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



DeltaQuad's Email backlog is currently:

Last message without a reply: October 15th, 2014
Current number of messages that need reply: 4
I am currently on Wikibreak and will not be replying to messages.
If your message came on or after this date, your email is still being
attended to. If the date passes and you don't receive a reply, let me know.

Update: [Normal]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Tech News: 2014-41

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

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)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

You've got mail!

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

Tech News: 2014-42

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DQ Bot

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)

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

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

YGM

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Cowboy (talkcontribs)
Recieved, i'll reply by the latest monday. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

NewZealand123 sock

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)

Tech News: 2014-43

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Osugiba

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)

Review of an SPI

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)