding Func-en, I saw the note and will take a look in a bit. I'm not sure how helpful I'll be though, when I checked weeks ago I couldn't tie anything together with the available data. I emailed DoRD at that time but, as you know, he's away for a bit. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You've got mail.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As your a CU, I feel most CUs need it just to be aware at least of what is going on, so I added the right to you. :) and i'll be replying to your mail shortly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, Christmas came early ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: No joke, the proof is on the ground. :/ -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean you have snow!? I'm so goddamn jealous... the temperature stubbornly refuses to drop under 0C, even at night. I can't wait anymore, I only ever feel truly alive at sub-zero temps. X_x ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• DQ, did you reply to the email? I didn't see anything come through.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

in this dif you archived an SPI case, but I had added an investigation for a new sock at the bottom of it that has not been addressed yet. Did I do something wrong there? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that's an automatic archival script, and I was archiving many things at once, didn't see your case. Reverted. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)