Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2020

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


Deleted Article

This article Abdullahi Sadiq was deleted by you under a ban policy after I was blocked for socking but I wasnt a banned user, can it be restored? Magherbin (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Magherbin: DeltaQuad has been inactive for a while, and i think they are not going to be active soon. It would be a good idea to consult some other admin. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

welcome back

I hope you are back to the enwiki. Also, welcome back to the admin corps. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) are restored.

Support: AGK, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno

Oppose: None

Not voting: David Fuchs, DGG, Joe Roe

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Minecrafter0271

Hi DeltaQuad (and TonyBallioni, since you were in the discussion right before the block) - wanted drop you a note about Minecrafter0271. My impression of the user was more "overeager" and "possibly younger," not troll. The "cite a source" thing about 1000 million -> 1 billion in particular I saw as misreading the request (as a request to change the value rather than correct it). I know you've both got a lot more experience than me, but I feel like blocking them as a troll seems a bit excessive to me. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them for being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, not being a troll. If you look right back through their contributions, it's clear they are someone's sockpuppet, they aren't even close to new editing in a WP:ARBAP2 area. Couple that with in the first few edits 2 FAC nominations, a complete lack of understanding of GA criteria and throwing WP:OWN around, nominating Pornhub for deletion, said they would stop GAN reviews - then starts another one and passes it in minutes. Later down the road they have more crappy deletion nominations, dumped a section of an article to "update" it, denies a specific ER update for not being specific, suggests an ER request template for a 2017 edit. and tries to pad their edits to get 500/30 with WP:TWA, a common sock move. That's not including the more recent behavior. Shall I go on about how they need to be blocked? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, nope, your point is made. Opinion retracted. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In case this would interest you

User talk:Doug Weller § More Roys —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There isn't really any evidence given here, and I'd prefer not to go dumpster diving. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/It's_gonna_be_awesome

Hi DeltaQuad:

I mentioned user:Opaque nociceptive neurons "Familiar to the edits from User:Envisaging tier and user:It's gonna be awesome". I think he know what what edited.

I deleted several edits in North–South divide in Taiwan on 9 Feb. I delete those edits because they comes from previous sockpuppet user:Envisaging tier. And user:Opaque nociceptive neurons found that and listed a lot of edit I did about their contribution.

This information is not secret. It is open in the article history and user contribution. However, I think it is not easy for a "new wikipedian". As a result, I think user:Opaque nociceptive neurons is familiar to the edits.

--Wolfch (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfch: While Bbb23 might be able to pick that up within a heartbeat because they have ran just about every single check on that master, people who are looking at the report for the first time can't immediately know what you mean by "Familar to the edits". Depending on the sock, it can take up to 30 minutes to confirm what you say by individually going through the contributions. With the amount of SPI reports we have, I could spend all day doing that. That is why we ask for additional diffs and it will allow your request to get processed faster and without issues. That's why I asked for them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding the information I need to provide. Have a nice day. --Wolfch (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat for RFA - Money emoji

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Using multiple IP's to evade block

I'm not very familiar with the protocol, but an IP editor you recently blocked is back with a different IP address. The original is 100.6.97.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the new one is 100.6.117.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what to do, but you probably are. Cheers --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I expanded it to 100.6.0.0/17. If that doesn't work, we'll do page protection. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Vauxford/User:Alex Neman

I just blocked User:Vauxford for restoring the same edits that several other Alex Neman socks recently edited, though Vauxford has been around for awhile. Would you be able to check to see if Vauxford is a long-term sleeper/alternative account? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user for now, as there is a decent chance it's a false positive. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
They are 3 years old with 5.5k edits. I haven't looked at their contribs in detail, but I think if they were, is would have been reported to an SPI by now. Also without any direct evidence other than restoring edits (which is allowable as I reverted a whole bunch under G5), I can't really run a check. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.

Best, ミラP 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than send me an e-mail, I recommend leaving me a message at my UTP if possible. ミラP 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I'd rather we go this route than that one. If you wish for me to expand, let me know it's ok to disclose the contents. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

After-block procedures

Since apparently opening a new discussion in the talk page and reverting page contents to its stable version is not an acceptable behaviour in WP, I'd like you to tell me what do you expect me to do after the block you imposed on me for page pupusa expires. Thank you. --Jotamar (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no stable version when it comes to an edit war - that is just continuing the edit war. Instructions on how to handle edit wars are on the policy page for edit warring under the section WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks have gone by, and the other editor does not give any explanation in the new discussion opened by me for the deletions in pupusa, even after being notified in the personal talk page. Can you at least manage to engage user:Editor1377 in the discussion? --Jotamar (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you got them on their TP already. If not, there is WP:3O. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

AWB

I request that you restore my access to AWB. Regarding the issue with Dan Lam, this primarily started with an issue with an inappropriate infobox image, for which I did start this discussion which was continued on the article talk page where Sulfurboy provided a third opinion that I was correct in judging the image to be inappropriate for the infobox. Sulfurboy then removed the image. At that point, I thought the issue was resolved and did some other cleanup on the article.

Five hours later, I ran AWB on all the articles I edited that day to find my own typos/mistakes as well as any others that may exist. It was this run which re-added the orphan tag that triggered Sulferboy to make the ANI report to which you responded. As far as this goes, it is very important to note that the article was and still is an orphan. Your analysis on this is wrong. The report you linked found one instance of "Dan" being found in one person's name and "Lam" being found in the successors name in The Bund (TV series). It also found "Dan Lan" in Friday the 13th: Killer Puzzle, but there it is not a wikilink (and I am not even sure this is the same Dan Lam), so the article is indeed an orphan as evidenced by this search.

Iridescent first added the orphan tag on a AWB run they did on 2/20, and I restored it several more times through my normal AWB processing - and eventually left the user a message about this on their talk page to try to get them to address the problem instead of removing the tag again. I have made over 40k AWB edits and been thanked for these edits probably hundreds of times. I think this demonstrates responsible and beneficial use of this tool and respectfully request you reconsider. MB 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of you using it 40k times, breaking the rules § 3, to break one of wikipedia's strongest policies is abuse. I will not restore access to someone who does not understand that edit warring especially with an automated tool is inappropriate. Especially when this is not the first time. I should have issued a block, but decided to be lenient and just pull access. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I certainly do understand edit-warring is inappropriate. The first incident you mentioned was a matter of applying the orphan tag to an article that was not an orphan. I corrected this setting immediately and don't believe there was any edit-warring involved, either manually or with the tool. The second case was where I was doing large runs one weekend on different lists of articles and didn't know that I had run AWB multiple times on the same article, nor that in the interim, the valid tag had been removed. When I was notified of this, I immediately looked into the problem, reverted myself, and de-orphaned the article myself to prevent any possible reocurrence. With the recent article, I should have started the talk page discussion earlier. You used the words "For now, your AWB access is revoked". I'm not that clear on what I can do on this point. MB 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Responding to ping. This article is clearly an orphan even by the strictest "no incoming links from article-space at all" definition and is probably un-de-orphanable as I can't think of any article from which they could be validly linked (I'm sure you don't seriously believe that this artist is the same person as the Dan Lam who's designing Canadian videogames so I'm not sure why you bothered linking that report), and as such is going to continue to be (correctly) re-tagged any time anyone patrols any of the categories in which it appears, whether that patrolling be manually or using AWB.
It's easy to accidentally edit-war with AWB because it has no "skip pages I've already edited recently" function (such a function would probably be forbidden by the WMF even if someone coded it, owing to server load), and it's entirely plausible that assuming User:MB is cleaning up categories that they'd patrol (for instance) Category:Arizona State University alumni followed by Category:University of North Texas alumni etc and if an error were restored between the two passes, make the same correction twice. When I do AWB runs, I intentionally generate deduplicated lists of 100,000+ pages at a time to work from precisely to ensure it will take a long time before there's any possibility of repeating a page, but there's nothing in the instructions anywhere to even suggest let alone compel that so I won't hold it against anyone for not doing it.
Theoretically MB has edit-warred as even though all their edits were correct the repeated removal of the tag constituted "disruption" rather than "vandalism" and as such wasn't exempt from 3RR. To penalise MB for it seems extremely harsh and appears to be a massive overreaction to a good-faith technical crossing of a line. User:MB, if you're willing to give an "In future I'll only run AWB on long lists with duplicates removed, to ensure there's no possibility of my hitting the same page twice in the same week or so" undertaking, then I'll restore your AWB access myself. (DQ, I should have issued a block is ridiculous and you know as well as I do that there's no way a block in these circumstances would have stood. Making empty threats like this in an apparent attempt to intimidate the other party in a discussion is beneath you; you only need to look at the current Arbcom case to see that the community has lost whatever patience it had for admins who try to pull the "I'm more important than you, if you don't do whatever I command I'll block you" routine.) ‑ Iridescent 08:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, I forgot everyone is here for the good of the project and I'm just being an asshole. Thanks for the second opinion. Apologies, MB. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you intend to come back as an ArbCom clerk?

Just wondering. For The Signpost.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My Arbitration report will show that you have not responded to this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(watching) I believe it is none of either of yours business, and while you may feel "the people have a right to know", the implication that you, Bri, have a right to answers to your questions suggests you have lost sight of what you and each of us all are. It's a poor comment, and will reflect as such on Signpost. ——SN54129 18:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear already, I don't comment for the signpost. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Hello DeltaQuad! I am Thatstinkyguy, an editor here. I wanted to contact you about not so much user Dr. Blofeld, but his thing against infoboxes on particular biographical articles. Maybe this isn't the place to do so, and if it's not, please tell me who I can forward this who (besides Dr. Blofeld).

Anyway, I wrote out the following message for over an hour on Dr. Blofeld's talk page before getting deleted. I archived it via my 3rd sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thatstinkyguy/sandbox_3.

But then when I went back to see if he had read, he reverted back to a previous version, and didn't seem to read more than the message name: Your thing with infoboxes... Looking back, that probably wasn't the best name. I say that because here was his summary for reverting:

I don't have a "thing" about infoboxes and support them in most cases where there is data not easily presented in prose.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 07:08, 11 March 2020‎

What kind of pisses me off is that he didn't seem to read it aside from the name, like I said. I wish he had taken the time to read it at the very least. I was reaching out to have a calm, civil discussion like two adults, but he obviously didn't want that. Quite childish really.

Basing on this comment and some of the archived discussion pages for Cary Grant and Stanley Kubrick, he does in fact seem to be against them if there's detailed enough information within the article on the subject. I find this whole ordeal with bowing down to these wishes unreasonable. Especially since Dr. Blofeld is not in a position of power on Wikipedia. There is no harm AT ALL with infoboxes on notable celebrities. In fact, most if not all have one. My stance: infoboxes should be added, because they can help provide basic info, it's up to standard with other notable celebrity articles, and they do not deteriorate the value of the article itself.

Thanks for your time.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy

(talk page stalker) Nobody is in a "position of power" here, we are all volunteers and although some may think they are the all singing and all dancing, they are not. What you find unreasonable, permit me to suggest, is that someone has displayed a differing opinion to you and you don't like it. May I politely suggest that if this is a report on someone's behaviour, then in the interests of transparency, you take it to ANI. But do expect the report to be expeditiously filed away. In the meantime, and away from fetishising over infoboxes, feel free to review any one of the many articles we currently have at WP:GAN. That would be a more sound use of your time. CassiantoTalk 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know enough about infoboxes to weigh in on this. I'm not sure why you selected me. It's been subject to two ArbCom cases already, first & second. So it's a bit of a muddy area. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Wishing DeltaQuad a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


Hotstar's screenshot earlier revisions

Hello there! Irrespective of my trepidations in reaching-out to owing to your WP:UAL hierarchy and my not-so-pleasant experiences thus far, I'm tryna to "play it cool" and ask rather succinctly[ contrary to my 'very terrible' habit]: Why have 'you' deprecated the earlier revision of Hotstar®'s screenshots?

Yeah, I know it's non-free and uploaded under the anxiety dubbed "fair-dealing" o/b/o Wikimedia® Foundation given it's a proprietary web-app but still..

Shouldn't your User:DeltaQuadBot perform optical-evaluations of the "latest" screenshot with older ones? Which in this case, was easier because the source exists within the WWW. Or is it like gazillion other bots which can only display half of its "smart" utilities before "automagically" deleting older-revisions? Now I can't upload back the older-version to the very same file( I archived it in my downloads, given my life-experience in the inevitability of such 'wikidramas', vandalism aside), even though your bot has deleted all[ but one( but that's stretching the point)]. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I will hold my patience for upto ~24 hours since publishing this message( "text"), following which: If there's[ not-so-surprisingly] zero response, then I'll try overriding the current choppy-revision uploaded by fellow-senior User:DatGuy's User:DatBot falls under WP:CRYSTAL — I'll try overriding it by re-uploading that older revision or perhaps, if within a reach of an internet-connected PC: Taking a fresh screenshot. No harm, no foul — cool? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Edit Note: Fixed the bot's username. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, first, please realize that this is a volunteer website with no deadline. My user rights also don't exempt me from following the rules or being nice to people. So looking through your situation, you don't list any specific file in which my bot has dealt with, so I'm left guessing which file you are referring to. Nonetheless, I looked into what I could and found my bot edited these three files:
File:Hotstar New Logo.jpeg
File:Disney+ Hotstar logo.jpeg
File:Hotstar screenshot.png
I assume you refer to the last one. Either way, my bot does not preform "optical-evaluations", though I'm unsure of what that even means. If you mean the resolution is reduced, yes it is, and that decision is made by User:DatBot, not my bot. My bot is only authorized to look at certain things before it considers deletion - as the community requested. Either way, the screenshot image (the third image) is in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and I have nominated it for discussion. Quick note: I restored the original Hotstar logo file as it was incorrectly tagged as fair use. It should have been {{pd-logo}}. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Okeydoke. Unnecessary personal-disclosures about myself aside: I do feel like I've heard from other senior "Wikipedian" referring to this, I re-read this a-gain and yeah: Pretty interesting read. Not-so-surprisingly to me, I'm stuck somewhat middle in that and hence, subscribe that deadlines may or may not be necessary. So if you felt offended by my straightforward notification of my impending action which which I've already rationalised and needles to add: Gazillion Wikipedians, mostly( and not just ‘some’) IP editors without even an inkling of idea over why they're obligated to explain their random-edits properly, let alone what the […] a "talk-page" is. Then it's still a bit of a surprise to me that Wikipedians, or particularly senior Wikipedians: Aren't used to that much of a transparency. I'm willing to tender my apologies.
However, that doesn't mean I'm in the lapse because based on myriad of factors such as my prior-dealings with senior Wikipedians, first and foremost and my own non-Wikipedia® affairs: I can't be expected to wait till eternity before expecting a due-answer from the other side, particularly if that side is exhibiting signs of apathy. If you think that's somehow a negative, then as reflected in the diversity of that essay: That's a matter of Philosophy. And need I specify that I do have some shortlist of some quite a number of badly-maintained Wiki-English articles that so much progress has been made without even a single talk-page discussion, and ambiguously-worded Wikipedia® policies are randomly applied on such articles not on the watchlist of any senior Wikipedian( to be honest, "senior" doesn't guarantee quality — it just means that the predisposition of a "senior"[ in interpreting any such policy] will carry far more weight simply based on user-privileges granted) whatsoever.
Anyhoo.. I can go on but getting involved into such an off-topic argument is as counterproductive as it could get. But right before that.. Your point about "being obligated to act nice to people and not playing fast-and-loose with the guidelines"( paraphrased): I hear ya.. But as you must've noticed that I've already stated it enough number of times about how that's practically not the case with me. And believe me, my mind runs fast enough when it's spared to have a ton of introspection. But what I did find was nothing intentional or deliberately-"trespassing" from my end. And now.. I'm seeing some other junior Wikipedians keep running into similar 'Clashes of Hierarchy', as well. Assuming you're being radically-honest, that you're a Legal Positivist who believes in Rule of Law.
Finally, to the point: Woohoo! You're right! Primarily. It's clearly the 3rd-one, 
File:Hotstar screenshot.png
. And by “optical-evaluations [sic]”, what I simply wanted to convey was "OCR-scanning" — is it clear now? So no.. While you might've noticed I explicitly mentioned "DG" in my post-script, this has nothing to do with the still-standing revision by that other "hardware" bot, aka a "robot". At last: Glad for your courtesy in restoring the old logo! Even though it might be a regular courtesy. I was originally tempted to but then decided to start a talk-page discussion over there for that given there was a max 1-week cap as well.. And see: Deadlines are managed by Wikipedia® when it hypothetically serves Wikimedia® Foundation's interests. Awaiting.. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Edit Note: Re-arranged the line-spacing in last-para[graph] and 'fixed' the letter-casing of few hyperlinked Wiki-articles. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobby72

Amanda, I think there has been an error regarding my WorldCreaterFighter SPI case. I was never informed of a CU or a closing based on the info I provided regarding Tobby72. Please explain how my request specifically was ever fulfilled because I don't see it in the links. I apologize if I am mistaken somehow. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Has Tobby72 been blocked? It doesn't appear he has been. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Amanda, PLEASE respond. Tobby72 is continuing to make bad faith edits such as the recent one he made to Timur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur&action=history
I'm really confident he is connected to WorldCreaterFighter and that someone mistakenly closed my TOBBY72 investigation because they overlooked it when it was attached to another investigation of a different sock of the same sockmaster, which was closed. Please allow me to open a WorldCreaterFighter investigation for this suspected sockpuppet.. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Replied here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WorldCreaterFighter SPI page

Hello Amanda, hope you are well. I came across this IP edit on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter after you removed it by another editor. Just wanted to make sure you are aware. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...I hope this isn't going where I think it's going. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 6

Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:

Future development
Recent additions
  • The results for each site, as well as the list of sites without changes, can be collapsed; the list of sites without changes starts collapsed.
  • When the username associated with an edit has been hidden (either via revision deletion or suppression) this is now properly shown in the output, rather than showing "undefined".
  • Links to view changes open in new tabs.
  • When marking a site (or all sites) as seen, only changes made prior to the watchlist loading will be marked as seen, so that any changes since then are not missed.
  • There is now a help link in the upper right hand corner that links to m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist, though it doesn't have the normal help icon.
Translations
  • Many thanks to those that have contributed translations for the script's messages. Translation takes place at m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist/Translate, and help is appreciated.
  • Newly translated messages are added to the script when I notice them; if you have translated messages that aren't showing up, please let me know at m:User talk:DannyS712.
Next release
  • Version 9.0.0 was just finalized for the development and stable branches of the script.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist user script: About • Updates • Code

Latest edits about Yakutia

Hello, Amanda! About the latest edits in an article about the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). I still don’t understand why the English-language Wikipedia is trying to replace the name “Yakut” with “Sakha”. Moreover, when I tried to constructively find out what was the reason, all my comments were deleted.--Modun (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no stake (or knowledge) in this dispute. I only went off of established consensus to move-protect the page per the last requested move. If you wish to move it again, a new WP:RM will be required. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Natural units

Hi there, regading your nea: the idea was to protect against all very recent edits by globally locked (but persistent) user Ahri6279 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their IP-socks 210.242.153.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 220.134.62.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and likely more to come. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Still...2 edits to protect against? I would then say Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. See you soon - DVdm (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello DeltaQuad, please see ticket:2020042110005213. --MrClog (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: Thanks for the notification. It seems the Network admins may have cleaned up the mess that they left a few years ago. It used to be that anyone across the continent could use it and we saw enough abuse from it. I'll unblock for now and see where things go from there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:190.251.4.13

it is out of the question that you unlock User:190.251.4.13 because he insulted me with fuckermother, fucks and sucker Thank You Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFM Lyon Ado (talk • contribs)

I wasn't thinking of unblocking them...where did you get that idea? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Adele & Co dustjacket

Please explain the rationale behind your deletion of this item, when record covers of much later date are regularly used to illustrate features on specific albums. RGCorris (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It took a lot to figure out which item you were talking about, and I believe it's File:Adele & Co dustjacket 1942.jpg. Please link these things in the future. My bot deleted your revision per the F5 CSD criterion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:08, 4 May 2020 (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.

On the ACC admin email. Thanks. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 21:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been received, but any account appeals are reviewed by the whole team, so it will take time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.{{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 21:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

One more sock

Hello DeltaQuad, thank you very much for disposing of the SPI I filed for MariaJaydHicky so quickly. After the report was closed, I reverted an edit of Agirlcanmack at Tulisa, but was immediately reverted by Girlgroupsrule. I am pretty sure this is another sock; aside from the editor immediately restoring an edit of a blocked sock, the other two edits of this user are typical MJH edits (genrewarring; and two of the articles, Tulisa and Sweet 7, were edited by recent MJH socks). Would you mind blocking this account? Much thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, one more IP too - Special:Contributions/2.221.111.166, with same reasoning as above. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Because I'm on the CU side of running this SPI, I can't comment on or block the IP, but 2 accounts are dealt with. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Much thanks, DeltaQuad! Hope you have a great day. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:34, 5 May 2020 (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.

More specifically, GitHub pull request notifications on UTRS2. Thanks, – Majavah (t/c) 12:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, saw them while I was half awake, I'll be there later today. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank -- wHaT?!

I just learned that I, Ikjbagl, am one of only FORTY people to have ever been thanked by Amanda since 2014! The first in almost a year! Right now I have on my userpage that I'm most proud of creating Utilis Coquinario but I might replace that with "this bitch once got thanked by Amanda." I'm gonna buy myself a trophy. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This gave me a solid laugh...thank you :) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

2026 FIFA World Cup disruptive editing

This is the user who has been vandalizing and disruptively editing this page and a number of other soccer-related pages. He's created at least 11 accounts, 8 of which have been banned.--Hmdwgf (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment request for abusive behaviour of an admin

I just want to hear your comment as Bureaucrat about the abusive treatment of an admin User:Floquenbeam because that admin banned me from editing related to WP:IDHT claiming "I don't know the rules" of Wikipedia after a long discussion and bringing to WP:ANI discussion and my talk page but instead of finding the solution, the talks leading to a 1 month block on me, however the fact showing I told several users about non-negiotable NPOV rule and WP:MOS policy rather than committing "I don't know the rules" (WP:IDHT) but they insisted on consensus over the Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope you and other bureaucrats with deeper understanding on Wikipedia policies would give consideration on evaluation of the user's right of adminship privilege for the abusive ban on a user who tried to fix an article according the Wikipedia rules and policies. — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment as a 'crat is that we don't deal with potential admin abuse. That's ArbCom's job. Though coming back and trying to rehash a block at a random 'crats talkpage instead of a wider community consensus does seem like WP:OTHERPARENT. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not write here to seek a consensus, but to know viewpoint of a Bureaucrat regarding the issue whether the admin behavior is abusive or not that you may mediate between the users for better solution, because I have visited Special:ListGroupRights that bureaucrat rights including possibility to consider the revocation of admin rights, that I hope you understand well about treating abusive behavior of admin, and read on Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship but that cannot be a solution because the page is still debatable for community, while I have also brought the Issue before in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident to reach a consensus or constructive discussion from wider community, but I got abusively blocked for 1 month instead. Anyway, Thanks for the response. — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@MusenInvincible: We can technically do it, but we are not allowed by policy. Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your assistance

I've given this website far too many thousands of hours of my life for over ten years. I need to step back. Thankyou for removing the tools from me. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Raaj Tilak

Hi, Raaj Tilak (talk · contribs) seems to have a new obvious sock called Bluue Bell (talk · contribs) a similar name to one of their blocked socks Bluee Bell (talk · contribs). Since starting editing they have carried out the same bizarre editing pattern of trying to delete every article about people with the surname Agarwal or similar diff, diff. They also removed a UPE tag from an article by Raaj Tilak diff,also managed to complete a GA review diff, and started an AFD with a rationale that was nothing to do with the article and had obviously been copy and pasted from an unrelated nomination by Bearcat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reena Aggarwal regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have moved your comments to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raaj Tilak because it's better for tracking and I can't look at it just yet. That will get the fastest attention there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

undo tag

Hey DQ: last year you created the undo tag, do you recall the reasoning? It's gotten some use, but I'm fairly certain most of the use is from User:Ed6767/redwarn, but that's quite recent and even that I think means to use the built-in mw-undo. I can open a PR for them, but wasn't clear why this (or, for that matter, Undo) was created. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no clue at all. Do with it as you wish/need. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ninth anniversary of your successful RfA

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding an article title

Hi,DeltaQuad while patrolling I found an article with title as The first woman who an army commander's wife became an executive of the National League for Democracy (NLD) . My query is whether its acceptable as per WP:NPOVNAME ? Thank you. ~Amkgp ✉ 07:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

More WP:NOTNEWS and you could rename over that, as the proper title would have been the subject, but thanks for bringing this up, there are bigger issues here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, Thank you ~Amkgp ✉ 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible IP sockpuppet

User:2402:8100:3907:FD8E:6853:FE1F:E48D:EF87, IP sockpuppet of User:Tony590? Actions from this IP was removing AfD template in GHSS Machad. Tony590 had been warned by an editor for his AfD template removal. KMagz04 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of if it is them or not (which i'm not allow to say as it's CU data), it's 5 days old and too old to action. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

UTRS

Hi Amanda. I imagine you're probably fed up to the back teeth with UTRS at the moment, so my apologies straight off the bat for bothering you about it again. Thank you for re-activating the OAuth logins, not to mention for all the work you've done on the tool; especially since it looks like a lot of that work involved undoing stuff you'd done previously when the brief changed (I work with developers IRL; I know how galling that can be!).
Unfortunately I'm afraid I still may need your help with access; whilst I can get on to UTRS2 now that the OAuth login is available again (love the look of the interface, by the way) I'm not sure my credentials are correct. I see the main appeals page (utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/review) as empty, yet Category:Requests for unblock#UTRS appeals has a number of entries listed; I also get a 403 error ("You are not an administrator on the wiki this appeal is for") when I try to access any specific appeal. It seems on the face of things as though UTRS recognises me but not my admin hat; would you mind taking a look when you have a moment?
Thank you again for all your work on this excellent tool; I am very much looking forward to the day when I can actually start using it again! Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We are tracking two issues regarding this. The first is that currently, there is up to a five-minute delay in gaining your permissions (this used to not be an issue as it was all the same script). We are working to fix this. The other issue is for those issued the global flag, though you don't seem to be affected by that. If it's not either of these, please feel free to let me know here or open another github issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ST47 and TonyBallioni: You were both affected by the global flag issue mentioned above and the workaround has been added for you for now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be sorted now; much obliged. Yunshui 雲水 12:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi AmandaNP/Archives, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aasim 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello, you deleted Illinois Bone and Joint Institute. They're a pretty big medical network in Chicago area and we can definitely create a well cited article. Can we restore and revise this? Thanks User:Acc1994 May 2020

(talk page stalker) Moved from an existing old section to a new one. – Majavah talk · edits 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you able to provide a version of the article in your userspace that would show me it is well cited? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I can and will, thanks. I'll follow up next week.: User:Acc1994 11:34, June 5 2020 (EST)

SPI

Hi DeltaQuad I have opened a new SPI investigation for a possible sockpuppeteer. This is my first SPI report and my English is bad, so apologies. KMagz04 (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't connect accounts to IP addresses so I removed the CU request. Any admin can easily look at it and deal with it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Noted. KMagz04 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt seems related to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Wikiexplorer13. You should consider examining this. Capitals00 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make a case with some evidence, I'd be happy to look at it, but otherwise I don't think i'm going to go dumpster diving for people who will be blocked already anyway. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot and the weird message

(Section title sounds like it could be the name of a children's book, doesn't it?)

Anyways... DeltaQuadBot left me a weird message on my talkpage and I have no idea what it's about. Do you have any idea? Here's the diff if you need it: Special:Permalink/960944129 Thanks, Ghinga7 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you use the OAuth login at UTRS? That is what likely generated it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe. I do a lot of stuff on here, so I don't know. Ghinga7 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

my block

thank you so much for unblocking me. also when the blocked user was vandalising the saint pauls school article they were adding themselves Clone commando sev (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the second part of your message or if there is anything for me to do. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
i was just saying that i found it funny that they were adding themselves to the article Clone commando sev (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Ahh ok. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why im blocked..? Im vinayreddy (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

DQB

Just regarding its "UTRS Account not meeting requirements" message, it seems to have a typo, "agian" for "again"? All the best! ——Serial # 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I noticed that too. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Just so you know, the code was removed today that issued it, so it won't come up again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ip block?

Hey, DeltaQuad! I had a weirdness just now, kept being told "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in." But when I tried to log out I got an error 'invalid csrf token'. So I tried the hubs' machine to see if it was a problem my machine, and I got an error page saying you'd blocked the IP for being a web host or colocation provider. I filed a ticket and minutes later it seems to be fixed, but I wasn't sure what happened and thought I'd ask! :D —valereee (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Did I get fired from Wikipedia?

Did I get fired from Wikipedia? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Bot didn't get enough botsnacks and is having a hissy fit, no big deal. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Whew! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Told you elsewhere, but lest the wikilawyers come for my head: I blocked your bot. Feel free to unblock whenever it’s fixed, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mind taking a look into what is causing this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you apparently already noticed this. Nevermind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

UPE meatpuppet case

Hi Amanda,

About this, "Not sure if there is a proxy on that whole range." I'm not sure why you don't see them. I clicked on eight random ones from the first page of anon edits on that range and six of them were proxies:

I stopped there but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more.

"not the first issue I've seen today on that range" It's late for me so I haven't checked yet but we may want to look again more closely at what you think is collateral damage. I may look tomorrow. I'm not entirely sure that what I have seen so far has been collateral damage. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIX (company). Check the cu log for that range you softened and see the casename that I checked and then find that case on the cu wiki. You will see that the only other keep vote besides the article writer in that AfD is KressInsel and he was confirmed as a sock of that precise master and blocked on uk.wiki and mentioned in the last addition on the cu wiki.

I just searched for that casename in my gmail and found an email from NickK to the cu mailing list on March 28 but no one answered him. It mentions a subrange of the one in question. If you don't have a copy then I can email it to you. I've pinged him because he may have more to add or may want to investigate more closely. It looks like we have at least one confirmed but unblocked UPE sock and there may be more.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: As far as I understood IPQS was an indicator, not a determinant, like the rest of the sections that have VPN/proxy and are showing Xs. I could be wrong, so crossping @SQL: and @Stwalkerster: might also know. I also looked at the service, and they do say they are the "most accurate" - I've never really seen an accurate site that doesn't list ports and even then those are sometimes out of date.
I'm not to concerned about the reason behind the block itself, I just feel like it's a residential or mobile range. I'll try and dig a little deeper tomorrow and we can see what the range caught since. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, One of the earliest reasons for developing IPCheck was the frequency with which people pointed at IPQS, and the hair-trigger-to-flat-out-wrong results that it could give sometimes.
I haven't looked at these ranges really, but your understanding of indicator vs determinant matches my own. SQLQuery me! 04:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
SQL, the proxy checker is an aggregate tool that queries multiple sites for existent reports and scans, correct? I'm under the impression that no real scanning occurs from our queries. (I realize that there had been the check box for port scanning which is now removed but I'm not talking about that.) Our queries through your tool does not initiate any kind of serious scan on the part of those services does it? It just queries their databases, right? There doesn't seem to be enough time for anything beyond the most cursory of scans.
With my understanding laid out above, I would not take the absence of a report on certain sites as meaning that the report filed at IPQS is therefore negative. From your view, as well as Amanda's being welcome also, how do we get to that determinant state for the purposes of blocking? What further steps do you take? Is it expected of all admins/checkusers that they should run their own nmap scans at that point? Does your tool become more of a determinant when a consensus of the aggregate results agree? Is there a guide that I don't know about?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: Correct, as far as I know, it's just a collection of information with databases and no scans are done. True that absence does not mean negative. So the determinant side for me is solely through manually checking google for proxy lists with the IP and seeing their last active date. I never do port scans. Most proxies (at least in the sense I talk about them - aka not webhosts, colocators or zombies) leave within a short period of time and are on single IPs.
If you have an entire range you think is full of proxies, that's more likely an entire compromised network ({{zombie proxy}}) which I normally would defer to asking User:zzuuzz or SQL about because I don't have the knowledge to even certify that. I can say that I can count on my hands how many times ive done that.
The thing you will (or I at least) issue the most blocks for are webhosts ({{webhostblock}} - hardblocks only) and colocators ({{colocationwebhost}} - softblocks only). These are easy to determine. Run a whois and look for the company name or the domain on an email associated with the company. Then look up their website. If they offer servers of any kind, it's normally a webhost. If they offer residential and servers or they use the terms IP Transit or Colocation, or give any indication they provide entire networks to regular businesses, it's a colocator. I only softblock colocators because that means business that are just forcing their users to use that network while at work could get caught in the middle and very frequently do. You will block the range that is attached with the company based on the whois.
There are some solid examples of webhostblocks and colocationwebhost blocks in my block log which would provide a basis for an example. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Since I was pinged I'll add a brief comment. I hardly ever use nmap, and I just don't trust blacklists beyond a very rough indicator. When it comes to all the different types of anonymiser available, performing an actual proper confirmation scan is rarely a successful strategy. A good proportion of what I get up to asking, what is this network up to? One of the things I look at is whether the edits are appropriate for the location, and looking at the edits here, yes there might have been a socker or two on there in the past, but much of the editing appears geo-appropriate (including the CU logs). If there was significant proxy usage then you'd expect much more variation. The ISP has no website that works (or meaningful company name) from what I can tell, which is never a good sign. It does some hosting - for example dipromisto.gov.ua is in the range at 82.193.97.114. Like any large network there might an open proxy or two floating around, but I can't find anything overly dodgy about it in terms of proxies as a whole network. A CU block is of course another matter. One thing I wouldn't expect from the range is too many new users arriving on to it at once. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both as this is good information. Please start a guide on the cu wiki when you get a chance as this would be good info for future checkusers as well as the present ones. Good strategy and sources could be developed on such a page if many CUs are contributing to it. I do look some companies up for colocation and webhosts. "I never do port scans" and "I hardly ever use nmap"...probably because it takes so long and if you are dealing with a hardened up proxy then you have to try different combinations to discover open ports. I took a random IP and tried a few combinations on it yesterday. It took a long time to complete although the port shows up in the first 20 minutes of the scan.
  • nmap -p 1-65535 -T4 -A -v -Pn 82.193.98.4
    • Discovered open port 54362/tcp on 82.193.98.4
82.193.98.0/24 was indicated by the uk checkuser as the most problematic subrange on cu-l on March 28. It would indeed take a long time to scan the various IPs. If you try your hand at spot checking, I recommend using the no ping option -Pn
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Current blocks on IPs in the /19 range on other projects are exclusively proxy blocks:
  • 82.193.125.77 globally blocked by Jon Kolbert (Open Proxy)
  • 82.193.111.126 blocked by RonaldB (Open proxy) on nl.wiki
  • 82.193.123.230 blocked by Mardetanha (proxy list) on fa.wiki
  • 82.193.114.204 on ja.wiki blocked by 竹麦魚 as Open Proxy (this block is really old and an indef)
  • 82.193.121.122 is blocked indef on three different Portuguese projects by Sir Louis Point du Lac Bot as "No open proxies" and "Tor nodes"
  • 82.193.105.203, 82.193.115.112, and 82.193.122.137 are all indeffed on vi.wiki by Ctmt as open proxies
Huge number of active proxy blocks on ru projects by proxy bot

ru.wikiquote.org

  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.108.186 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.108.88 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.171 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.252 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.7 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.87 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.118.46 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.161 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.245 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.113.162 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.115.193 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.116.134 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.116.173 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.118.78 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.121.175 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.126.177 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.114.41 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.119.197 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-27 — 2020-Dec-30: 82.193.112.182 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-27 — 2020-Dec-30: 82.193.116.223 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-29 — 2021-Jan-01: 82.193.123.181 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Sep-12 — 2020-Aug-29: 82.193.104.166 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Sep-28 — 2020-Oct-15: 82.193.112.15 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Sep-28 — 2020-Oct-15: 82.193.126.105 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Oct-20 — 2020-Oct-06: 82.193.123.230 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Jan-30 — 2020-Jul-17: 82.193.101.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Feb-17 — 2020-Aug-05: 82.193.106.49 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Apr-15 — 2020-Sep-19: 82.193.100.148 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Apr-17 — 2020-Oct-03: 82.193.123.217 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Jun-02 — 2020-Jul-03: 82.193.117.144 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2020-Feb-28 — 2021-Mar-30: 82.193.125.77 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2020-Apr-06 — 2021-Apr-06: 82.193.103.5 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2020-May-28 — 2020-Nov-28: 82.193.111.126 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )

ru.wikipedia.org

  • 2016-Nov-27 — 2021-Apr-06: 82.193.103.5 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2017-Oct-03 — 2020-Oct-06: 82.193.123.230 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Mar-26 — 2020-Aug-29: 82.193.104.166 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.108.186 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.108.88 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.171 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.252 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.7 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.116.87 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-28: 82.193.118.46 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.161 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.245 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.113.162 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.115.193 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.116.134 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.116.173 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.118.78 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.121.175 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-25 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.126.177 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.103.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.114.41 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-26 — 2020-Dec-29: 82.193.119.197 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-27 — 2020-Dec-30: 82.193.112.182 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-27 — 2020-Dec-30: 82.193.116.223 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Jul-29 — 2021-Jan-01: 82.193.123.181 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Sep-28 — 2020-Oct-15: 82.193.112.15 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2018-Sep-28 — 2020-Oct-15: 82.193.126.105 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Jan-30 — 2020-Jul-17: 82.193.101.241 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Feb-17 — 2020-Aug-05: 82.193.106.49 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Apr-15 — 2020-Sep-19: 82.193.100.148 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Apr-17 — 2020-Oct-03: 82.193.123.217 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2019-Jun-02 — 2020-Jul-03: 82.193.117.144 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2020-Feb-28 — 2021-Mar-30: 82.193.125.77 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )
  • 2020-May-28 — 2020-Nov-28: 82.193.111.126 blocked by QBA-bot (Blocked proxy )


 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for help re suspected sockpuppet

Hi - I am sorry but I don't know how to do SPI so I am contacting you in the hope that you might assist me, as you placed the ban on the user whom I consider now to be socking. A quick glance at Reshma Shetty edit history shows the user you banned making many edits and then a user, whom I consider to be the sock, continuing to make edits to the same page. Exactly the same pattern emerges on other pages, such as List of Royal Pains characters, Before I fall, Deep Katdare and several others. Silly English Kniggits appears to be editing almost the exact same set of pages as the banned user. I apologise for drawing your attention to this but as the admin who placed the ban, I thought you might be willing to help ensure it's enforced.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have filled the SPI for you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fourlaxers. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is DeltaQuad Account.
Message added 11:21, 26 June 2020 (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.

Jack Frost (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: While I appreciate the effort, things like this really make a mess of things. I had to block and get the account locked as it's technically controlled by 2 people which should never happen, even if I changed the settings. Also the software is build to prevent the creation again as I'm pretty sure you had to check ignore spoofing checks to create it. It also made a snafu of proper redirects when I had to rename the account. I also had plans in the works for moving my alt there, just hadn't gotten to it yet. So just advice for next time, but it's best to approach the person with this sort of issue so they can solve it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

I have been editing sporadically recently and just noticed you were back. Great news. Welcome back. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

High DeltaQuadBot login rate

Hello!

Your bot is logging into Wikimedia projects near 3K times in a 48H period, which is excessive, and shouldn't be necessary.

See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T256533#6261565

Can you do anything about this?

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Login#Additional_notes

>If you are sending a request that should be made by a logged-in user, add assert=user parameter to the request you are sending in order to check whether the user is logged in. If the user is not logged-in, an assertuserfailed error code will be returned.

Reedy (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reedy: I'm using mwclient, and it appears it deletes the cookies and therefore the login information each time the script finishes, so if I'm reading right, it requires a new login. Is there a better way to be doing this, or am I going to have to rewrite code/choose a new library to properly login? There are several scripts that are all logging in various times per hour, so I can understand where the high number is. It's just a matter of what to do to fix it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It might be worth a request upstream to the mwclient developers, to see if they could do anything to persist sessions, or something else. It may be that some bots do need higher login rates... But 3K/48H is just over 60, meaning one a minute. Looking at Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot, I don't see the bot doing that many actions per hour; there's 100 edits in 5.5 hours. Obviously looking at Special:Log/DeltaQuadBot, Contributions aren't the whole picture. Reedy (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
For the time being, I've reduced at least 1,152 logins (per 2 days) with this change -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Also over the next bit, i'll run down my individual bot tasks and get them to compare previous text with proposed new text and only login and save if it's different. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
And @Reedy: i've upstreamed the request. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy: Sorry one more ping...I saw elsewhere that using OAuth could help reduce this. Is that true? If so, that's a pretty simple change I can employ I think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Potentially, yeah, as you can keep hold of tokens and re-use those. Noting, OAuth 1.0 might not work so well (due to the auth workflow etc), but 2.0 might work for your usec case; but it can be a little buggy! :) Reedy (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot and renaming

Hi. Can you please update the redirect target of User talk:DeltaQuadBot? Its fully protected. Also, at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot (and probably elsewhere) the bot is linking to pages under your old name, which are now redlinks. Can those be updated? Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 7

Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script and the Global watchlist extension:

Future development

I have received a grant from the WMF to develop this script into an extension. As a result, I do not plan on any further developments being made to the user script. Please see the grant page for more information. Those interested in reviewing and providing feedback for the extension should follow the new phabricator board, phabricator:tag/mediawiki-extensions-globalwatchlist.

Translations

Many thanks to those that have contributed translations for the script's messages. Now that I am working on an extension, translation has migrated to translatewiki. Please see:


To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist user script: About • Updates • Code
Global watchlist extension: documentation

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SPI request

Hello, I saw that you are an active SPI clerk and that you have processed many of the recent CU requests. I was wondering if you could approve the CU request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theedardanian. I'm one the editors, which the editor who filed the report is claiming that they are connected. A quick CU would resolve it all, so I have left the same request in several clerks' talkpages.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a CheckUser actually, and with respect, this is not the way to go about this. You have only filled yesterday. As seen here, there are several cases open longer than this one. I only stopped today because I was out of energy and had a migraine. Also the longer an SPI gets with all the comments with back and forth discussion between the users, the longer it takes to process, think through and decide. Please be patient, and someone will get around to your case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if it sounded a bit like a "customer request". I'll try to limit my responses to that page to help other clerks process the request without having to read through countless pages worth of content.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, AmandaNP. Thanks for taking a look at this . I was wondering whether you only CU'd the three suspected socks in relation to the suspected sock master (Theedardanian) or if you cross-checked all three suspected socks against each another. The accounts that stand out in particular are Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912, which were registered and started editing minutes apart. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I checked all 3 suspected against themselves, the master was stale. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Amanda, thanks a lot about the very quick and straightforward approach! --Maleschreiber (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail! 2

Hi there,

What is happening with this investigation that I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dikaiosyni .

Kind Regards,

James James Richards (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jamesrichards12345: Since you included oversightable information by outing someone or attempting to, I suppressed it in an abundance of caution because of the concern that more personal information may exist. Please do realize that outing can get you blocked from editing really fast and is not tolerated. My suggestion is that you recreate the SPI with only information you can find on Wikipedia, do not reference anything you search up on the web about a person's identity and affiliation. If you find that you absolutely can't make your case based on onwiki information only (which is rare that you can't), then you should contact either CheckUsers or ArbCom privately. If you need a copy of what you wrote, I can email it to you, and you can remove or recreate from that. I'll unprotect the SPI now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot it is all good I will recreate it, I had copy and pasted the code earlier so no need to email it to me. I wasn't aware of that policy. --James Richards (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry to bother you again, I recreated the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dikaiosyni without the info that got it removed last time. But I must have done it wrong since the page is not appearing in the currently listed investigations. Would you be able to sort it out please, thanks a lot of the help :D --James Richards (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jamesrichards12345 I've suppressed that again - please re-read Amanda's comment about not including anything found on external websites in the public report. As Amanda said, if you find that you absolutely can't make your case based on onwiki information only (which is rare that you can't), then you should contact either CheckUsers or ArbCom privately. Do not re-add links to external websites like that again, or you're highly likely to find yourself blocked. stwalkerster (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will message it privately then, because a key peice of this evidence are videos by this Diaspora organisation creating a 'Wikipedia Taskforce' --James Richards (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback block

Hi, I was reverting vandaliism on Hetton-le-Hole so it is not edit warring and I had discussed it with the ip last night at 80.225.208.29 (talk · contribs) who is the obvious sockpuppet of 79.65.78.3 (talk · contribs). It is obvious vandalism as it is a recognised town and has a town council and the ip vandals keep changing it to city or village.The ip last posted okay lol on their talkpage so they were obviously not serious. Also I asked for page protection last night and reported the ips at AIV today. Regarding my block history I've had one block for one hour a year ago so removal of rollback is very unfair, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a fair and proportionate measure. I'd have blocked you fully for a number of days for edit warring/disruptive editing. I think a partial block and rollback being removed is incredibly generous. Your behaviour, whether right or wrong, was disruptive and is particularly inappropriate coming from an experienced editor who should know better. Nick (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The edits to the article are not obvious vandalism - therefore their reversion constitutes edit warring. They're also not appropriate edits to be using rollback on, additionally edit warring is reasonable grounds to remove rollback regardless of whether or not rollback was used to edit war. Nick (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I had discussed this last night with the first ip and given him evidence that it is a town with a town council so discussion was involved Atlantic306 (talk)
  • Discussion does not mean consensus and evidence to the contrary does not mean vandalism. Please read up on what isn't vandalism, especially about disruptive editing. People seem to forget that vandalism is adding "your mom" to things, aka something that very clearly doesn't belong. Being wrong isn't vandalism. AIV reporting doesn't excuse your behavoir. The proper thing to do is let it be, allow for a block if it's warranted, and THEN revert a single time. But neither a block is warranted nor is the excessive reversion. Plus you did it on the same article in 2019. I'm not trying to insult you, but you really need to reread policy on vandalism. (Hell most of AIV reporters need to also) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The 2019 reversion on the page was two reverts so it was not really edit warring although perhaps I shouldn't have used rollback then or now but really if something obviously false such as calling London a village does seem like vandalism. I commit to being sparing with rollback if I get it back, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken deletion

Hi, if you have a moment the most recent deletion here should be undone (and the more recent version of the file should be deleted). The most recent revision appears to have removed the transparency layer, and changed it to white. That edit was made by a blocked sockpuppet of a user who has made many errors in regards to images. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, thanks for temp approving my rollback.

I wanted to ask mention about the diffs you posted:

What does "missing oversightable content" mean?

Thanks! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely get they are small mistakes and fixable, but that is why I said lets trial run so we can reduce the concern that you may be processing things to fast and reduce the chance of mistakes. Vandalism doesn't have to be gone in split seconds, its fine to wait a couple of seconds most times. Missing oversightable content is like phone numbers, blatant outing, things like that which need to be reported. I don't remember the exact diff, and can't discuss it anyway. I'm happy to individually review after the time if you wish. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Lovely stuff, thank you for being so understanding! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename DeltaQuadBot

You have changed your username from DeltaQuad to AmandaNP. If possible, can you please rename DeltaQuadBot to AmandaNPBot or AmandaBot? GlobBETT ☎️ 🖋 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Globbett, as a BAG member I can say that there is zero requirement for a bot name to match (or even indicate ownership by) the bot operator's username if they do not want to. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC) For transparency, I was asked to look into this matter by Amanda.
I was also just replying, but I won't be renaming the bot. It's clearly identified on the userpage who the owner is, it would break all my edit summaries and force me to go through all my code and redo them, it's already well known under that name, and a rename of almost 1 million edits would put a stupid strain on the server that developers would not be happy with me about. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
rename of almost 1 million edits would put a stupid strain on the server that developers would not be happy with me about renames of accounts with lots of edits are no longer expensive after the actor migration. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pppery: Fair enough, I was told this for the first time last night. Either way, I still don't see a reason for the rename. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial block

I have been partially blocked for some time now. I did take some time after that to read the username policy and the UAA instructions, which I misunderstood and applied incorrectly in two of my last reports before the partial block. However, I was reluctant at first to ask if the scope of the block was too broad, as it applies to an entire namespace. I do not know if this is too much to ask for, but is it possible to narrow the scope to at least UAA and AIV only, as those were the noticeboards where my reporting have been indeed problematic? I am worried because the block is also affecting other noticeboards, such as ITNC and SPI, where my contributions were relatively less but not controversial. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

LSGH, weren't you pblocked something like four days ago? That's not really "some time"... it was Monday. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
While I agree with Primefac, I did take a look back over things. I am willing to go down to UAA and AIV only, and reduce it to a month. My reasoning behind that is you have already been asked to review the username policy on Jun 20th, and from then until the time of the block you could have asked questions or read closer. The one month gives you a chance to fully review the relevant policies, and then try again. But for now, it takes you away from the venues that see heavy volume - where the most issues can be caused and the most cleanup would be needed. I also looked back on your talkpage and saw that it wasn't as bad as I initially had read through, and that you were trying to understand the processes at least, even if you potentially were not understanding. So that's why I've reduced the block to what it is. Please note if issues continue after that one month...then we are going to be right back where we started.
Since I can't include my personal opinion in with a block and it's solely related to policy, I will add my comment here instead, noting that it was not part of the review, as I would of left the block for a longer length and maybe more broad. When I approached your talkpage, your explanation was less than the level I expect from a fellow contributor. It felt like you were trying to avoid the issue especially by pointing out that it would have been blocked anyway. Yes, it would have, and that's why I blocked it still. But throwing any accusation around and then when it's dealt with another way say "the ends justify the means" makes Wikipedia a less safe/good place to edit by driving away people (Something mentioned in the DE policy). What made it worse is that was used as a justification to explain a concern about potential racism (which maybe I didn't clearly note) and then say that 'some groups resort to violence' without specifying that it's only parts of those groups. That's why I mentioned the painting a picture issue. I know some other Wikipedia users may say i'm just being oversensitive or that Wikipedia isn't therapy to me, as one of the largest websites in the world we have the chance to address systemic discrimination of all kinds. And that's my concern is that with that report and then saying ends justify the means, we are just brushing it under the rug. Now of course this is my personal opinion and some advice, you can technically throw it in the trash can or tell me to fuck off after reading it and it wouldn't matter, but if you are here to be open to change and be receptive to feedback, this is the chance to take it in. Up to you what you do with it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@LSGH: I've been stalking Amanda's talk page and saw this. I think Amanda has given you a great opportunity here to improve. I highly suggest you visit the relevant policies again for vandalism and usernames and anything you're interested in contributing to. If you have questions, please feel free to ask and clarify before making a questionable report. You'll find many contributors here at Wikipedia who will help you learn the ropes and answer questions. -- Dane talk 02:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I feel that there really is a need for me to slow down, as I have not much of an experience to deal with those matters, unlike the others who also report there regularly and have been around for years now. As they say, it's really better to leave some things to more experienced editors. I may have thought that asking others about the best possible interpretation of policy would disturb them, especially if the questions come from those with less experience, though that seems not to be the case. The least thing we want to do at WP is to drive away people who would be potentially productive, and I don't want to do it out of carelessness and misinterpretation. Thank you anyway for the learning experience. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Note about Noob42069

The bot you operate, DeltaQuadBot, forgot to add that the username matched 69 on the blacklist. It is commonly associated with oral sex and is commonly used for vandalism-only accounts. GlobBETT ☎️ 🖋 01:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It didn't forget. Due to performance reasons and not putting excessive strain on the servers, the bot will only ever file based on the first thing it matches on the blacklist. I've had issues before where the bot will choke if there are too many usernames/entries to process, and delay the next round from getting launched with a snowball effect to the point it will barely edit or not at all. At one point, it didn't edit for over 3 months because of this type of issue and something got stuck. Any admin patrolling should be fully aware that 42069 is a very commonly used combination and that there are two different concerns. If not...well then someone can rereport it or it can be dealt with at another venue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sash84/Archive

Hi Amanda. I've unblocked the accounts listed in this SPI since ArbCom received an explanation that they are (Redacted). I hope you don't mind me doing this boldly without checking with you first – the explanation just seemed cut-and-dry and I wanted the students to be able to return to editing as soon as possible. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Replied many hours ago. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Revision deletion request.
Message added 07:06, 17 July 2020 (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.

Thanks for the help! Field Marshal (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan: I was about to go to bed when I luckily decided to refresh the page to see your mail. Please use WP:RFO in the future so it won't get missed until i'm awake. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, Alright. I just happened to see you on the active admin list. Good night. Field Marshal (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I've re-requested I be exempt from that list. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why have you blocked me?

You seem to have blocked me as a potential sock puppet. I’m really not one. How can I prove it? Florapostewrites (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

NB i am fairly new to editing so have made multiple changes to the two articles I’ve created so far. As I get more experienced, I hope I’ll get better at this. I have contributed to numerous other articles and I’m working on 2 other articles about living people at the moment (an internationally acclaimed author and an actor. Florapostewrites (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Florapostewrites: You are not blocked, and I don't see anything in your public block log. I don't think AmandaNP is currently active so I'm gonna ping @DGG: who does appear recently active to see if they or another admin can help you. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jerodlycett: Thanks - I seem to have been unblocked again pretty quickly. Florapostewrites (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Hi Amanda/DQ,

I noticed your robot stopped revdeling non-free files. The backlog in this category has grown to more than 2000. The last time the bot revdeled the file was back on 26 June 2020. I posted a message on the ANB about the backlog problem. Can you tell me if there is anything that is up? Aasim 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Fixed several days ago. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Page Merging

Hello, could you please merge the page history of User:Hurricane Noah/2018 EPAC into 2018 Pacific hurricane season? I already merged all the content over to the main page and blended it within some of the existing content. Also, I am aware I broke a couple of refs and plan to rectify that shortly. NoahTalk 00:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: This is completely ill-advised per WP:PV. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

About the possible sock

Hello! How are you? Can I know the reason why you declined my checkuser request here? The relation between these two users are really worrying me. After the partial block of GevHev4, he basically disappeared, and stopped responding to the discussion as seen here, and Գարիկ Ավագյան took over the additions, which GevHev4 was usually publishing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I declined it exactly for the reasons stated on the SPI. Editing the same page and having the same opinion, especially with a different account that is 9 years old with about 2,000 edits on a highly political article that would drag in a lot of people does not meet probable cause. You need diffs of evidence that show they have the same opinion on multiple topics. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RFU Table

Hey!

Is the source for the RFU table on github somewhere? Looks like it's recording only the first bit of IPv6 addresses in the table. SQLQuery me! 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're here... I can't seem to see any requests on UTRS2 anymore. I think my account was auto-demoted when I gave up the bits on enwiki. I tried manually reloading the perms, no dice there - also relogging. Any ideas on other stuff I can try? SQLQuery me! 15:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
​(talk page stalker) If you view your account (from the navigation bar) does it show the permission table show that you have the sysop bit on enwiki? – Majavah talk · edits 15:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, Yep. SQLQuery me! 15:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@SQL: Have you tried logging out and back in? If that doesn't help it I'm unfortunately out of ideas and as far as I'm aware Amanda is currently busy with IRL stuff. – Majavah talk · edits 15:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, I have, but I appreciate the ideas! SQLQuery me! 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@SQL: Well, I wrote the authorization system used in UTRS so I'm rather worried if it's malfunctioning and I have no ideas why. Can you also check if you can access individual appeals (list is at CAT:UNBLOCK) and do you have the "user" permission on enwiki (according to the same list)? – Majavah talk · edits 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, I do have access to the individual appeals. SQLQuery me! 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, My permission list does include "user" (See: here) SQLQuery me! 16:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@SQL: Well, then the problem is on the main page logic rather than the permission logic. I have a couple of ideas why but I can't really tell without checking a couple of things from the database (which I can't do). – Majavah talk · edits 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
SQL should have access to the required fields for the database, and if not, then we can always ask Wikitech admins to grant him access as I won't have DB access for the immediate future at minimum. You can use this diff as my sign-off if needed. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 23:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, I probably do, now that you mention it. I haven't logged into WMCS since I left. While I'm not entirely sure where to get started with fixing this, but I suppose I could simply drop my row from the DB completely, and start over. SQLQuery me! 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SPI cases overview?

I've been writing some tools to work with SPI cases. I'm parsing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview to get the list of active cases, but I see WP:SPI actually transcludes User:AmandaNP/SPI case list. Why are there two of them?

I also notice that the later is transcluded with {{User:AmandaNP/SPI case list}}|}, which to my unexpert eye looks more like a syntax error than anything else (mismatched curlies). Is this intentional? Is it some obscure piece of wiki-markup I've just never seen before? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My version was originally a backup. Amalthea's bot handles it normally, i'm just on backup duty. Looks like it got switched back. Special:Diff/969971986. Regarding the extra text, it's removed. I think it used to be part of a table. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

2604:6000:B445:A100:AD63:E6B6:69:47A9

Can user:2604:6000:B445:A100:AD63:E6B6:69:47A9 please be blocked ASAP. She probably won't stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to see you are back

I am very happy to see you are back to being an admin. I have not been active this year so I suppose this is rather belated, though none the less sincere for that. Be well. Jbh Talk 20:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

zscaler blocks

There's a discussion over at WP:AN#zscaler_proxies which peripherally mentions you and which you might have an opinion about! --Yamla (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Username reports

Hi,

Your bot has been reporting several usernames at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention for matching the string [\u1D400-\u1D7FF], seemingly eroneously. Is there something wrong? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to look at any examples unless you can provide links. My guess without looking (and I won't be able to look for a while) is that it's registering as an unknown character and the default for the bot is to auto report. Depending on the character, it *may* be able to be whitelisted. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 04:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it was this dif here, which it seems was caused by a change User:The_Anome made to your blacklist, which is now resolved Pi (Talk to me!) 22:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Did my character blacklist break the bot?

Hi! Sorry about the error in the regex mentioned above: I resolved it, or thought I did, by changing the regex format to the same one used in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. However, doing so also seemed to break the bot. I removed all the unicode range patterns in this edit, and things seemed to go back to normal. Could you possibly investigate? Many thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I wish i could right now, but it's not possible in my situation. If the bot is still not reporting then i can always share access to the toolforge project and point in the right direction. Let me know. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 03:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@The Anome: I've checked now, and no errors since Sept 2 UTC, and the last one was a site lock issue. Let me know if there are further concerns. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:KIAH 2018 Logo.png

Hi AmandaNP. Can you take a look at File:KIAH 2018 Logo.png? One of your bots tagged it for a WP:F5 review, but the file is not a non-free file and isn’t (or shouldn’t be) subject to F5. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't look for another period of time due to my situation. I would encourage a look at the page history, wikitext, and the hidden categories gadget though to see if that could provide any clues. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Red X Not a bug Appears to be working as intended. Someone put {{orfurrev}} on the file, bot showed up, said "woah, wait a minute, this is a free file. I'm not supposed to delete that", and marked it for human review. The bot can't decide for sure if F5 applies to that file or not, so calling in the humans is the right action. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
My apologies AmandaNP. AntiCompositeNumber is correct; the CSD template was added by different editor, not your bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pcgmsrich/Archive

There really are friendlier ways to do that. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: This is standard practice to revert all edits to SPI archives. I didn't do it without looking into the matter. But just leaving it there makes it look like we just ignored your conclusion and didn't respond to it because we aren't supposed to edit the archives either.
I looked at 14 potential range blocks to Special:Contribs/2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:4D that @JJMC89: pointed me to. A cursory check of the CU logs shows many different people on that range socking and wouldn't be effective for reasons I can't mention here. This is why I didn't reach out to your talkpage, because of what I couldn't mention.
Apologies if I have offended, it's just standard to revert. We honestly should have an edit filter preventing it to be honest. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:10tvnews

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for being rude to you the other day over at PERM, i got frustrated that i couldn't carry on reviewing. Thank you for taking time to look at my contribs and giving your opinion, i do appreciate it. Kindest regards, Zindor (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Permissions for a blocked user

Should the Page Mover, File Mover, Pending Changes Reviewer, and Rollbacker rights be removed for User:A1Cafel since he has been indefinitely blocked for almost a year? NoahTalk 22:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't routinely do so per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible AE violation

Hey! I'm new to AE stuff so I don't know exactly what to do, but a user who you've previously sanctioned for violating an indef topic-ban on race and intelligence has posted comments on the talk page of a neo-fascist political group, disputing the article saying the group is a "white supremacist" and "far-right" organisation (despite reliable sources). Since the indef topic-ban came from an AE request, not an actual case, I don't know what to do - should I just report them on the AE again linking to the case where they were topic-banned, or can an admin deal with it away from AE (like on ANI)? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Without any specifics, I obviously can only point you in the general direction of WP:AE as it says at the top that it takes request[s for] administrative action against editors violating a remedy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, it's stupidly office. Sorry for wasting your time! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI: WP:AE#Peregrine Fisher ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.

NoahTalk 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Hi, I have no authority to deal with this issue individually, so I have passed it on to those that can. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Who should I be contacting about this? Something new has come up that greatly concerns me. NoahTalk 02:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom is the one and only place to handle off-wiki conduct. They couldn't do much last time I checked with them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Request/Advice speedy deletion

Hello Amanda, as your warning for me to not nominating CSD. I am here to ask you is these articles apply for CSD:

  1. Raamdeo Agrawal - Doesn't notable independently and lack of citation.
  2. Kamini Jindal - Not a election winner and both references are 404.
  3. Shruti Agarwal - Doesn't notable(strongly)
  4. Vinod Singh Bansal - as both of these sources [1] and [2], he is only runner in election.
  5. Rajeev Bindal - only single cite found and this source doesn't proof that he was member of legislative.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaj Tilak (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Raaj Tilak, this is not a good re-start. None of these are eligible for WP:CSD, and several of these are basically automatic keeps at WP:AFD. Why this is so is left for you to puzzle out via WP:N and WP:NBIO and WP:CCOS. You should probably consider "not nominating for CSD" to include CSD via proxy (ie: requesting other people perform CSD for you) -- anything CSD-able is AFD-able, and you really need to calibrate your understanding of what is definitely deletable, what is definitely keepable, and what is marginal. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hydro is right. The point of the restriction was to keep you away from CSD and PROD, not get you back into it. Please observe the spirit of your restriction. Further, going and immediately mass reverting @Utcursch: on Ahibaran, calling it vandalism is absolutely an extreme and goes against several core policies. Please tread extremely lightly and consult with the teahouse and other editors to assist you. I don't want to have to turn around and reblock you, but that means you need to in turn slow down and read policies properly. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Habesha appears to strike again

Hello. Would you please investigate the further activities added onto Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: Ideally, that should be part of a new investigation, as tacking things on after results confuses things. If you could do so, I'll take a look later along with the other cases. If it's too confusing to separate, i'll do it when I get to it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Pardon me, as I was confused pertaining to placing the information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, it's not regularly clear and just best practice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies discussion

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your work on the SPI backlog. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ernesto Sirolli article and blocked user

Hi, I just wanted to let you know about this new user whose first two edits were to this page which had a tag about someone you recently blocked (for unknown reasons, but I can only assume conflict of interest) editing. It is probably nothing to worry about but does seem a bit suspicious. [3] RedPanda25 23:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you speaking of Prahlad balaji? If so this doesn't seem like something to worry about, and oversight blocks are made for many reasons on end, obviously one I can't specify here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was. If you don't think it's something worth looking into, I'll leave it at that. Still it was a bit weird that such a new user would just go ahead and remove a COI tag. RedPanda25 23:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Notes on the blocking of User:Euro2024

Please note that after the indefinite blocking of User:Euro2024, the same sets of reverts to articles on the South Korea national football team - such as at South Korea national football team results (2000–09) - are being made by User:Hanabangk. ClueBot sent a warning to the talk page, which was blanked, after a new set of information deletion at 2020 Ulsan Hyundai FC season. Can you please have a look, and if necessary, repeat the actions? Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

They have already been globally locked, but I'll run the local checks too. It might be time to get a SPI going. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euro2024 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New user affected by CU hardblock

Hi there - can you take a look at User talk:Megamusiccollector? I created the account at ACC yesterday and they appear to be affected by an IPv6 CU hardblock. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk page reply, and email

Hi AmandaNP, thank you for replying to us on DoSazunielle's talk page. Just writing here to say that I've sent you a message through email. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please disregard email for now

Hey there, please disregard my email for the time being. In retrospect, I should have waited until I had more info. It's just always frustrating when you see something odd, yet don't know who's behind it. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Content removal

I saw that you removed something from my userpage, but why? And what did you remove? a gd fan (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I will have to ask that you contact the oversight team to discuss this, as I can't discuss it with you onwiki. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I know why --a gd fan (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot poorly?

User:AmandaNP/UTRS Appeals hasn't been updated in 40+ hours. Cabayi (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I go look at the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it updated, and then UTRS itself went HTTP 503 :-( Cabayi (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that was because of broken log entries. I entered the app into maintenance mode to fix it. This was the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon

Hey, I've provided more links to this and would like your input. I'm not really sure what's supposed to happen now though. We've already established that four of the seven users I reported are linked, and it's not been revealed to me what I would need to provide to establish that the other three are also linked. When there's seven different accounts involved there are a lot of edits to go through, so it's quite difficult and takes me a lot of time to find them in the revision differences format, without knowing what would be useful for the investigation. Can you inform me why the first four are proven to be linked but not the next three? Apologies if it's very obvious, I haven't reported accounts before. It seems like the accounts have stopped editing, but if they continue then what would be the next step? Is there a place other than SPI where I should report accounts controlled by people who know each other primarily off-wiki? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't responded to you, I haven't even read this message yet. I'm in the middle of dealing with oversight issues, a crosswiki LTA and UTRS having issues. I'll try and respond when I have a bit to explain the process for you and the energy to do so. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: So first, Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. It won't find every single sockpuppet every single time. While the "connection" between the first few editors appears that they are different people, we can't run it based on meatpuppetry. We have to be able to make a reasonable conclusion that sockpuppetry is occurring to run checkuser. In the checkuser policy it says, The tool may never be used to exert political or social control. When we check just on the basis of them editing the same topic area or just because we think they may be in the same geographic location, that violates that policy and is considered fishing. Looking at WP:SOSP will provide you with clues as to what we look for in those diffs. For a nutshell version, we are looking for anything that shows them more likely to be the same person instead of multiple people. Like if someone always says signs edit summaries, not many people do that and that would make it look like the same user. Little things like that. But obviously I can't go through the entire SOSP list on my talkpage, so you will need to look into that. You don't have to read it all obviously, but it will give you hints.
Going back to why the other 4 were identified and the other 3 were not, I didn't run checks on the last group of 3 because you didn't have the evidence (one of them was stale also - meaning I would get no results). I found my own evidence for the first four. When checking the first four, they didn't show up on any IPs related to that. I hope that starts to explain things for you and provides a way forward. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CCI Banderas

Hi AmandaNP. As the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banderas has ended, I wanted to thank you for helping me by reviewing my blocking and assisting in the process. Best regards.--Banderas (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi! You removed images from a number of article with an edit summary "CSD G5: Slowking4" ([4][5] etc). But, none of those images are actually deleted, so I don't see any reason for removal. They were not uploaded nor inserted by anyone called "Slowking4". Can you look into this issue? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. They were inserted into articles by a sockpuppet of user Slowking4. Sorry to bother you. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Also ping @Dhtwiki: as an FYI. Maybe I should have been clearer that this was done under WP:BANREVERT, and you are free to reinsert the images as your own edit. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

AEC2020 questions

Hi Amanda, thanks for asking some questions of the ArbCom candidates. I noticed at User:AmandaNP/ACE 2020 that you believe I missed the point of your question and/or skipped answering part of your question. If that's the case, I apologize; it certainly wasn't intentional. It's possible that I didn't fully understand exactly what you were looking to get out of me (and it appears I may not be the only one). If you're up for it, I'd be happy to answer a follow-up question that clarifies what you were intending to ask me. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I might be able to reword even for others if they wish. Even then though I would only strike and leave my original comments and update them as I feel the initial comment is still relevant. I'll need a few hours to consider a rephrase plus I need to start reviewing those who have also responded. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I've given it some thought, and I'll reformat the question which may aid in understanding. That said you may also want to take hints from my guide about how others answered. That said, I'm looking for your unique response also, so don't rely on it.
So the question: How does your wiki experience show that you can give independent thought (not by relying on others) into decisions that you will have to make as an Arbitrator? In answering the question, use what I write to help shape you answer, don't answer the questions I list directly. Remember it all relates to the question of showing independent thought.
  1. {{checkuserblock-account}}s appealed to ArbCom where the technical evidence is not black and white. Checkuserblocks by their nature require that a sufficient amount of technical information exists that proves the connection and has a higher standard than a regular WP:DUCK and/or WP:SOCK block. Will you be able to take into consideration the mitigating factors (I'm being vague on the factors as to not give away an answer or tell someone how to sock) that make up a checkuserblock that go beyond technical evidence?
  2. Enforcement of CU, OS, ANPIP and the Privacy policy against actions that CheckUsers take is very much a grey area. The line always has to be drawn somewhere though. Are you going to exercise independent thought on where that line in the sand should be or will you follow the flow of whatever people on ArbCom at the time think the line is? Do you AGF or ABF in these cases and on which side?
  3. Staffing of the non-regular venues of CheckUser has always been poor, whether this is publicly acknowledged or not. It often relies on a few select functionaries to do it. Over the years of me being both on and off the committee, I always take concern with the committee's lack of consideration for the work preformed by those on the non-regular venues when choosing functionaries. With burnout being a higher risk to functionaries who staff these queues, how does your experience show that you will provide independent thought to decisions about functionaries? (Disclaimer: at times I didn't exercise independent thought, but did do so when I thought there was something more at stake)
I hope this helps clarify my question and anyone else is free to use this to reguide their answer and reping me. Remember you don't have to follow this template, this is just something to guide your answer. @Scottywong and BDD: Also BDD, the ping didn't work because you didn't sign anything on that page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my note

that I added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis back in October, but I'm asking all CU/admins to please revoke TP access by default when dealing with this troll. He uses his old blocked accounts with TP access still enabled to harass several users including myself. Been doing it for years, still doing it now. One day he pinged me from three different accounts, in less than an hour ([6]). So I'd appreciate it if we could not give him the opportunity to do this by re-enabling talk page access. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sro23: Apologies, I did miss that and I've been out of commission the past 5-6 days to deal with it. I'll mass block them again shortly. That said, maybe this should be a function configurable into @GeneralNotability:'s script. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That won't be necessary. Everyone's already either globally locked or I turned off talk page access on the ones that had it (re)enabled. Sro23 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
There are buttons to revoke TPA and email in the script (the NTP and NEM checkboxes in the block view). Reading current block options...not currently supported. Dammit, I really do need to put this on GitHub so I have a proper issue tracker... GeneralNotability (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: I was thinking more that there could be some configuration on the SPI that the tool would read which would tell which boxes to check automatically.
@Sro23: if it's any constellation, I always go after global locks on previously locked socks and do so via IRC, so I usually get an immediate lock too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Help!

Hey Amanda, Can you please restore this page. As Praxidicae's order here I can't revert those sock's edits. --Raaj Tilak (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Raaj Tilak, two pieces of well-meaning, unsolicited advice:
  1. Restoring edits made by a sock of yours is a bad idea.
  2. Canvassing someone else – let alone the blocking admin – to proxy on your behalf and restore the edits is also a bad idea.
I highly suggest that you step away from that page; I get the feeling that not doing so is going to end badly for you. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Raaj Tilak

Hello User:AmandaNP, I hope that this message finds you doing well. Earlier today, User:Raaj Tilak removed a significant quantity of information from the Agarwal article and in his/her edit summary, stated "vandalism". This kind of behaviour, in which User:Raaj Tilak removed information sourced to books published by academic presses (e.g. Oxford University Press) and labelled a fellow editor's contributions as "vandalism", demonstrates a lack of competence on the part of User:Raaj Tilak. If this is actionable, I would appreciate if you could kindly address this issue. If it is not, I would be grateful if you could have a word with User:Raaj Tilak at the least. Thank you in advance for your time and help. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with you here. I'm tempted to start an ANI thread considering everything they've done since their unblock. It's ridiculous. Praxidicae (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Praxidicae. User:Raaj Tilak already received WP:ARBIP discretionary sanctions alerts back in February 2020. If he/she makes a single bizarre edit, he/she could justifiably topic banned. Edits such as the ones he made earlier today, in addition to those that have gotten him blocked before, are a giant waste of time for the community. I appreciate you noticing this as well. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the lack of competence and the fact that he's continuing to restore his own sock edits (and sock drafts while removing maintenance tag.) None of that will really be solved with a TB imo. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That's true User:Praxidicae. Feel free to ping me if you start a discussion at WP:ANI. I think today's edits are ample evidence of a lack of competence with respect to User:Raaj Tilak's behaviour. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 14:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I have reblocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My username

Hello, AmandaNP. My username is Мастер Шторм and it is written in Russian. The English translation of my username is "Master Storm". Presently, it's listed at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Wait. I love martial arts and hence I added "Master" in my username. I added "Storm" because my instructor often calls me "Storm" during the practice sessions. I hope that my username did not offend any person, and that it is not violating the username policy. However, to be sure about that, I am here for advice. Please tell me if my username is violating any policy, and if that is so, then I will make a request for its change right away. I really do love this username though. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Мастер Шторм: There is nothing wrong with your username, it's just coming up as a false positive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Akylas7

Thanks for your closure of the AN3 about Akylas7. I made a note on my user talk on the CU wiki trying to figure out how you solved that one. I had not known how to do anything due to the staleness of the old socks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Replied there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of rights of an indefinitely blocked user

I was checking the history of a page and came across this user- User:Liberal Humanist. This user has been indefinitely blocked for more than 3 years, but still has the Rollbacker and Pending changes reviewer rights. Shouldn't the rights be revoked considering the circumstances?--AVSmalnad77 chat 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AVSmalnad77: we don't normally bother adjusting those as they can't be used when blocked, see Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels/Archive_2#Rights_of_indef_blocked_users for an old discussion on it. — xaosflux Talk 18:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Also per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

wording of the 'Your UTRS Account' post from DQB

Hey, Amanda! I'm wondering about the wording of the UTRS bot post, which is You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering again Is this just telling the person their UTRS appeal has been closed, and if they want to try again they need to start over with a new appeal? I think it might appear to be saying they have to get themselves unblocked before they can request an unblock? —valereee (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: This used to exist because people had to manually create accounts instead of using OAuth. It simply meant they didn't have access to view UTRS appeals because they weren't an admin and registered on the wrong side. This scripting had a lot of issues and I thought I got rid of the last of it in July, but apparently I didn't and it started editing back now. I have now removed the code entirely and it won't ever show up again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, lol! Sorry for the trouble! —valereee (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I needed to know. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New message from ChipWolf

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at User:ChipWolf.
Message added 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ignore the template, here is the section - thanks.

~ Chip🐺 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New pages review right

Hello Amanda, thanks for the work you do and for attending to my request. You raised concern about my CSD log as there appears to be misapplication of CSD criteria. I must admit that I make mistakes in application of CSD; I am human but I am working harder to avoid such mistakes going forward. If given the page reviewer right I will spend more time learning page reviewing process and I will carefully scrutinize articles before reviewing them. Once again thank you for the work you do. Northern Escapee (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I will at some point go back and look again but an error rate as high as I was seeing is way too concerning for NPP at this time. If you can do another month where you reduce that, then I could see granting it at that point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-1106

Hmm, what's purpose of this? It looks like MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed, but without the link the WP:EF/FP. That seems awfully BITEy for a filter that's bound to have more than its share of FPs. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)See WP:AN, WP:ANI and OTRS. It's a massive offwiki campaign to influence changes to the article about the 5th caliphate. It has disrupted multiple venues over 24 hours and was necessary. Praxidicae (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I understand, roughly, why the filter is there. But why don't we want false positive reports? I've never seen that done before, at least not intentionally. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There are a group of EFM/H monitoring it and it's not catching many (like less than 10 total) false positives. It's temporary. Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it alone for now. But I don't like the precedent.
I understand this is partly a WP:CANTFIXGOOGLE problem. Maybe the disallow message could link to a page explaining the situation? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not going to be up long. Praxidicae (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is a bit bitey, but it's hopefully very temporary. And there's not much point sending people to WP:EF/FP, as they won't be able to complain there either. – bradv🍁 22:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bradv: Special:AbuseFilter/history/1106/diff/prev/24368. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Good luck. – bradv🍁 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm definitely not a fan of using this method either Suffusion of Yellow, but for the level of disruption, giving them another venue to actually write about it would just have everyone flooding that page. I'm hoping this only lasts the next 24-48 hours at most and then maybe we can just deal with the issue normally. The problem is it was to the point of having to shut down the live IRC chat this morning, and I hear OTRS is very much struggling, so they don't discriminate by venue. Even the foundation's emergency@ line has been hit. That is why I did not include the false positives page in the message. I think just allowing it to the FP page without the message will not be too much of an issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should escalate this to Palpatine. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we have Randall Munroe to blame for starting this trend. – bradv🍁 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've just noticed Wikipedia:2020 Ahmadiyya Caliphate information. What's the general opinion on linking to this from the filter message? Obviously some protection may be required. ping-- zzuuzz (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: You could probably just template it in either replacing the existing text or adding it to it. I think that's a better description. I just didn't have that in words at the time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

UTRS templates

Hey!

Hope you're well :)

Do we have any of the templates from the old UTRS anywhere? I seem to remember one for duplicate appeals either on UTRS or user talk pages being on there before but I couldn't find it on the new one today. I've put a couple of templates together and saved them to UTRS but it did make me wonder.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not that they are accessible. I still have a copy of the old database though. Here they are. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
You have an open appeal of this block on your user talk page on Wikipedia, which means your appeal will be handled there. Please be sure to monitor your talk page for updates on the status of your block appeal.

You have submitted a duplicate unblock request. Please check your inbox (as well as your spam or junk mail folder) for our response to your first unblock request. There is a link provided that will allow you to respond to us.

You have submitted a duplicate unblock request. Your other request is still in our system and you will receive a response to it soon.

You have submitted a duplicate unblock request. Please check your inbox (as well as your spam or junk mail folder) for our response to your first unblock request.

That was close!

I didn’t see this in time. You did the absolute right thing there! That is a suspected blocked returning user/an alternate sock account trying to infiltrate New Page Patrolling. Them requesting Autopatrol rights was a way to sneak non notable UPE articles into mainspace without scrutiny. I’d be opening an interesting SPI this weekend pertaining that account. Once more, good judgement call on declining that one. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Why was an IP blocked?

41.115.74.78 shows you blocked this IP but the only contributions are to the Help Desk a month earlier. There's no other information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) She blocked the range, not just the one IP. Likely due to extensive, long term disruption. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I see now what's going on. I was going to say the IP didn't get a clear answer to a question that was asked and suggest the person make the question clearer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability vs. neutrality

Hey Amanda,

I need some help. I think I am having a problem finding the middle point between notability and neutrality. Can someone assist me? Thanks.

QuinteroP (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesqara/Archive

@AmandaNP:, I think User:Pesqara has returned as a new sockpuppet, they are continuing to edit war against me on the List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll article as the IP Special:Contributions/31.158.232.153. MeltingDistrict MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the page, but you should really be filling a new SPI when this comes about. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas, Amanda!!

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Block evasion: More logged-out editing

I think the beauty pageant fan I Nyoman Gede Anila is still editing while logged out; this Java IP began the day after you blocked them (with Huggle, even). - Bri.public (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It'll be whack a mole for a bit, but I dealt with this round. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello AmandaNP, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 02:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Page move query - "Seeman" to "Senthamizhan Seeman"

I am not taking administrative action against either user. That is what WP:ANI is for. My talkpage is not a place for you to argue your differences (single BLP violations or not) and frankly i'm tired of the back and forth. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. Can you explain this move [7]?

As per some Indian names, the individual is known mononymously. Think Rajinikanth, Vijay, Vikram etc. His major work is in cinema (where he has been credited as nothing other than 'Seeman'), and politics, where again its varied between the unconfirmed names of Senthamizhan and Sebastian. Please note that "Senthamizhan" is literally translated into English from Tamil as "Pure Tamil" (which coincidently is what his party protests for - Tamil nationalism). It is a moniker rather than an actual name.

Please note we don't include monikers in titles. Again, we don't say things like 'Superstar Rajinikanth' or 'Makkal Selvan Vijay Sethupathi' despire it being mentioned widely in the media. The article should be reverted to Seeman (politician)

Neutral Fan (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Senthamizhan" is a name which is found in all his social media networks, in his party's official website and in multiple reliable sources in Tamil and in English.[8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15]. The subject is not a very notable politician therefore most sources for the name are in Tamil Language. "Unconfirmed" is vague here as you must provide any evidence to prove that this name is unconfirmed. Names do have meanings in almost all languages. If that's a moniker, you must prove it.
His father's name is also mentioned as "Senthamizhan" from several sources. The subject has never ever mentioned his name as "Sebastian" or "Simon", these names where mostly used by his political opponents with no evidence to target him. He himself states it in an interview that those names are used mostly by the Hindutva to target him.
Seeman is definitely the most WP:COMMONNAME but this was moved per WP:NCP. SUN EYE 1 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I ran the brief checks to see what is shown in the sources, my first look was seeing both names being referenced. I can't tell you exactly what I saw that night though. Without a fair amount of reliable sources countering the amount of links Suneye1 gave, WP:COMMONNAME does prevail that the full name should be used. Do you have more? Ideally this would be a discussion best for the talkpage though and a requested move to establish a consensus before moving it back again so it can be linked and not done again. Personally, I have little opinion in this except policy as I just saw the page on passing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
What his party says is irrelevant. As mentioned, "Senthamizhan" (English: Pure Tamil Man) is a propaganda-based moniker to further the cause of his party which staunchly supports Tamil nationalism. No different from 'Chairman Mao'.
From your examples, sites like Wire and Scroll work off independent contributors and thus editorial standards cannot be verified. The name "Sebastian Seeman" is also seen here from far more reliable sources (as early as 2009, when "Senthamizhan" was nowhere to be seen) - [16][17][18][19][20]. Please note that these sources, also have direct quotes from his lawyer and national agencies - and are likely to be accurate.
The first recorded instance of "Senthamizhan Seeman" on the web is here [21] - where a user includes "Senthamizhan" in inverted commas, and enquires if he has seen a film which features some elements of nationalist propaganda.
The article should either be just Seeman (politician) or Sebastian Seeman (which now clearly seems to be his actual name) Neutral Fan (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Just want to note I edit conflicted with you above. Again, this really isn't the place to have this discussion full on, so I would recommend the use of the talkpage please. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, One question, Can we change the name of a BLP to a name which is refuted by the subject himself? SUN EYE 1 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Take the example of those who change name ever so regularly. Think Prince or Silambarasan (who becomes STR, Silambarasan T. R., T. T. Silambarasan, Simbu, Chimbhu) etc every few years. Wikipedia can't listen to them? Neutral Fan (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

AmandaNP - by the ongoing discussion on the page, I think the page should return to Seeman (politician) until further notice. Not sure how familiar you are with Indian politics, but it is very clear from Suneye1's edits that he is also trying to take part in Seeman's cover-up act of being originally called "Senthamizhan" (English: Pure Tamil Man) [which corresponds to his party's pro-Tamil nationalist policies]. Suneye1 has introduced propaganda-based sources from the party website to back up unverified claims [22] and [23], removed sourced information which may 'give away' Seeman's real identity with invalid reasons [24], and his early edit history suggests he has a general bias towards anti-Hindu policies. I would go as far as suggesting a topic ban. Neutral Fan (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump into Indian politics (something I know nothing about) and start trying to take unilateral action. You can take that to ANI if you think it's worth a topic ban, I can't even impose that myself. That said, I recommended you initiate the requested move process as it would bring neutral uninvolved editors into the mix. You haven't done so. I'm not going to disruptively move it back without policy backing (and I don't mean the ones already motioned as they are in dispute) or established consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I will begin this. By the way, where was the earlier consensus and discussion? The talk page is full of claims against the title (which only one editor seems to back) Neutral Fan (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There wasn't one, and there doesn't need to be one on the first edit. I don't know if you realize it either, but your comments seem to be coming across as that I'm violating policies and established practice. You have yet to point to an established policy, and are using the fact that other stuff exists to justify your arguments - something that is normally discouraged. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I can assure you that isn't the case. Neutral Fan (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Fan, Im not going to respond to your WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attack and Senthamizhan is a boy name in tamil, see G. Senthamizhan
AmandaNP, This user seems to be very interested in defaming the individual. They have "After receiving social media attacks for her comments about Seeman" to " After being harassed by Seeman" in Vijayalakshmi (Kannada actress) while she claimed she was harresed by seeman and his followers. This is a clear BLP violation. When I raised this in the talk page, they don't seem to understand it. see Talk:Vijayalakshmi_(Kannada_actress)#Harresment SUN EYE 1 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I merely reverted this vandal anon edit here which changed the original meaning which had been quoted in the source [25]. Best. Neutral Fan (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Skiyomi

Thanks for catching that Legend Nevada was Skiyomi. I'm pretty familiar with that troll but hadn't caught this one. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I got it along with a few others. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sony Sab 's TV series "Kaatelaal & Sons"

Hi , You have protected the page of sony sab's tv series "Kaatelal & Sons". I want to create the page of this show with the same title. So Can you unprotect the page ? Mann Rocks (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SALT, please create a convincing draft that would go in it's place. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Found the disruptive sock

Hello Amanda and I hope you're doing well. I just want to say do you remember recently banning this sock user with multiple accounts? [26] Well he's back now damaging the same articles as before. He threatened he would change the Bale Sultanate article [27] and he did with his new account named Silverhorn68. [28] and if you look closely at the view history you'll see another new account named Hayaa20. It's the same user because he has two numbers in the end and focuses on Oromo history and vandalizes pages like on here. [29]

He also restored Fetegar which was deleted after he was found for being a sock puppet. [30] Wej was never a kingdom but a group of people and he made an article titled Wej province then he proceeds to mention it as a kingdom. [31] He denies Oromo expansion and goes into every article with original research with "however" without placing a source. [32] This user is very disruptive and all his false articles should be deleted and I'm sure he has more than two accounts currently that deserve to be banned. I would really appreciate it if you could look into it again since you've dealt with this user in the past and did an absolutely amazing job. Ayaltimo (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the first user as them. I don't thing you have presented enough evidence at this time (because most of it is history links instead of diffs) for me to run a check on Hayaa20 with such a low edit count. If you wish to pursue this further, I would request you do it through SPI instead of my talkpage. This allows people to attend to it faster than I may be able to (and relieves my obligation to chase down the evidence in a timely manner) and get more eyes to see what I may not see. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP Thank you so much for blocking this troll. As for the user Hayaa20 he's editing through a mobile web the same way as Silverhorn68 did so I think running a checkuser on them would be suitable since you managed to link several accounts through his IP. Here's another suspected new sock named Driver2152. It has a random name and numbers in the end and uses mobile web when editing. [33] not only has he edited an article created by Silverhorn68 but he edited an Ethiopian ruler page [34] the same thing Silverhorn68 did [35] but if that is not enough then sure I will do what you said instead. I would like to request one thing. Can you please delete the articles created by the sock puppet (Silverhorn68)? They are Fetegar and Wej province. Thank you so much and happy new year! Ayaltimo (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Re. the articles Fetegar and Wej province, I can't just delete them. The criteria for deleting that you are referring to is WP:CSD#G5. That clearly states that only articles that have no substantial edits by others can be deleted under the criteria. @Elinruby: actually made significant edits to Fetegar and the sum of edits to Wej province likely don't meet the threshold. It's not meant to punish regular contributors who have spent time and energy into writing the article.
As for your claims about Hayaa20, by your logic, if I run a checkuser on them I could essentially run a checkuser on Neils51 who only did grammar edits in the article (and has 38,000 edits). They also could have easily decided to use a mobile device. Having numbers on the end of your username and editing the same article using mobile edits does not provide evidence that it's more likely that it is the same person than two different people. That is the bar required for the use of CheckUser. It is not something I can use when I wish. Beyond that, I already checked the relevant IP address from when I just blocked Silverhorn68. If there were other users, I would have blocked them too, but it's the only other account that came up. That means they will not be on the same IP. They will be on a new one which would require even more evidence to block then. So at this point i'm going to officially  Check declined by a checkuser it.
By that same point that I have already checked the IPs with Silverhorn68, I again would have seen Driver2152. Therefore editing the same articles using mobile edits is not enough to meet the evidence level required for a checkuser at WP:SPI. This does not change simply because we are on my talkpage. You have also commented now that you may take the same evidence for someone else to review to SPI. I have issue with that because I have now had to look into it further despite my request to take it there. Therefore I will now go and file the SPI on your behalf and make my comments there (now filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shit233333334). This keeps it on the same page so that we know Silverhorn68 was a sock and we can use that to compare in the future, whereas on my talkpage, it simply just gets lost in my archive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about anybody being a sock. A series of pages about former Ethiopian peoples or kingdoms showed up in the uncategorized queue and that is what I know, period. I did what I could for them and as far as I can tell from 10000 feet, the information is accurate. I did not check every single assertion however, so I can't say I know them to be error-free, but blurring between a people and a kingdom is quite common for articles about the period. Bottom line, i think that if there is some question about them, they should be reviewed by a topic expert. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2.jpg

Hey User:AmandaNP, I hope you're doing well. I'm writing you here because I have received a request to upload File:Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2.jpg from an IP 69.169.18.24 on my talk page; which has been recently deleted by you under G5 criteria, I suspect the request was made by the banned user using IP. However, I'm writing you here to ensure that I may upload an image under Fair use. Thank you, happy editing and happy new year :-) Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pratyush.shrivastava: Please do not upload this for this user. I have blocked the range you mentioned, and they are actively evading their block. Unless you want it for an article you are using, WP:PROXYING applies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2020&oldid=1255179900"