Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2013/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Getting history regards a block

My server IP range 178.63.0.0/16 is blocked. A little inconvenient but that's OK. I guess someone on the ISP did some abuse.

But is there any way I can get info on what happened or even the IP the problem came from?

Sorry if this is a silly question. Is it worth me continuing to pay for the IP or do we think as soon as the ban expires someone will just abuse again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jago25 98 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, it's not a silly question. I have changed it over to a {{webhostblock}}. There was original abuse by a sockpuppet which first caused the block. I can link you to the thread that first started it if you wish. I normally don't block the ranges until I see abuse from them, but the block doesn't expire for another good while. Hope that answers your questions, Happy New Year, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hi DQ, not sure if you saw it or not but I sent you an off wiki e-mail yesterday regarding ACC. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond in the morning when I have decent sleep :P Happy New Year, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, we are in contact. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA

Can you have a look at this one, it has been open for a week ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have two big Wikipedia projects on my hands right now that are taking the majority of my time and I also might be traveling out of town in the next day or two, it's still at limbo. I'll see if I can find some extra time, but it's a little tight right now. Happy New Year, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Unblock on hold

Hello, DeltaQuad. There is an unblock request at User talk:Jamie Kitson, because of a range block that you placed. (Block log: [1]). A suggestion has been made of giving IPBE. Perhaps, as a checkuser, you can best assess whether there is a case for unblock, change of block conditions, IPBE, or anything else. Please feel free to take whatever action you think suitable, including simply declining the unblock request, without waiting for me to get back onto it, if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and granted them IPBE, at least until DQ has a chance to take a look himself. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I knew that this one block might have been an issue. DoRD removed the IPBE after I removed the hardblock portion and changed the block reason. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind cross-posting?

I see that you washed all of the socks from the Josh Simmons AfD. Would you mind cross-posting to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumpaul40, just to tidy up all of the paperwork? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) I asked a follow-up question there, if you have the chance to look it over. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Not in a position to respond just yet, I'll see if I can grab another CU to take a look. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 17:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:59, 7 January 2013 (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.

✍ Mtking ✉ 09:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw and dealt with the issue at hand. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI - MeasureIP and DeFacto

Hi DeltaQuad,

Thank you for taking the time to look as this SPI investigation.

Last night, shortly before you completed your checks, MeasureIT left a message on my talk page that I think conclusively links him to DeFacto. I have only had an opportunity to flag it this morning. Would you please take the appropriate steps to ensure that this is considered as part of the SPI process. Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

BigzMMA

That was a tough case. I remember spending a great deal of effort coming to the same conclusion the first time, around 6 days. I wasn't shocked that CU linked them, anecdotal info had already linked them to the same island previously. And I don't blame Steven for getting the review wrong, it was a close call. Thanks for taking the time to properly investigate, I know it was a lot of work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

User:Croonerman

Hey, DQ, I'm wondering if User:Hell in a Bucket's good faith tagging after the completion of the investigation is correct. I almost undid them myself, but, just to be sure, I figured I'd ask you. I believe only the user pages of Croonerman and 301bNYC should be tagged, and there's no reason to remove the talk page history of either account. Is that right? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I undid those. Socks' user talk pages are sometimes blanked and/or redirected to the user, but sockmasters' talk pages usually aren't, and sock tags belong on user pages rather than talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Shouldn't Croonerman's user page be tagged?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Distractions are distracting. If indef'd I'd say yes, tag it, otherwise no. So since he's indef'd i've tagged him. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Good, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppet

According to WP:MEAT "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.[2] You wrote on the SPI case page that Tariqmia was probably a meatpuppet, since Aminul802 was blocked this guy is back and supporting Aminul802 edits[3] What should be done regarding this? If as suspected this is a meatpuppet then he will proxy edits for the blocked user. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For reasons I can't comment on I honestly doubt that will be much of an issue. If he does continue to edit in the same areas and related subjects as our sock, drop me a note, i'll run a second check and see if there is a stronger relation and consider blocks then per either the sock or meat policy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
OK mate, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DQ, [4] GOALWAY has finally posted an unblock request, as you are the blocking admin would you take a look. I personally find it suspect that no unblock request was made until the protection was lifted on International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (Aminul802 favoured topic) and I began to edit it. I also note in his unblock request he says Aminul802 "only visits me every once in a while" However Aminul802 has said "My wife and I, of course, visit my brother-in-law frequently"[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped note. At this point i'll be shocked if he's unblocked. Thanks for letting me know :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As you are about I think these are two Nangparbat socks based on what he has written on my talk page over the last few days about the beheading of those Indian troops [6][7] Care to check? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed the two accounts are related + Fake Indian Police Confessions (talk · contribs) and Fake Police Confessions (talk · contribs). I haven't dealt with Nangparbat in a good while, so I don't know if this is him. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Elockid would probably know. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

About topic ban of Greek-Turkish relations

Hi DeltaQuad‎! Firstly,put the topic ban and after close the negotiation,will not change anything.Have you received my statement in this regard? Or about this topic, did you contact me? Also,Have you seen contributions claimant Dr.K._? Unfortunately,none of this happened. I don't recognize this decision !! Maurice (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I did not individually contact you, but you were notified of the thread here, and were given a chance for a statement. Regarding Dr. K., this is about you, not him, if you have an issue with him you can file your own request, as that is your right to. And I'm sorry you don't recognize this decision, but under a ruling from the the Arbitration Committee authorizes me and other administrators to issue these topic bans, and block you if you do not follow them. Your excessive edit warring at bot-like speeds is definitely an issue and why the restriction is imposed. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them as best as I can. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
He is already violating the topic ban with this edit [8], which he made right after he posted here. I have feeling he either doesn't understand the topic ban, or doesn't "recognize it" as he puts it. Athenean (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually disagree. The ban was for Greek-Turkey relations, not for Cyprus related edits. Furthermore, he's not edit warring or attacking anyone with that edit. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out. I'm not 100% familiar with WP:AE procedures, so if another admin, especially Heim or The Blade view it as a violation I will accept that, but from where I stand, it's not a violation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The TRNC is one of the main stumbling blocks in Greek-Turkish relations, so the way I see it is a violation, but I will ask Heimstern and Blade what they think. Thanks for getting back. Athenean (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, guys. I'm a bit torn on this one, myself. On the one hand, it's adding a picture, and the fact that the area shown is part of the dispute between Greece and Turkey doesn't really seem enough to be a violation. What concerns me is the way he distinctly adds a link to the disputed state, the TRNC, and its flag. That veers the edit a bit into the political. Is it enough for a violation? I'm not really sure. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If a topic ban is activated,who has to get it back in violation of this ban? Greek users like User:Athenean[9], User:Dr.K.[10] . Do you think this is ethical or may be deemed to be a neutral behavior? Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus, Turkish cities like,İzmir, Büyükada, Bozcaada...Disputed articles: Cyprus Dispute, EOKA B, Bloody Christmas (1963), or Istanbul pogrom Also,what is the scope of the ban on this topic? I want to valid the ban on this topic for two users. If you look their contributions,you will see this my request justified. Otherwise,cannot be achieved any results from this work! Maurice (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
And now he is edit-warring and attacking [11]. Regarding Heimstern's "political" point, there is also this [12]. It is my impression this user is not here to create a neutral encyclopedia but rather to promote awareness of the TRNC. Looking over the AE report, it seems to me the scope needs to be broadened. You will notice the worst edit-warring, the bot-like reverting over whether Turkey is in Europe, has nothing to do with Greek-Turkish relations, which is rather narrow. He should be banned from any topic involving Greece and Turkey, including Cyprus, not just relations between the two countries. Athenean (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As always,non-neutral point of view an explanation. He is considered to Northern Cyprus as an attack, on article of Mediterranean Sea. I didn't do a special arrangement to Northern Cyprus.See:[13]. This inadequate explanation, full of many contradictions.Firstly,if topic ban relates to the Greek-Turkish relations why trying to add in Cyprus it? As far as, Republic of Cyprus is a independent country, separately from Greece ! This outlines your perspective on this topic . Republic of Cyprus, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or which can be created in any article about Island of Cyprus in no way be considered within the scope of this prohibition.Maurice (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
@Athenean I looked more over your claim today about TNRC, and I now see how you could have included it as part of this topic ban. However, I'm still holding my position that the first edit was not a violation of the topic ban. As for the revert, you had reverted him for being in violation of his topic ban (which i'm not saying was wrong at all on your part, you thought he was in violation, so that's fine by me). Now that you know our opinions, can you specify a valid reason for the revert? As far as I see it he was adding a picture to the gallery and adding a flag (even if the state is disputed), not modifying any text. I agree that the TNRC state itself may be disputed, but the fact that Turkey supports the nation and Greece doesn't, in my opinion doesn't involve the relation between the two countries, but instead the state between TNRC and their respective nations, unless he stated something specific like "Greece denies TNRC, while Turkey decided not to". I do see his comments in relation to the topic ban, and that's why i'm trying to keep tabs on this and welcome your efforts to help keep me up to date on the issue. If you have further evidence of continued edit warring after this, i'll gladly look into it and put a stop to it as edit warring is not allowed in general. As for Heim's political point, I don't see how reorganizing a list would count as trying to make a political statement which Heim was referring to.
@Maurice07 Unless you are notified otherwise on your talkpage, the topic ban is for Turkey-Greece relations. Also it is only for you to address the concerns of excessive edit warring and bot speed editing. If you wish to try and have a topic ban in this area regarding other users you will need to use Arbitration Enforcement to deal with that, and not my talkpage. I would also like to remind you that the edit warring policy is not specific to a set of articles, but applies to all articles. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Maurice: Because of the same reasons you were restricted from Greece-related topics. Which is to say that you try through relentless, instinctive, mechanical, and obsessive edit-warring to promote Turkish issues, including TRNC and Turkish names any opportunity you get, in any article you find, including Armenian-related articles. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This user is also trying to suppress, throughout Wikipedia, the term Armenian Highland, a name which he considers irredentist through his politically aligned POV. I think a further expansion of sanctions under WP:ARBAA2 may be warranted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: The way I see it, the Cyprus dispute is at the core of tensions between Greece and Turkey, and the TRNC is at the core of the Cyprus dispute, so anything pertaining to the TRNC falls within the scope of Greek-Turkish relations. The wording of his ban includes "broadly defined". If it were not for that, I could understand how there might not be a vio, but as far as I can tell, the TRNC does broadly fall within the context of Greek-Turkish relations. Second, it is my understanding that a topic ban is ban from any sort of edit to the topic area, whether changing text or adding an image and flag. I'm not sure what you mean by "he was adding a picture to the gallery and adding a flag (even if the state is disputed), not modifying any text." regarding the rearrangement edit [14], he didn't just rearrange, but added the TRNC. But what I find most disturbing is that there is no indication of a change in behavior or intention to change his behavior from before the ban. He is carrying on exactly as before, edit-warring [15] [16], being aggressive and incivil [17] ("as usual, unilateral edit!), [18] (as always, non-neutral point of view an explanation), even on this very page. These edits are highly tendentious: [19] [20]. These edits are not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, all he's doing is trying to suppress any mention of Mount Ararat in connection with Armenia. Regarding the bot-like revert warring, he ignored Ed Johnston's offer [21], then a few days later resumed the bot-like revert-warring [22] (on Jan 11-12, also notice how he calls these edits vandalism when they are not). There is a pattern here: Whenever approached by an administrator or reported, he lays low, avoids replying, then a few days later resumes right where he left off. His pre-ban and post-ban behavior is identical, there is no expression of remorse or of attempting to improving his editing and attitude, if anything he is even more defiant and combative [23] ("I don't recognize this decision!!"). The ban needs to be broadened, otherwise the disruption will never stop. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
@Dr K I would have to agree there does seem to be that issue at hand also. I will be thinking about it as I try an formulate an acceptable resolution to this matter.
@Athenean Your case definitely has been made. Especially with the comment about broadly constructed, though i'm still not sure that one specific edit we talked about falls under it. That being said there is an issue here with this edit warring to say the least, and not just in MAC/AA2 areas, but all over. I have to get ready to head to class now, but i'll be thinking about possible resolutions to this issue on my way and probably will comment when i'm there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Scrap this idea...it's not possible under the circumstances. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Further restrctions

@Heim, The Blade, It's obvious by Athenean's statement above that Maurice07's edit warring and continuing tendentious editing that further restrictions need to be imposed to deal with the issue at hand. I therefore propose the following:

  1. An extended topic ban of Greek-Turkish relations to include TRNC, broadly interpreted.
  2. A new topic ban for Armenian related topics, broadly interpreted.
  3. A general 1RR restriction on any article.

Can I get your thoughts? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to this; from the above exchanges, I don't see evidence that anything less stringent would have the desired effect. Any appeal of these restriction would obviously go through AE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It all sounds like a good idea to me, but do we have the authority to implement it? Number 2 is fine under WP:ARBAA, but what about number 1? The committee has previously declined to consider Cyprus to fall under ArbMac discretionary sanctions. (This situation shows what a foolish decision that was, as it leaves a place of refuge for POV-pushers who've been topic banned.) As for 3, that doesn't seem covered by any discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Heim for pointing that out, this is obviously where my newness shows, we would have to take everything else to the community. I'm not exactly sure if I'd feel comfortable taking #3 to the community without digging for a stack of diffs (as they will want to know why we are looking for this). I'll take a look around, see what I can come up with, any diffs you guys wish to contribute I'd be happy to see. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Athenean, Dr K. - At this time, it's probably best if you guys take the rest to AN for related bans there by the community as you guys know the case best. Feel free to use my ideas, but as I've realized, there isn't much I can do right now with ArbCom turning away Cyprus as part of ARBMAC, and Maurice not being warned about AA2. I have dropped a warning on his page though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much DQ for taking the time. Thanks also go to Heimstern and the Blade of Northern Lights. I understand the issues and the constraints involved and I will try to follow your advice. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you DQ for your time and effort. I will be taking this to AN in the near future, because it is my experience that Maurice is even more disruptive there than in Greek-Turkish relations. I will be notifying you all when I do so. Thanks again, Athenean (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For clearing the massive backlog at WP:RFPP. Thank you as well for everything you do for Wikipedia. It really makes a difference. Vacation9 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonnyBonesJones

Can you re-look at the above relating only to Jakejr, there are clear similarities relating to the AfD behaviour and the fact the account became active again about the time JBJ got blocked. ✍ Mtking ✉ 04:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock/CU block on Eshwar.om

Could you review the discussion on User Talk: Eshwar.om? While the user admits to violating WP:MEAT, I believe that they did so out of ignorance of the rules. I can understand why someone not knowing about Wikipedia would talk to his/her friends/family, tell them about a dispute that had personal significance, and then ask the friends/family to help join in the cause to right the great wrongs, so to speak. The user has agreed to not WP:MEAT anymore, and to leave the specific dispute that triggering the socking/meating. Others have indicated there may be other problems (POV-pushing seems likely), but those were not the proximate cause for this block. I'll indicate to the user that if unblocked, they'll be on a short WP:ROPE. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally find it a little hard to believe that 3 other people were in the same place at the same time (or maybe in and out, which I still doubt) for over a full hour consecutively, using the exact same computer, with one of the socks mentioning our shortcode for WP: related links. A new inexperienced user doesn't do that. Now I have one possible explanation for why the shortcodes happened that would match his story, but that would mean a lot more serious topics would be brought up than socking. (I'm not going to give the reason away for him to confirm). I'll have another CU look at it and give their two cents to see if it's possible, but right now it looks like he's lying through his teeth to be able to edit again. I understand that his situation may involve consensus overriding his idea, but it doesn't justify socking in our books. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed the checkuser data when I declined his unblock request (and just reviewed it again now) and I concur with DeltaQuad's assessment. His explanation does not match the checkuser data and editing patterns we have. Since we were not there watching him at the time it is possible that what he has said is true, but it is by far the least likely scenario. Given the data we have, what he has said rings hollow. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Marsha Mehran

Hi there. Based on this edit, this SPI investigation and wp:duck do I need to re-raise the SPI, or am I within my rights just to rollback? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Within your rollback rights IMO. I'll go nuke him now and protect the page. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
He's  Confirmed as your going to get with this sock, and you can add JoelleDe (talk · contribs) to the list of socks too. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

My apologies, DQ, for the disturbance. I hope the thread above will not require any other interventions on my part. Thank you for your patience. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, i'll take a look later today, but for now I have some work that needs to get done. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much DQ. Please take your time. No pressure at all. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Banat of Temeswar

Hello Delta Quad!

Thank you for the page protection, but you might also have a quick view on the talk page ( very strage to see proxy IPs discussing, and agreeing against the good old version of the article.)

Also funny to see 113.229.65.134's, joke-of-the-year... and it's only january! :P

Here you go113.229.65.134 (talk)‎ . . (10,275 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (undid sockpuppet sleeper account inactive for whole month and appear only now to revert)

I guess/hope you can see me when/where I login, etc

I also checked the history of the article random IPs forcing someone's view which is quite different that the mainstream (like having a valid account). First attempt 08:34, 26 December 2012‎ 178.253.196.169 (talk)‎ . . (9,833 bytes) (-2)‎

Thank you for your time! Csendesmark (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have blocked one open proxy on the talkpage and will continue to monitor it and take the appropriate action as needed. If I miss one, feel free to drop me a notice here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Thanx! :) Csendesmark (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Delta Quad, I would suggest a more precise check on this incident, I suspect Bonaparte behind these proxies! This kind kind of comments are matching this ex-user's profile/interests. And it also seems he is putting an awful lot of efforts to spread his views, according to the numbers of his aliases! Csendesmark (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of the accounts and IPs on that page have been blocked, mostly for a good long time. I really don't have the time to go spend investigating if it's him by behavior, and it wouldn't bring any benefit to us knowing it was him anyway at this point. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello DeltaQuad! Sorry for bothering you... again... but our common "colleague" is back, from a sparkin' brand new IP! I would like to ask to check the article's history, and also point: the other party did not show any willingness to participate in a real discussion (only with himself). And I would like to ask for a longer protection after a deeper review on the article/discussion. I don't know know how to wikilink differences, so here is the full LINK. I hope it's clear for you, this is a "discrete" vandal. Csendesmark (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was linked in a recent request for protection so I thought I'd let you all know that I've semi-protected it for a month. Csendesmark, I don't think you can wikilink diffs, but there is a way to make them look a little nicer in links, via templates such as Template:Diff. Airplaneman ✈ 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, sorry I somehow missed the above thread :/ and that's why I didn't respond. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI/Luisa Pisani

Howdy mate! I've just re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luisa Pisani, mostly because I didn't realise there had been a previous SPI. Apologies if I've caused you any trouble in doing so. Before yours had a chance to be closed and the socks blocked, two more popped up in the same space, so I suppose there might now be some value in CU'ing those also. Anyway, I'll leave it with you. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All good - has been CU'd, sorted, closed and archived. Everyone back to work! Ha ha. Stalwart111 06:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot and UAA

DQB seems to be reporting a bunch of new usernames containing "spike" or "spiky". [24][25][26] Are those what that particular fishing net is supposed to catch or is that a glitch? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's working right to the point that it's not gone off the rails and gone rogue :) What's happening is someone put "spic" in the blacklist, and my bot is supposed to detect when people use other characters to represent a letter. So for example it will catch 3 as an E or 5 as an S. In this case it's catching K as a C. So to avoid these getting through to UAA, I would put the word spike in the whitelist. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Spike" is already there, someone else added "Spikes" today and I just added "Spiky", so I think we'll be good for now. Thanks for the clarification. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet

Hi. I think Mmajim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock of JonnyBonesJones (talk · contribs). He created a new account today after Mtking announced a wiki break, and plans to revert this RfC. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So it seems this was already blocked and dealt with before I could even look at it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Maurice07 in breach of his ARBMAC restriction

Hi DQ. This is the edit Revision as of 01:52, 18 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) Fixed Türkish pronounce of Echinos where Maurice07 sneakily inserts, using a misleading edit summary, the Turkish name in the Greek village of Echinos. Note that the Turkish name did not exist up to that time but only the Bulgarian name and its transliteration existed. Maurice appropriated the transliteration of the Bulgarian name and inserted the Turkish language template to introduce it to the article for the first time. The following hours, as is his usual MO, Maurice engaged in the usual relentless edit-warring against an IP to impose the Turkish name on the Greek village. Revision as of 16:38, 18 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 533662695 by 79.160.40.10 (talk) Shahin is available here,on the article and it is Turkish name of Echinos!) and Revision as of 18:50, 18 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by 79.160.40.10 (talk) Please, look at other languges of Echinos..), This is a clear breach of his editing restrictions under ARBMAC. By the way the IP in a subsequent edit repaired the transliteration of the Bulgarian name which Maurice had approriated so that he could insert the Turkish name: Revision as of 19:11, 18 January 2013 (edit) (undo) 79.160.40.10 (talk) (Restoring the removed transcription of Pomak/Bulgarian. Also, please see talk page.). Thank you for your time. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see the violation here, and I am willing to act on it, but I can't find the proper page that gives me instructions on how specifically these blocks come about, if they need to go through AE to be enforced or if any admin can do it outside the process, if there is any preset block text, etc. Plus i'm not familiar with how long blocks go normally in this case, and it would be good to hear from an active admin in the area. So i'm going to wait just a few hours until people are up, and I'll ask then, and then formulate the block for this violation. If it gets worse between now and then, i'll just go ahead and block, and bite the bullet for any mistakes, but for now, I'd rather not have to bite it till I have to. :P Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello DQ, I happened to see this discussion. Any admin can take action in such a case, it does not require a discussion. Why not block for 24 to 48 hours and use {{uw-aeblock}} for the block notice. The block should be logged in WP:ARBMAC. If the editor wants to appeal, he can use the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} process. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I issued the block for 72 hours since his last block was 48 hours, and this violation of ARBMAC also involved edit warring. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Several Request

Hi. In my request for protection of several airport articles, [27], you blocked the IP range. But the IP is back again vandalizing airport articles. Could you please semi the articles for a long duration as this vandalising has been taking place for over a year now. Thanks, — Abhishek  Talk 03:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Listing here for easy access:
I have protected 3/5 as i'm not convinced the last two are ready for pending changes protection as the edits are about 50/50. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DQ, I've been battling the India Statistics Vandal for months. This editor randomly changes statistics, usually floor areas of airport terminals and runway lengths, often resulting in a size change of zero bytes. You can see my sock tags from over the last few months at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 121.246.65.103. Thanks for protecting the airports above, but let me suggest adding Dubai International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because this airport is one that is vandalized almost every time the vandal appears. HkCaGu (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That one is already protected till the 8th of April. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan

Sorry; just to confirm, are you saying that Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs) and The Fake ID (talk · contribs) are the same person? If so, I will remove Rahuljain2307 from the WikiCup, as (s)he is clearly abusing sockpuppets in order to promote his or her own work. Would that not also constitute block-worthy abuse of sockpuppets? J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, they are the same person as far as CU goes. The blocks are always up to the closing admin and if they feel it's warranted. In most cases, there are usually blocks given for the master who is caught socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll leave the blocks up to someone who knows what they are doing, but there is no way that this user is staying in the competition. How upsetting. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:SPI

Thanks for the welcome :) On the matter of diffs, do you guys need editing diffs from the articles in question (by which I meant he contested articles), the editors, or both as it may apply to the situation at hand? I want to make sure I get this right the first time around, rather than misunderstand whats being asked and then have to do it all again. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, how many examples should I provide? Will one or two work, or should I provide all applicable diffs and let you guys sort it out? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What we need is the answer to this question: what is it that makes you think they are the same person? Which edits are similar, and how? For example, did X make an edit similar to Y's? Did they both use some unique phrase that's not commonly used by others? T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So this is sorta like when the teacher in a classroom suspects students of copying homework and looks for the similar words and phrases or such as proof? Following that logic then I would need to provide editorial evidence for...I guess for each of the accused accounts to lay out why I think they are all tied in. Ok, so the unanswered question would be the quantity, but judging by the above reply I'm guessing that you'd want...as much as I think necessary, probably, else there'd be a specific number in the read through right? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Good example! Yes, that's exactly what finding diffs is like. Honestly, there is no set number, just enough to prove your case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. It's durn near 5:00AM over hear, so I'm gonna be throwing in the towel soonish, and Monday is a designated errand day, so I am not entirely sure when I will get to providing the diffs, but rest assured that I will get to it as soon as I can invest the time I think I will need in it so as to do a good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I got the diffs up. If you need me to clarify anything, or want me to try again, let me know and I'll get to it as soon as I can. I hope you'll be able to run with it from here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Report a Vandal

  • Hello Delta, I didn't know who else to contact about a unique problem with a vandal so you're elected. :)

This user:" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Statistics_have_shown ", has been making countless useless edits today. He cleverly makes edits that are hard to notice, but are useless, stupid, and intentionally made to vandalize the article. I have reversed a couple of his edits, but I would be here all night to eliminate all of them, besides the fact that he will continue to do this until an admin steps in to ban him. If you will end his career, I will be happy to spend the time to reverse all of his messes. You can reply here, and I'll put you on my watch list. When you have stopped this Joker, let me know, and I'll begin reversing his junk. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think it's more interesting than that. Given the timing and similar articles edited, I suspect that 71.79.166.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Statistics have shown (talk · contribs). Interesting because the IP was adding incorrect information to an article. Then Statistics have shown added Cn or Fact tags to content in the article. See IP edit then account edit, whilst it is different information it's interesting none the less. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)ious
  • I guess it depends on what you find interesting...lol. Unique...absolutely. I'm glad you followed me here Callanecc; at least there are now two of us that are aware of this turkey. What I find interesting however, is how the various useless edits have gone under the radar this long. If I hadn't clicked on his contribs tab after I found the 1st 'Fact' (which by the way was cleverly placed after the words: "Statistics have shown" in the article, which I changed to Statistics have proven), who knows how long this master of disaster would be roaming the site unnoticed. :) ThanksPocketthis (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I've warned them so we shall see what happens next. It wouldn't suprise me if this was a single purpose, single use account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So knowing that this guy is obviously not new with the templates and was mass adding them, coupled with the fact that he's mass targeting articles, I figured this isn't his first time doing this.  Confirmed:
no No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Accounts indefed, and IP blocked for 1 week. --Rschen7754 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch DQ! :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Br'er Rabbit

I was trying to find some section of the Admin's Noticeboard on policy questions, but couldn't, so as the ban-enacting Admin I figured you would be the best person to ask out of anybody. Do you know of any policy or practice to protect the user pages of banned users? The talk page seems to be being treated like a shrine ever since the ban went into effect. Fry1989 eh? 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To specifically speak to the reason of the user being banned (and not any other reason), only if there is evasion by the banned user would I be able to protect it. Other than that I don't know of any other provisions. The relevant policies are page protection and ban. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Stuff like this[28] - how is this appropriate, really? This editor in particular holds such a fervent interest in protesting the community ban that this could be an edit by proxy through e-mail exchanges. Redirect the talk pages like he did for so many of his accounts and be done with it. If this alleged martyrdom is going to spread to every sock page, there could be a problem. Doc talk 11:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we were only referring to the talkpage of Br'er rabbit, I obviously misread. That's obviously not an appropriate edit, and I have removed it. Since it's the first edit to that page, preemptive protection would be inappropriate and not within policy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Heck, I wouldn't ask for actual protection on that page! I appreciate that his friends miss him and that he did some good things, but there is a tendency to take it a little too far sometimes (as the edit demonstrated). It can get out of control rather quickly, and can be shown from past edits on these pages. Having said that, I also don't see any reason to protect the Br'er Rabbit talk page, unless there's been recent edit-warring, excessive vandalism, etc. happening. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
*(cough)*[29][30][31][32] It's a slippery slope ;> Doc talk 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well I don't endorse what's going on, but i'm not going to get into a revert war (as i've been reverted), nor per the original question, be making any protections in that regard. If the community views it as an issue, they can deal with it, i'm not here to say what can and can't be on people's userpage as long as it's not in violation of other community policies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well. Shall we have editors dressing up other banned user's pages as well? Can we put anything we want on those pages? Can they e-mail us and have us enter it by proxy? Cool! I love how this is going! Doc talk 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Afternoon guys, appears you've had quite the talk while I was asleep. I'm not trying to stir up any problems, I just was curious if there's any practice regarding things like this because I had a very unpleasant experience with that user via multiple accounts, and quite frankly the use of the page like a shrine is disturbing to me. I'm sure there are others who would feel the same. Anyhow, if there's no real policy or practice for things like this, that's fine. Just wanted to know and possibly raise a little attention to it. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ya, there doesn't seem to be anything we can do without half the community that might be on our backs. I personally don't like it, esp. the parts that Doc mentions, but there is no use going on about it here because this is a community matter, nothing I can particularly solve. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I wanted to raise it to the Community's attention but didn't knwo the proper place to do so, none of the AN subsections looked appropriate. I don't want to make a big smoke out of it, but if it gets more and more, perhaps it's something that should be raised. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Ashton 29 CU case

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. 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.

Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Received. I'll will respond when I have the chance. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Sorted and dealt with at the SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indef block for 186.47.0.0/16

It's quite possible I'm not aware of something, but is indeffing a /16 what you meant to do? Legoktm (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Crap, that's probably not right...I look into the reasons a little later today and modify the time. Thanks for letting me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Legoktm (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Maurice07

Hi DQ. Sorry about that but, in his first edit after the block, Maurice07 replaced a Greek wedding picture with a Turkish one: Revision as of 20:20, 24 January 2013 Maurice07. He obviously wants to test the limits of his ban. I will let you decide if that is a breach of his ban or not. Thank you again. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing his edit-warring and reverted the picture again: Revision as of 10:03, 26 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 534758565 by Dr.K. (talk) It's not enough for editing and as usual one-sided.). By the way in addition to depicting a Greek wedding the picture shows the Greek tradition of throwing rice during the ceremony as a symbol of a strong bond for the couple. The one Maurice07 edit-wars into the article, shows two men, two women and a baby and it is even unclear who is, (even if they are), getting married. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, another revert: Revision as of 23:23, 26 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Reverted edit by Dr.K. (talk) to old version! This has nothing to do with the ban on the subject in Greek. Photo was used previously.). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Please disregard. He has been blocked by the Blade of Northern Lights. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dr. K, I just wanted you to know that your report did not go unnoticed, but I didn't really have much time to go hunt down and get a second opinion of someone, just because I wanted to be sure, as i'm really busy this weekend. Feel free to flag me down in the future and I'll try to get to it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi DQ. I saw you were busy and I fully understand the time constraints and your desire for due dilligence; please accept my apologies for cluttering your talk page with these reports at a busy time for you. Filing these reports is an imperfect science and sometimes it's hit and miss, which is completely fine. Thank you at least for making me feel welcome here. :) All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sleeper Abhijit Puranik

Greetings, last time you told, there was no sleeper, but, in 8 days I have had to report twice. And they are editing semi protected articles. Could you please have a look here? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like one of my fellow Checkusers got to it already. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Committee invitation

Hi, I would like to invite you to apply to join the IEG Advisory Committee on Meta. --Pine✉ 09:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla 32234

Has there been any discussions onwiki about bugzilla:32234 - it appears to have languished a very long time. We probably need to nudge the shell group. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know the devs had turned down my view of consensus there. :/ That's disappointing, but I agree with others that they might of just tl;dr'd it too much and/or seen it wrong. Since the original discussion, I don't remember anything else onwiki, but then again, I haven't been glued to watching for any new discussions on it. 05:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
See User_talk:This, that and the other#bug_32234. Looks like your consensus decision cant be implemented. it is however a good decision imo. --John Vandenberg (chat) 07:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Over there I suggested using AbuseFilter for the purpose. Have you done any AbuseFilter configuration? Can you see any problems with implementing it that way? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have done limited abuse filter configuration, I don't see any immediate problem, but i'd have to look into it to be sure. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've created an edit filter and it has a hit; see TTO's talk page for details. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactivation of ACC account

I would like to have my ACC account reactivated. Please help. Jab843 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jab843, I was just writing you an email about this (because of your IRC message). Since you are in good standing with the community, identified to the WMF foundation and are returning from inactivity, I have approved your ACC account. Please take a read through Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide to familiarize yourself with ACC and Wikipedia policies and take a tour around the ACC interface to make yourself comfortable with some of the changes that have been made since you have helped here. I look forward to working with you. -- Cheers, Riley 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! What is the new procedure for the IRC as it would not let me join, look forward to hearing from you, as always you can email me at the address associated with the ACC account! Hope you are having a great day! Jab843 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
For privacy reasons, #wikipedia-en-accounts (the ACC channel) has been made private. To get into the channel, you have to be invited in and have be identified to NickServ (see here to find out how). Once you register (or already have), just join #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg and ping me (type "Riley"). :) -- Cheers, Riley 22:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed Sockpuppet investigations

Hi DeltaQuad, I came across another sock for the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakaisinai7/Archive User:Blainesam. What's the procedure for monitoring this? -SFK2 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It is sometimes possible to report very obvious sockpuppets to WP:AIV, but usually you would go to WP:SPI and enter a new report for this user (use the form provided).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The account above is already blocked as a sock, or is there another account? If you're just talking about adding the account to the SPI case, since the user is tagged as a sock, it isn't really necessary. —DoRD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

UAA-SPI

Not a problem ... just doing my job and letting others do theirs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, just thought I would let you know why I reverted you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Block of User:RoTi37

I'm a little worried that the block of User:RoTi37 will just make things worse, especially since the other editor surpassed the three-revert limit himself, but wasn't blocked. I was trying to offer some ideas at Talk:Jonas Valančiūnas and get some other people involved. RoTi37 actually was commenting there, but now he won't be able to.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer some thoughts. I don't agree with RoTi37's methods, but there is some merit to his arguments. Zagalejo^^^ 07:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, DQ, I've looked a bit at the issues here, including the report filed at WP:ANEW by User:Duhon. After looking first at the history of the article without looking at the user history, my immediate reaction was to block both editors as they both violated 3RR. Only one comment by Zagalejo I don't get is that User:RoTi37 "did leave the last edit to the article alone". I don' believe that's acccurate; the last editor to revert was RoTi37. I'm not crazy about an unblock request that doesn't expressly acknowledge fault but blames the blocking admin for not blocking "the other guy", but in this instance, there is some merit to it.
There are a few alternatives available at this point. One would be to reduce RoTi's block to 24 hours and block Duhon for 24 hours. Another would be to unblock RoTi and issue stern warnings to both editors, essentially prohibiting them from editing the article for a period of time to avoid a block. Another would be to unblock RoTi and lock the article - I don't see that it matters which version is locked in - there's no content policy breach to worry about here. Looks to me like you may have gone off-wiki since blocking RoTi, so you're blissfully (smile) unaware of Zagalejo's and my comments. I'm not going to take any action right this moment.
As an aside, based on a quick glance at the two editors, there may be enough to support RoTi's allegation that Duhon is a sock. That doesn't, of course, excuse RoTi's behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify something: RoTi37 held back on reverting DaHuzyBru's last edit, even though that restored what Duhon was trying to say. I saw that as a bit of progress. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have blocked either one at that point, since I wanted to keep the talk page discussion moving forward. I might have fully protected the article, because neither version was blatantly wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks for your comments. I have looked things over and didn't realize at the time that he had held back from reverting DaHuzyBru's edits, as I thought it was a direct revert of this edit. Even with that though, I still feel the block was correct. As an admin, I can't stick on one side of the argument or the other when using my tools. I gave fair warning that more reverting would result in blocking for not just him, but also notified the other party with the exact same warning. Despite this, he continued on to edit war. The reason why I didn't block both of them at first is because neither were warned about the possibility of blocking, and it would have been unfair imo, to just go and block both. I didn't protect the page either as it was just these two editors warring over the one part (as I saw it at the time, now there are obviously 3 involved). There was no point in admin protecting it, and stopping all editors from editing when it was just the two of them. Since it's now pointed out to me that he did exercise some restraint I willing to unblock him on the condition that he seeks consensus before continuing to revert. Again, I still feel that the original block was justified, because he did continue to edit war, but for the sake of allowing him to discuss, I'm willing to let him contribute. Also for the record, I did not see the ANEW report, I don't have AN boards on my watchlist at all, I originally came across the issue at RFPP and watchlisted the page.
As for socks being possibly being involved, that hasn't been proven, and no blocks have been issued, and it's not immediately obvious its a sock, so I can't factor that into the edit warring. Any thing to do with socking should be brought up at SPI, and I will deal with it there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I now understand what Zagalejo meant (thanks). DQ, thanks for listening. I agree the block was justified based on what you knew and the history. I too don't like warning someone and then not following through. Anyway, let's hope that both editors behave. I haven't decided whether I'm going to file an SPI report. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You should file an SPI report on Duhon and Brodey. Just checking the contribs of both users for five minutes I found this:

-both had an intense interest in Hollywood North between June 11 and June 12 2011

-both had made edits to Estella Warren on 10 June 2011

-beginning in May 2006 both had began an interest in Stephen Colbert

-on 17 January 2013 Brodey edits the Mexican-American War and on 18 January 2013 Duhon edits the Texas annexation

-24-25 July 2012 Duhon undoes edits to Beatrice Rosen 4 times within 24 hours, and on 27 July 2012 Brodey edits Beatrice Rosen 3 times

-I bring up Enes Kanter's height and weight listings on Wikipedia and how they are not congruent with his NBA profile on the Valanciunas Talk page on 20:34 30 January 2013 to Duhon, and at 22:01 30 January 2013 Brodey changes Enes Kanter's height and weight to match his NBA profile.

-in 2006, both Duhon and Brodey seemed to be concerned with the cleaning up of "lingo" on Borat Sagdiyev.

This is five minutes of random looking for suspicious congruences. I'm sure if you file an SPI, and scrutinize closely you'll find that there are a lot more dating back 7 years. This is just some proof that there is some substance to the sock suspicion. RoTi37 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not our job to file SPIs for you. If you want an SPI filed, then that's your job. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1185026036"