User talk:DeltaQuad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English.
fr-3 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.
es-1 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
Search user languages
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
WP:OP
WP:SPI#Cases_currently_listed_at_SPI
Special:Prefixindex/User:DeltaQuad
User:DeltaQuad/Workshop
User talk:DeltaQuad/IP
User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB
User talk:DeltaQuad
User:DeltaQuad



SPI question

Hi, you closed an SPI I submitted saying it's dynamic IPs. So to clarify, it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple IP editors to gain talk page consensus if neither IP is blocked? If it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple users, what is the appropriate noticeboard? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is one big difference that isolates whether it's socking or not. If it's just a group of IPs, and they aren't particularly claiming that they are different people, then no it's not socking. Because people's IPs can change easily depending on an ISPs policies. As soon as there is a user account involved though, with IPs OR other users, it's socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The case is two IPs claiming to be two different people to gain consensus and break 3RR when it's clearly one person. How is that not socking? Kirin13 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
3RR violation was not mentioned in the case. It looks like the 3RR was a few days ago, so i can't block on that basis of WP:PUNITIVE. As for the IPs talking as if they are one, I'll will issue a final warning to them about it (and remind them about 3RR) after dinner, and the next offence will be blockable. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the situation and thanks for your patience with me. I didn't mention the 3RR earlier because it was stale and because I don't formally report 3RR without warning the user (which I felt I could not do because it was on different accounts). Thanks again, Kirin13 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sheodred sockpuppet

Hi. I am feeling a bit perplexed about the SPI issue. Another sockpuppet of Sheodred has returned, this time as 109.79.231.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) since the SPI has been closed. The IP, which is based in Ireland (the same location as Sheodred), removed the sock puppetry notices and as far as I can understand, IPs are not allowed to remove sock puppetry notices. But according to this message which I removed from my talk page and find that it is troubling, the IP is actually shared by a billpayer. I also find this message to be very troubling as well. I'm thinking about opening another SPI on this. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Just so your aware, i'm not ignoring this, just haven't got much time to do anything today. I'll try and respond tomorrow morning or afternoon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks. BTW, it seems like the message has already been reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at all given that it's a Vodafone mobile phone range. It could be the sock, maybe it isn't. Either way, continue to revert the stuff you know is him and deny him the pleasure. If you ever get an account, that is truly the best time to open an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been with the project for over 6 years actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sjones23: My apologizes, my tiredness got to me, I meant if he ever got an account. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. You have new messages at Ashbeckjonathan's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Upsidedownness

Just a request from an editor: having the "talk" portion of your signature appear upsidedown... Would you consider having it appear right-side-up? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen many ways people have obscured the talk portion of their signature, and I find this more on the mild side. I see how people may find it confusing, but I'm not one who stands in a crowd. I like to be unique (despite my stealing of it from Deskana). I'm open to change, but I would have to find something else which suits me first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Rollback Powers

Thanks so much for the rollback power. You won't be disappointed. I just completed the course at the new admin school. Thanks again! Bobherry talk 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI Homni-MonteDa Cunca

Additional diffs you requested on 7/21 re [SPI here] from July 17 have been posted. Please reply to us (Ladislav Mecir,Martijn Meijering, and myself). --Wuerzele (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir, Mmeijeri, Wuerzele: I apologize. We have a huge caseload (as you can see at WP:SPI) and sometimes I lose track of cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for letting us know.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Another Festal82 Sockpuppet

Hi, another obvious sockpuppet of Festal82 has appeared: GLA1976. The new account popped up within the last hour and removed the Neutrality/External Links tags on the Seth Abramson page without any reason, and deleted my comments about the need for a cleanup after confirmed sockpuppetry on the Talk page [1] (under the false claim that they were 'archiving' them, but actually they simply deleted them entirely). They also whitewashed the negative comments from the "controversy" section of the article, and reinserted more of their metamodernism spam: Special:Contributions/GLA1976

I've come to you first, since you handled the case previously, and I didn't know what the correct way of dealing with this is, since Festal's SPI has now been closed [2]. I hope you're able to help with this, and perhaps the Seth Abramson page should also be protected? Thanks. Esmeme (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

All you need to do is refile Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82, as I just did. Also semi'd the article for 3 months. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift action on this, and I'll know what to do if this occurs again. You're a star! Esmeme (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And…another obvious sockpuppet, AllurbaseRbelong2us, has sprung up already, unfortunately. I refiled another SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82, but perhaps it would be wise to extend a similar protection to the metamodernism page, while these disruptive sockpuppets keep springing up? Thanks once again, and I just hope we can see the last of this soon, as I fear Festal's tiresome tactics have already scared off several legitimate editors. Esmeme (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Replied @ SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DeltaQuad, did you catch my last comments on the SPI page? Not only did the user return to the talk page once again making disruptive and totally non-constructive comments (although their comments were filtered, another user inserted them) [3]--but in a clearly related development, Seth Abramson has just made a blog post [4] about wikipedia edit wars, and drawing comparison to the modernism and postmodernism pages, just as Festal's sockpuppets and this user have done. The user calling the page "an amateurish student project" is an example of this intent to disrupt, since the article covers a topic that already has considerable traction in the academic community, and the current content is well sourced and has been arrived at by consensus.
I think it has become entirely probable, given this and the previous hoax articles on his blog (see the article talk page here), that the metamodernism article is being used by Abramson as one of his "conceptual poetry" experiments. I would really appreciate your help and advice in handling this, as sadly I can see more frustrations ahead, and Festal's disruptions have already taken up far, far too much of all our time and efforts. Thanks in advance! Esmeme (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Esmeme: I appologize for the delay...I often loose track of SPI cases like this. I'll take a look tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem--there's actually another puppet and lengthy disruptive post that popped up, and I've just detailed on the SPI page. Apologies that my posts on there are getting so long now! This is really a bummer to have to deal with all the time, as Festal is a monster with many heads that just keep on growing… Hopefully it's fairly easy to see what's really going on here though, and I really appreciate your time on this. Thanks! Esmeme (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again DeltaQuad, thanks for your work on the SPI. This latest sock is slinging a huge amount of mud at me on the metamodernism talk page [5] and doing a lot of damage to the perceived credibility of the article's discussion (which I think is their aim). I notice he's also being seriously condescending about your own actions there. As his latest posts seriously break just about every rule with regards to WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:NOTHERE, is there a way to get them blocked right away, or do I need to take this to WP:ANI? Thanks in advance for your advice! Esmeme (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Esmeme: I saw this lovely ping of a mess last night when I got the email with my name written all over it for making a single comment...gotta love it. I normally try and keep my CU hat and admin hat separate, unless I feel the situation requires it. Considering he's also labelled my name all over the talkpage, it's probably better to get another admin to review it. ANI would be a good place to take it in my opinion. I think a sensible admin there will make the proper decision. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks DeltaQuad, I've taken this to the ANI. I'm so sorry you (and me both!) got dragged into this fine mess... Thanks so much for your advice as always. Esmeme (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. 2001.
Message added 15:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you. When reverting good-faith edits using STiki, the options available to notify the user on talk page are very limited. Hence I use it sparingly unless there is an absolute need. I understand tools like Huggle do not have this drawback and I'll be sure to notify from now on. I always leave a talk page notification for blatant vandalism unless there is an edit conflict and someone else has tagged the page already. Btw you did not give any input regarding my request for reviewer rights.[6] Should I apply for the reviewer right separately at WP:PERM? Regards,  NQ  talk 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My appologies, I thought you were applying for that on a separate page, and until now, I haven't followed that page. And it must be the edit conflicts, because there was a group where several were not done in a row. None the less, I've read over the criterion for Reviewer, and i'm Yes check.svg granting it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! You've been very kind and helpful. Regards,  NQ  talk 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

"Osama bin..." usernames

Original discussion - For the record. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, DeltaQuad. Actually, I mostly reported usernames that had the string "Osama bin" in them. Are you telling me that "Osama bin" does not conjure up thoughts of Osama bin Laden? - Hoops gza (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It does. It's still not a blatant violation of the policy to have that name in them. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Hoops gza: 'Osama bin' simply means - Osama, son of.. "insert name here". Osama is a very common Arabic name and Laden is a somewhat common surname. Having those names alone, does not warrant a username block.  NQ  talk 22:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that there was a string of names like "Osama bin Retard" and "Osama bin 9/11" and "Osama bin Twin Towers" and "Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden", I politely disagree. DS (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: Almost all the names, listed were blatantly disruptive like you said and I don't have an issue with them. My point was that in the mix were names like "Osamabinzaid" and "Osamabinamer" which shouldn't be misconstrued just on the basis of having the term 'Osama bin' in their username.  NQ  talk 03:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DragonflySixtyseven, Hoops gza, NQ: I think the point trying to be made here, is 'Osama bin (something half decently nice)' is not an issue, and it's where i'm raising the point. I left it up to the editor to refile if the name was bad enough. Maybe 'stale' isn't the right word which was brought up in a convo between @Connormah, Rjd0060:, as usernames violating the policy should still be blocked. The issue I and Connormah were trying to raise is if the mass nomination of anything with 'Osama bin...' in it or other people's names like Lebron James are not username vios by themselves, without something like 'is a terrorist' on the end. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the variations and exact matches on the names of people like Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler? Connormah keeps declining these on the grounds that they are stale. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of usernames which he declined:

- Hoops gza (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to start by saying, I don't have all the answers. I'm one sole administrator who can't solve project wide issues. Your request in my opinion really dances in the grey area of the user name policy. I think it would be better if the specific usernames you are asking about were talked about at WT:UAA to get a community wide view. Personally, I see both sides of the argument, but it seems a little heavy on the side of WP:CENSORSHIP to be quite honest. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) To be perfectly honest, I would create most of those usernames as AGF if I saw one on the list as there is no legitimate reason I'm aware of to decline them. I would of course watch the usage of the accounts for a bit, and report them instantly if an issue arose. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hoops gza : None of the accounts you listed, shows any disruptive activity. Like I said earlier, there are people named 'AdolphHitler' and 'OsamabinLaden' even today, and should they every decide to create Wikipedia accounts, we should assume good faith and let them be. Usernames like 'Osama bin 9/11' and 'Osama bin Twin Towers' are a different matter altogether and it is up to the admin to block based on policy.  NQ  talk 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hoops: Good lord, this is starting to get a bit irritating. The guidelines clearly say to only report accounts used in the last 2-3 weeks. Please stop reporting accounts that have never been used or have not edited in months to years. Connormah (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DQ, @Connormah, DragonflySixtyseven, Technical 13: Just letting you know that a user has opened a thread at ANI regarding the matter. Link  NQ  talk 08:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. You have new messages at Fox2k11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Fox2k11 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-33

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your help at SPI! Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome. I might need it tonight. Seems to be nothing but headaches -_-, but at least I can handle them. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)\

YGM

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 20:33, 14 August 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.
Received from User:Logical Cowboy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to ask for Checkuser

Forgot to ask for Checkuser in my SPI, but there is no option to add it later?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is, like this . -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn, and that withdrawal has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I plan to properly abide by the restrictions I gave myself earlier, for the simple reason that straying beyond them causes drama. Exception: instances where I am unable to get a response from the original blocking admin within 24 hours (but even then, I'll discuss the issue with at least one other admin first). DS (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner

Hi, DQ, what do you think of this discussion? The tagging administrator has said it's okay with him for me to remove the tag. Hijiri, who's obviously heavily invested, has gone a bit crazy complaining about all sorts of things related to the issue. My inclination is to remove the tag, but part of my rationale is more procedural than substantive. I don't particularly like the way this whole thing was handled. Do you have an opinion in the matter?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I do have an opinion on the situation from my brief reading of the stuff, but I would rather make sure I have all the details in order before I do so. It's been a very busy past two days, therefore i'll respond tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23, Shii: (Shii pinged as a courtesy) Bbb23, So speaking to the situation only, not the status of the blocked account as a sock, I think this could have been handled a little more diplomatically. (If you wish, I can indulge at your request or privately) The whole tags on the userpages is another thing that is just screwed up with SPI. It really doesn't distinguish the difference between the two tags. There are several other versions of the tag running around also. A preliminary idea would to have 3 categories 1) Suspected - no confirmation required, can be removed by anyone (to be placed by any editor) 2) Behaviourally conclusive (through an administrator or clerk reviewing evidence) 3) CU confirmed.
Anyway, onto the account itself. I should probably clear up my wording in the result. When I say "CU can't connect it back to" I mean that someone is modifying the CU results to evade us (aka proxies, webhosts, colocators, etc.). Reviewing the case, one of the more interesting behavioural factors was the 03:01, 10 August 2014 by 182.249.240.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Listing the encyclopedias in that specific order again on a different user is interesting. I don't believe in coincidence. Also, obviously not being a new account, adds to the case more. I hope this helps with your determination, and I can look more if you would like further comparison. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about the tagging issue, but I've been unhappy with the templates since I started clerking. I just finally decided that fighting the inconsistencies and problems was not geting me very far, so I let it go and adapted as best I could. Even the clerks don't all tag the same way. Please share whatever you can privately. Just like you, I need to think about this a bit more when I have more time (may not even be until the weekend because real life work calls) and energy (it's close to bedtime, and it's been a long day).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request by user affected by an IP proxy block

Hello, DeltaQuad. There has been an unblock request at User talk:SergiSmiler. It has been difficult to fully understand what the editor, who is not a native speaker of English, has said, but it seems that he or she is affected by an IP block you placed on 77.228.166.156, as a proxy. As you can see here you give the block reason as {{checkuserblock}}: {{blocked proxy}} <!-- 8081, also ssh, ftp, and telnet running per Shirik -->. I am not able to see the checkuser data you refer to, but I have checked the other matters you mention. Nmap shows port 8081 as open, but running blackice-icecap, which is a firewall, not a proxy. Port 80 is also open for http, so it could conceivably be running a proxy, but I am unable to connect to it, or to find any other evidence that it is any sort of proxy (open or closed); for example, web searches fail to produce any mention of it as a proxy. Ftp and telnet are running on the IP address, but the ports they are connected to are filtered, not open, and in any case I am not aware of any reason why they should be relevant to editing Wikipedia. Could you have another look at this, and check whetehr there really are good reasons for having a proxy block on this IP address? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: So there is not much behind this checkuserblock, but when I seek out a block after I've checked something in a SPI, I have to append the CU factor because it came from a sock puppetry investigation and CU results. I asked @Shirik: to run the proxy check as due to my current location, I don't have the ability to proxy check (thanks to my ISP's generic policies -_-), I just get everything back as closed. Reviewing the CU information on the IP only that you provided me, and of what I can understand on his talkpage, I would be ok to see this IP unblocked. As for the proxy side, Shirik noted that several normal web services were running, and that's where our suspicion came from. Again, reviewing the CU evidence, I'm not sure this IP being blocked is effectively stopping anything, and would be fine seeing it unblocked (and I authorize you to unblock it if you see the proxy side as not 100% on). I would wish to explain myself more, but i'm bound by policies on what I can say in this instance, and I apologize for the very hard selective wording of this reply. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I do understand that Checkusers are limited in what information they can reveal. I can't find why port 80 is open: it doesn't seem to be hosting a web site. Apart from that, though, I can find no evidence at all of a proxy, so, in view of what you say, I am inclined to unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. There are a few details which give me just a little doubt, such as the fact that the editor says that he/she has other accounts, and the fact that he/she is known to have used at least one proxy in the past. For now, pending an answer to my query about the other accounts, I have changed the blcok to anon-only, with account creation blocked. I am not sure whether keeping the block in that reduced form will actually achieve anything useful, but it seems unlikely to do any harm, since 100% of anonymous editing from that IP address appears to be this editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: We're getting into very dangerous territory here, but suffice to say I question the validity of this block change. I would like to point out a few things without going into details. Firstly, the fact that nmap says a service is something does not mean that's what it is; it simply indicates (in 99% of cases) what the typical use case of a given port is. Secondly, why was there any confusion or collateral damage ever? As much as I am trying to AGF, something is clearly wrong here. That being said, if DQ believes that the block isn't actually accomplishing anything, then it doesn't really need to be around. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify - when I commented on port 8081 being a proxy, I personally connected to it and verified responsiveness and accessibility; I did not rely on nmap's results except as a starting point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Shirik: I should have consulted you first. I took DQ's remark about "where our suspicion came from" as indicating that you only suspected an open proxy, and were not certain, but it would have been better to have checked with you to be sure. You are, of course, right about nmap being only a starting point: I never base decisions purely on what nmap says, though I was under the impression that nmap could tell what protocol was being used on a particular port, not just what is most commonly used on that port, and I am very grateful to you for putting me right on that. I made several attempts to connect to the proxy, both on port 80 and on 8081, but unlike you I failed to do so. I also looked at various other things, such as web sites that list proxies, web sites that list spam sources, etc etc, the editing history of the IP address, and so on. Finally, I consulted the blocking administrator/checkuser, so that if (s)he knew of anything relevant that I couldn't see, (s)he could tell me. As I said above, it was a mistake not to also consult you. Since you have clearly established that the IP address has recently been running an open proxy, my inclination is to reblock, especially since, like you, I have a distinct feeling that "something is clearly wrong", and the editor is known to have used one or more proxies in order to misrepresent the truth about him/her-self. However, I see your point that "if DQ believes that the block isn't actually accomplishing anything, then it doesn't really need to be around", but DC said "I authorize you to unblock it if you see the proxy side as not 100% on" (my emphasis) and from what you say the proxy is 100% certain. I am therefore going to reinstate the block. If you and/or DQ see fit to remove it again, I will not quarrel. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Unfortunately there seems to have been some kind of reconfiguration since I was there. Here is the transcript I am getting now (which, admittedly, is OK according to policy, but inconsistent with what I had seen before). What this means, I don't exactly know. The most likely things I can think of are (1) someone is trying to correct the problems identified from earlier testing, or (2) the computer is a zombie that is inconsistently available (which I guess means it's not an open proxy, but is a problem address from our perspective). Transcript:
 mpdelbuono # wget google.com -S -e http_proxy=77.228.166.156:8081 -e use_proxy=yes
 --2014-08-20 00:29:15--  http://google.com/
 Connecting to 77.228.166.156:8081... connected.
 Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 
   HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable
   Connection: Close
   Content-Length: 0
 2014-08-20 00:29:15 ERROR 503: Service Unavailable.
(Previously I was able to successfully connect and download.) If I am to AGF then I would choose #1; that the address used to be an open proxy and isn't anymore -- or perhaps a combination of #1 and #2; that the computer was an infected open proxy and it has been cleaned up. I'm not particularly against unblocking the IP but I would advise keeping an eye on it over the next week or so if we did so. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad & @Shirik: This started out looking like a simple unblock request, which could be easily dealt with, but it gets more and more confusing. Clearly it was a proxy, but whether it no longer is one, or whether it still is one but is intermittently available, I have no idea. I have tried to connect to the proxy several times over the last couple of days, the last time being about half a minute ago, and I have never succeeeded in doing so. It seems to me that "keeping an eye on it over the next week or so" would be best done by a CheckUser, so I think I will ask you, DeltaQuad, if you will make a decision about whether to unblock or not. Currently the block is back to where you originally put it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson, Shirik: At this point, I still can't connect via 8081, so lets continue to keep an eye on it. I really think that is was not as volatile as we first thought it was, or at least it has been fixed since then. So at this time, with no real pressing need for the block on the CU side, i'm going to unblock it. We've spent enough Kilo-Watt hours on this already. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Tech News: 2014-34

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Another unblock request...

Here I am again, questioning another of your blocks. I have placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:Allquixotic. On the face of it, the request seems to me fairly reasonable, and IP block exemption may be an option, but I think it would require a CheckUser to see whether it is acceptable. Could you have a look at it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: IPBE granted from what CU can gather as a very legitimate situation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for dealing with it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing NFCR discussions

Hi! When closing discussions at WP:NFCR, please remember to substitute the {{subst:archive top}} template. Otherwise, the archiving bot breaks the template in the archive, making it impossible to see the rationale. The {{archive bottom}} template works both with and without substitution. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems a little ridiculous that the bot doesn't know, but ok, I can work with that, didn't know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: IP accusing you of socking

FYI, 65.205.13.26 is accusing you of being my sockpuppet (bottom addition). So I guess, hi me? Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Well hello then, myself, person I have never met :D Ya i'm just going to let him go on his rant, and if he disrupts too much we can always go to ANI. Wait, I see he's at AN3. I'll go look. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Tech News: 2014-35

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etfcanadian

Could you unclose this? There is still behavioral evidence and Ponyo has stated that there is other evidence to check against at the "Checkuser wiki".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Still doesn't change anything, and it was Mike V's close, and he reopened it already. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Monterrosa

Could you please take another look at the following SPI/CU request? ([34]) More evidence has been provided as you requested along with another user name added to the sock list. Additionally, another editor posted a comment that I believe deserves considering. Thanks, -- Winkelvi 18:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(tps) I took care of the case because the last suspect's behavior was right in line with Monterrosa's. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Winkelvi 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

Your close of this deletion discussion is not policy-based. It is clear that there is simply no consensus to delete the image - indeed, there was slightly more support for keeping it than deleting it. Of course, WP:POLL applies, but the argument that WP:NFCC should not be interpreted as strictly in cases when there is some sort of permission provided is a valid one, whether you agree with it or not. Your close simply imposes your opinion about that argument, thus overriding the consensus, or lack thereof. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Lets strictly talk numbers for a second, just to satisfy that argument. (Although WP:POLL) 12:10 in favour of keeping the image, of which 5 (so 5 of 22 participants, or 23%) argued that the image should be kept because it's semi-free. Also another 3 of those keeps have no basis in policy. 2 of the delete arguments had nothing to do with policy. So really a 9:8 is where the actual numbers of this stands in terms of policies. If we don't count the semi-free argument (which I talk about below), it comes to 4:8 in favour of keeping the article in a policy based way. But again, that's all just numbers which aren't particularly relevant to my close.
Now the scope of this is not to determine if the current policy at WP:NFC is appropriate, that is a separate discussion. I was pointed to that policy by reviewing what free content actually was when there was debate around that at this deletion debate. I read deeply through that policy including into the guideline examples and an explanation of the theory, spirit and letter of the law behind NFC. There was nothing to justify that this was free content although you and a few people commented on it. That makes it non-free content. NFCC #1 in the discussion is easily dismissable, but 3a and 8 can't be dismissed as indicated by the consensus there.
So to sum up, I do believe that I closed it properly, in a policy based manner without injecting my own opinion into the mix, and I hope this explains how certain words in my close came about. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Dhathcock57

That appears to be an initial, surname, and a number, but you blocked the account as a "clear violation" of username policy - is it a mistake or was there a reason that would not be visible in contributions or logs? Peter James (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be a mistake on my part. Thank you for letting me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Tech News: 2014-36

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock on me

SPI case log

Hey DQ, there's something wrong with the alternative SPI case list you just added. It's displaying many cases as "open" that are actually in "checked" or "CU declined" status (example 1) (example 2). This appears to be the most up to date and accurate info.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ya, it's a live hack right now. There are only certain categories within SPI and it's what the bot is based off of. After dinner, i'll modify some of the categories and create some new ones, and modify the SPI case status template so it all reflects properly. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ta for that, you're a star :) --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Dhananjay lovely rakhi jhuma soni

I saw Dhananjay lovely rakhi jhuma soni(DLRJS) in the new user list and was going to tag it as possible WP:ISU/WP:CORPNAME violation, but a search found it in User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait. Do you know something about it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the page indicating that it's waiting till the user edits to report to UAA. My bot handles that task/page. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Tech News: 2014-38

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Question

Hi DeltaQuad. You recently deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IBCPirates. Firstly I was just wondering why, as I feel it should have been left as an archive of the opinions surrounding the accounts. But second, I believe I've run in to (been contacted by) another of their accounts on Commons, and would appreciate being able to point a Commons admin towards that page rather than explaining the entire situation again. Could you advise what I should do about this? Thanks. Sam Walton (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Denying the user any recognition & removing the chance of sensitive information being rerevealed again are the reasons I deleted the SPI. Sadly, I can't really explain that better for privacy reasons. If you have an account on commons, go ahead an drop me an email, i'll pass it on to a commons CU right away, as it will need CU attention, and likely i'll need to be CUing any enwiki result also. I apologize for the run around. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for the help. My account there is the same as here, and you can find the message I received from the (new) account on my Talk Page there. I already requested speedy deletion of a copyrighted upload of theirs FYI. Sam Walton (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Took care of that yesterday when I saw the message. @SamWalton9: If you do see this person again though, please email me as it is important we deal with this as fast as possible, and sometimes I only check wikipedia once a day. By email, I can forward it to the appropriate contacts also for immediate action. Thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Urgent SPI Request

I would like to request a SPI investigation of Krzyhorse22; I note you have left a message on his Talk page regarding possible sockpuppetry. Because you appear to have more information than I do, I was hoping you could initiate the SPI case. The SPI issue is really secondary, the user is un-managably disruptive, and possibly insane, to wit:

  • He has filed at least 6 ANIs and 3RR cases (conservative estimate) against StanTheMan87 in the last month (all of which have either been dismissed or archived without action). Here's today's: [84]. In fact, his first three edits after creating his account were to initiate ANIs. (see: [85])
  • His edit pattern exhibits increasingly bizarre/aberrant behavior, including claiming he has had phone calls with "the head of the CIA" [sic] about the copyright status of an image he has been trying to get deleted for weeks now (and which he has been engaged in repeated, nuisance tagging), and insinuating he is a CIA case officer here to enforce copyright laws. (see: [86])
  • He has blitzed StanTheMan87's talk page with 13 warning templates in 30 days.
  • He has vandalized the permissions descriptions of images I've uploaded to make them appear as non-public domain images (before then nominating them for deletion), such as adding "owned by" verbiage when such verbiage is not contained in the uploading site. (see [87] and [88])

I realize this is an ANI issue, however, I think it could be more efficiently and quickly handled - and with less drama - as a SPI case if, indeed, there is evidence of sockpuppetry. I apologize, in advance, for what is about to happen to your Talk page as KH22 will show up here momentarily and accuse me of being someone secretly trying to destroy WP (his usual M.O. is to declare his accusers are actually the WP:BIOs they've written; he's previously accused me of being Andrew Hughes (attorney), for instance, among a variety of other people, living and dead). While it was funny at first, the situation has really become unmanageable for those of us he's targeting with this insanity. Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I also wish to highlight points worthy of Krzyhorse22 and his conduct:

  • Diff concerning Krzyhorse22 claim to have had contact with the head of the CIA in order to remove an image uploaded by U.S government, [89]
  • Whilst trying to use a conciliatory stance on his objection to reason, [90] he has repeatably tried to coerce me into not uploading images of relevance by using half-ass excuses that they are somehow fake, or showing the wrong person, without referencing a single source to support his POV. [91], [92], [93], [94]
  • He has reported me for Edit warring [95] however, he has conveniently left out the cause of my reverts, and the user who is responsible for them. The user Maxforwind has been reverting edits without any suitable justification beyond that they are "irrelevant" [96] according to him, without further explanation. When questioned by Bbb23 on this, Krzyhorse22 stated "I was going to report him/her but got busy" [97] in what is yet another typical Krzyhorse22 response. It is also worthy to note that Maxforwind was created three days ago [98], and his first edits were to remove an image [99] that Krzyhorse22 has been trying relentlessly to remove [100]. Indeed, both Maxforwind and Krzyhorse22's first edits have been targeted directly at me concerning the same article, over the same images. See [101] and [102]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Please also note, as further evidence of sockpuppetry, that the images in question - Mullah Omar and various persons associated with the Mullah - have been on WP for years without issue. KrzyH22 has been uniquely single minded in his fanaticism to get these removed. Virtually his entire edit time in the last month of his account(s) has been devoted to repeatedly nominating these important historic (and repeatedly confirmed public domain) files for deletion. The only exceptions have been when he starts deluging people who vote "Keep" with ANIs, template-bombing talk pages, or threatening people with action by the CIA if they attempt to upload more images of the Mullah. DocumentError (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I do agree with you that it is likely someone who has previously edited Wikipedia that has started this account. That said, CheckUser currently can't find anything to support that theory. In this case, without any evidence of previously editing under a different account, i'm not inclined to block, as I don't think it's yet justified for sock puppetry. As for the comment I left on his talkpage, he hasn't reoffended since and has taken my advice and warning. Unfortunately, although I have been trying to look at this for at least the past hour or so, I don't have the time to read and compare into this dispute enough to see whether non-sockpuppetry administrative action is actionable. (Full work weeks - gotta love them) It seems like there are issues with several images and copyrights. My encouragement to you is to seek a 3rd opinion. Wikipedia works on consensus vs two people arguing over things. If you still can't get something with that, you have the dispute resolution noticeboard, and if that fails, then ANI could be your next approach. I'm pretty sure I also saw stuff from both sides, maybe not you directly DocumentError, that constitutes a personal attack, and it needs to stop. I'll let the AN3 report take it's course, and if you have any other sockpuppet issues, feel free to stop by. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to subject any of my edits or comments to WP:BOOMERANG. I have had zero edit interaction with KH22 - we have not edited any of the same articles - so there is no editor dispute here that needs resolving. I only got involved when I noticed his flood of ANI reports and his daily tagging of the Mullah Omar image. Please note I have already filed an ANI against KH22 (here: [103]); this was on Sep. 1 and there has been no admin comment either way; this was my first ANI on WP and I don't want to get into the habit of being the guy who floods the ANI until someone pays attention. DocumentError (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. 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.

Tech News: 2014-40

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)