Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,284: Line 1,284:
:{{tps}} She blocked the range, not just the one IP. Likely due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.115.0.0/17 extensive, long term disruption.] [[User:Praxidicae|<span style="color:#9FA91F;font-size:11px">GRINCHIDICAE🎄</span>]] 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{tps}} She blocked the range, not just the one IP. Likely due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.115.0.0/17 extensive, long term disruption.] [[User:Praxidicae|<span style="color:#9FA91F;font-size:11px">GRINCHIDICAE🎄</span>]] 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.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 20:21, 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.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;• 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.

[[User:QuinteroP|QuinteroP]] ([[User talk:QuinteroP|talk]]) 20:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:46, 20 December 2020

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
WP:OP
User:AmandaNP/SPI case list
Special:Prefixindex/User:AmandaNP
User:AmandaNP/Workshop
User talk:AmandaNP/IP
User talk:AmandaNP
User:AmandaNP




Contact information
  • Email: Email me (Email rules)
  • IRC: @wikipedia/DeltaQuad, under nicks similar to DeltaQuad or Izhidez. (See IRC channel at the top for my home)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEekCreffettCwmhiraeth
removed Anna FrodesiakBuckshot06RonhjonesSQL

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ahh ok. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I noticed that too. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did I get fired from Wikipedia?

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

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)[reply]
Whew! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And @Reedy: i've upstreamed the request. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Global watchlist - Update 7

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Lovely stuff, thank you for being so understanding! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mail Notice

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
AmandaNP, Alright. I just happened to see you on the active admin list. Good night. Field Marshal (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I've re-requested I be exempt from that list. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@Jerodlycett: Thanks - I seem to have been unblocked again pretty quickly. Florapostewrites (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Majavah, Yep. SQLQuery me! 15:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Majavah, I have, but I appreciate the ideas! SQLQuery me! 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Majavah, I do have access to the individual appeals. SQLQuery me! 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Majavah, My permission list does include "user" (See: here) SQLQuery me! 16:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news


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)[reply]

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

17:58, 24 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)[reply]

20:08, 31 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pcgmsrich/Archive

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

@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)[reply]

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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

21:26, 21 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FYI: WP:AE#Peregrine Fisher ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NoahTalk 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Who should I be contacting about this? Something new has come up that greatly concerns me. NoahTalk 02:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [30] and [31], 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 (talkcontribs) 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Pardon me, as I was confused pertaining to placing the information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's not regularly clear and just best practice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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. [38] RedPanda25 23:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euro2024 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

17:37, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Never mind, I know why --a gd fan (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuadBot poorly?

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

Thanks, I go look at the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it updated, and then UTRS itself went HTTP 503 :-( Cabayi (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

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)[reply]

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi! You removed images from a number of article with an edit summary "CSD G5: Slowking4" ([54][55] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

15:36, 16 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ([59]). 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have reblocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Also per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
AmandaNP, lol! Sorry for the trouble! —valereee (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I needed to know. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 7 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.[reply]
Ignore the template, here is the section - thanks.

~ Chip🐺 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's not going to be up long. Praxidicae (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Bradv: Special:AbuseFilter/history/1106/diff/prev/24368. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. – bradv🍁 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maybe we should escalate this to Palpatine. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have Randall Munroe to blame for starting this trend. – bradv🍁 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

21:33, 14 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]