User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/March

Semi

Can you semi-protect Nocturnal penile tumescence pls? The same block evading IP stalker from last month has followed me there. Pass a Method talk 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for running late on this, it's been a busy week. Yep its him, and if he had an account, I would have indef'd it already for edit warring and wikistalking. But now that it's above 24 hours, unless he's stalking you again on the same article, I don't really see any reason to protect it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for volunteering to coordinate this. I know you guys will do a great job. The RFC has been moved out of my sandbox to the location in the header and is awaiting any tweaks the coordinators would like to make to it before going live. Thanks again! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get home. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi

Can you semi-protect Nocturnal penile tumescence pls? The same block evading IP stalker from last month has followed me there. Pass a Method talk 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for running late on this, it's been a busy week. Yep its him, and if he had an account, I would have indef'd it already for edit warring and wikistalking. But now that it's above 24 hours, unless he's stalking you again on the same article, I don't really see any reason to protect it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 22:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,302,540) 22:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 22:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppet groups?

Hi, I was initially thinking that there was a large sockfarm engaging in electioneering on Kenny Marchant (see the history for more details). However, a closer investigation seems like there may actually be multiple sock or meatpuppet groups bumping into each other and reverting each other. Would you mind looking more into this, and possibly filing an SPI as necessary? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

JokerJane (talk · contribs) = 71.170.192.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Advocating Grant Stinchfield

Calls Grant Stinchfield "a former investigative journalist who Roll Call has designated a 'credible primary opponent.'" on Kenny Marchant

Claims Grant Stinchfield is an investigative journalist

Claims paid editing on Winstontx's part and signs "JJ"

Mentions 2012 Tarrant County Republican Straw Poll

Spanthegeorge (talk · contribs) = HornedFrog2012 (talk · contribs)

Doesn't like Kenny Marchant

Mentions 2012 Tarrant County Republican Straw Poll

Removes "Tea Party Caucus" from Kenny Marchant

Notes "The criticism Kenny Marchant faced from his primary opponent led him to finally sign on to the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act). Marchant had previously refused to sign on to this act."

Does not like Kenny Marchant

5th edit is a request for administrative venue

Self-Outed to be in the same area as JokerJane Not so sure, the technical evidence could very well be off...but behavoir should be the evidence used when considering blocking.

Patriotbuddy (talk · contribs) = Winstontx (talk · contribs) = S2kguy133 (talk · contribs) = 99.12.242.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

!= HornedFrog2012 (talk · contribs) or JokerJane (talk · contribs)

Doesn't like the idea of Grant Stinchfield being named "a former investigative journalist who Roll Call has designated a 'credible primary opponent.'" on Kenny Marchant

Removes that Marchant voted in the Defense Authorization Bill which "increased hazardous duty pay by $100 a month for troops in combat zones"

Uses Key Phrase "Verified in Congressional Record."

Calls Grant stinchfield page biased on Talk:Grant stinchfield

Drewclifton8 (talk · contribs) (Found this one in User:DeltaQuad/Grant stinchfield, created Grant Stinchfield)

!= JokerJane (talk · contribs) or Winstontx (talk · contribs)

Suggests "If [Grant stinchfield is] elected, he will join the Tea Party caucus."

Obviously new to Wikisyntax

Doesn't like Grant Stinchfield being "classified as a constitutional conservative" or a "investigative reporter"

Uploads a now deleted photo to commons

Removes "Stinchfield supported the Democratic nominee for President."

Requests Administrative Venue.

Dsparks53 (talk · contribs) - Too Few edits and not enough behavioral overlap.

So you might have something with group 1 = group 2, feel free to file an SPI there, a sleeper check on both that and Winstontx group might be a good idea. All sock accounts blocked, Winstontx blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts: Edit Warring, Vandalism with User:Patriotbuddy". Please look at the masters and hand-out other blocks (all I handed out for was socking, didn't really look for other reasons). Please give me a poke when I can delete that subpage that I restored of deleted revs. Hope this helps. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow up comment: I've blocked who I can right off the bat, as for an SPI being filed, I have quite a bit to do, but that is at least something for someone to start on if they want to do one. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tb

Hello. You have a new message at Night w's talk page. 07:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi Delta, I'm ready for this weeks run if you are around. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll get her running later today when I have a minute. I might be moving my bots to a new server so we might be able to start scheduling this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done going as we speak. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC Posted

Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PhoenixJHudson

Not saying you are wrong to reblock, but can you show me exactly where he reviolated his unblock restriction by readding material after another editor had removed it? I don't see that he violated it in the Birthday Cake history.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
regarding PhoenixJHudson, I'm assuming your block was a response to this revert and the subsequent redo of some of the changes. I'd rather wish you'd have left this to Kww: I assume he has seen that PhoenixJHudson has restored some of his changes after being reverted, and we've actually talked about this both on- and off-wiki. There was no reason given for the revert, and I would have restored it myself had I seen it before the subsequent changes. Such resistance makes it very hard for PhoenixJHudson to try and become a constructive community member.
I'm also curious to know since I don't find you in either page history, how were you alerted to this editor and his restrictions?
Cheers, Amalthea 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DeltaQuad asked me (an uninvolved admin, hadn't crossed paths with the user before) for a sanity check before placing this block, and, after reading the user's talk page and recent contributions, I agreed with him that PhoenixJHudson simply doesn't get it. His unblock restrictions came with the unspoken note that he must adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of his restrictions, as well as adhere to our standard behavioral guidelines which go without saying in any unblock, and Phoenix doesn't seem to have understood that. He doesn't get that Wikipedia is not a gladiatorial arena where we pick enemies and battle them to the death ("Correcting grammar and updating. Can't wait for Calvin to revert this.") using reverts as swords. He doesn't get that you can't personally attack other editors who disagree with you ("Are you on drugs or something?"). Right now, he simply doesn't get that he was unblocked with the understanding that he would be working toward assimilating into Wikipedia culture with regard to sourcing, edit warring, and collegiality, and that he has instead repeatedly violated his unblock restrictions and made no effort to engage constructively with people he's editing alongside. Enough chances are, to my mind, quite enough, and it's become obvious that he's not ready right now. He may be in six months, or a year, or some other time frame in which he's able to grow up a little and calm down a lot, but right now, he's simply lurching from one wrong way to go about things to another and a block is the reasonable response to that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

He was mobbed out of the gate, with every edit he made being reverted with belittling or absent edit summaries. His editing restrictions prevent him from reverting removals of things that he has added, and other editors have taken advantage of that by doing wholesale reversions due to minor problems. He's gotten involved in a tit-for-tat exchange with Calvin999, but Calvin999 hasn't quite gotten to the point of being blockable over his part of the interaction. Based on the schedule of his unblocking agreement, PJH is due for a one-month block due to the editing restriction violation. I'd like to reduce the block to that.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to think that a one-month block will change his behavior in a way that his previous one-week block, or the longer blocks of his other accounts before that, did not? If not, it's a bit of a waste of everyone's time and energy to reduce the block just so he can continue this behavior on schedule a month from now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering putting a temporary "No Rihanna-related articles" restriction on him as a result of an unblock. He isn't a worse editor than most of the other editors on the topic, but they've swarmed on him like a school of piranha. Making him learn to edit in another arena may be the only way to get him into a working relationship with Wikipedia. At the very least, a month block will give me some time to civilise some of the other combatants.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@Amalthea: It is not just those revisions, [1] & [2] also contained diffs of undoing such material. And i'm pretty sure when I looked originally I found more. Also your last onwiki talk that I can see at this point was last Tuesday the 28th, so it's impossible for me to know (unless i'm missing a link) that you two were communicating about it since then. And that's partly why I issued the block...I didn't see any indication off hand that there was anyone watching him in the past few days. Maybe I should have assumed a little more faith that Kww and you were watching him. I am also an admin that is stricter when it comes to unblock conditions. Personally I think, if they can't be followed, then how can we turn a blind eye to them and tell others that they are denied unblock because we believe that they won't follow unblock conditions, or better yet, reblocking someone for violation of their unblock restrictions. And this user has already had his second chance with the new account, and this is not the first time he has screwed it up. I actually came across this when I was looking into an unblock-en-l thread I had dropped the ball on. I assumed quite a bit of good faith, and though I could catch the originally blocked user when the request was sent through WP:ACC, so I gave it a try. I was unable to catch it in time, and it got created. I then emailed the functionary team and some other entities (so you should have a copy of this) with the sensitive data, and information. I then got a reply with one of the previous account names, and was given the recommendation to "turn a blind eye" (which I do endorse) to the previous accounts and issues, and to try again. This email then slipped through the cracks with my day-to-day things and other dealings on the unblock-en-l list until I was cleaning up today and found it. I then proceed to look it over to see if we had gotten a better contributor out of it, and I had found the exact same issues and another violation of unblock terms. And you know the story from there on today's events. Just of note also, when I received the original unblock request, the user indicated that they only had one account, not that they had socked also.

@Kww: I have to agree with Fluffernutter, who I did consult with about the block before I made it. The comments that were being used, even though I did not make it officially part of the block were inappropriate. We also can't just claim that other editors are the issue, it takes two to fight. If there should be sanctions applied to other users, then why are we not giving them out? In dealing with this specific editor, this is now the 4th time that he has violated unblock conditions. I don't see how when you gave him the chance how he had chance he followed the conditions to help him edit constructively. I also think it would be easier to have the others dealt with if he wasn't interfering with more changes, when it was prohibited in his unblock terms. A one month block and then giving it another try isn't going to help, it's the same issue we had back in late 2010. If he wants, he can prove that he contribute positively down the road, then we can consider it without unblocking him until he's proven that. He also claimed in the unblock email (which I understand you don't have a copy of), that things had changed, which is why I half gave him the chance, the other half was I was going to catch him at ACC and see who we were dealing with per above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Calvin999 has been warned multiple times on his talk page, and was about one more reversion from a block. Notice that PJH is not prohibited from reverting other editors, he is only prohibited from restoring material that he has added and others have deleted. You knew that I had unblocked PJH with restrictions, and his block log shows that I've been enforcing them. Amalthea and I had been discussing next step via e-mail. Is there any particular reason that if you had time to consult with Fluffernutter that you didn't have the time to consult with me?—Kww(talk) 13:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked into Calvin and he is fully sanctionable, i'm not stopping anyone. And yes, sorry, my bad in regards to PJH, still with your replaced words, it has the same affect though. Yes, there was a particular personal constraint on why I couldn't spill the whole history out to you at that time, that being said though, I could have waited till later to deal with it. Again, I had no clue that there was a backend discussion going on here, and there was no such indication. Actually my consultation was not directed at Fluffernutter, it was open to all administrators who where in the #wikipedia-en-admins ^connect at the time (now that i've opened the can of worms, might as well state the location), of which another administrator looked at, but was not inclined enough to comment on the actual block specifically, but did comment on other parts. So I did not selectively choose Fluffernutter at the time, nor do I believe Fluffernutter is biased in this case. In hindsight, should I have consulted you? Probably. Was my way the best course of action? No. Was it a sufficient course of action to deal with the issue at hand at the time? Yes. If I have offended you with not consulting you beforehand, my apologies, that is not what I normally do. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, lots of text. :)

• PhoenixJHudson was still being watched closely, I did MoS cleanup in Rihanna after him yesterday and there was ongoing discussion with User talk:Calvin999 about his reverts.
• General thought: We always consult an admin who issued a block before we unblock. I think it's even more important that if an admin unblocked an editor with restrictions, said admin should be consulted if the restrictions are violated and a block is considered (unless the situation requires immediate action). Only the unblocking admin will know the reason behind the restrictions, and they aren't always bright line restrictions.
• I was mainly worried that one of the other parties in the dispute asked for intervention, which may have been spun to prompt an immediate block.
• Nonetheless, I believe you only saw one half of the problem here. These are two editors in a dispute, both behaved inappropriately with each other. As long as it doesn't unduly affect third users I certainly tend to be more forgiving in such situations; IMHO, disputes happen, deescalating a dispute should happen symmetrically to remain fair, and blocking two good-faithed users should be a last resort.
• General thought: This is also another instance of the "first mover" problem we have here, and that deliberate decisions not to act on something aren't logged.

So. Not sure how to proceed here. DQ and Fluff are of course right in saying that PhoenixJHudson's edits continue to be problematic (and violation of restrictions was explicitly not the only cause for the block), he has a hard time with collaborative editing. But while PhoenixJHudson's edits certainly weren't perfect, it was being made rather impossible for him to try and make any substantial constructive edits to the topics that interested him. For that reason and others I think it would be a mistake to leave the indef block stand as it is. The least I'd like to see is continue with the probation as it was defined, i.e. limit this block to a month. We didn't expect this to go smoothly. Amalthea 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I have to agree with Kww. At best, this block was unfair. Maybe, you can impose other restrictions on him. And I do believe some of his edits were unfairly reverted. But as I said, some. He edits in good faith and fortunately, he references everything he adds but I think the problem is that he adds too much at once. Some of his edits are >15Kbs. Well, that should not be a problem but sometimes, such edits can prove to be unclear to the editor who has contributed the most to the page Phoenix edited. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To repeat a point I made up above: if there is no reason to believe that his behavior will improve after a one-month block (given that it didn't improve after a weeklong block, or another weeklong block, or all the other longer-term blocks), I believe it's a bad idea to reduce the block length. All you're doing then is pushing the problem one month down the road and allowing it to continue. If PJH's mentors above feel they can get him under control - by imposing further restrictions, by making clear that he has absolutely zero chances left after this, by saying "abracadabra" and sprinkling him with pixie dust, whatever, then we can talk about the amount of time this block should last to make the point clear to him. If they don't think that he will return in 30 days' time much improved - if the argument is "yeah, he's misbehaving, but we didn't really expect him to behave to begin with, and he doesn't actively mean harm when he disrupts, and anyway you didn't fill out form 37B in triplicate before placing a block on him," an unblock is unwarranted. If Calvin was misbehaving also, address Calvin's behavior, but "other disruption exists" is not a reason to unblock someone who's also causing disruption. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Amalthea 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this basically rewards bad behaviour on the part of the other participants in the dispute. Believe me, it has crossed my mind to just block everyone involved for a month. We have a real problem with fan ownership of pages. Rihanna, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Celine Dion, and Mariah Carey all have page owners that essentially rule the way the pages are going to look, and what level of fannishness is or is not permitted. PJH basically got slapped down by a page owner, and, since I had tied his hands behind his back, wound up taking his frustration out in inappropriate comments. My inclination is to reduce the block back to the one-month schedule, and try to get consensus on an editing restriction to place on the other editors in the dispute that will make the editing process look less like a schoolyard and more like editing an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys for the delay, I was sick yesterday, and was in no mood to even step past setting my status as so.

@Amalthea: I agree that it's standard practice to talk to the blocking admin before unblock, and if you don't it's generally considered rude. I have a problem with the reblocking being rude if I don't contact the admin. The reason is if the user is being disruptive enough, and it doesn't look like the blocking admin or anyone else is around watching...then they might not even know this is going on, and then if they are off for another 24 hours while I try and contact them...then we have another disruptive user for 24 hours. I'm not saying that all of that was the case, and Kww has been fast at responding, but I don't think of it as etiquette to talk to the unblocking admin before reblock. In fact i've seen several cases where this doesn't happen and happens more often than not. In regards to being more forgiving, I can be and am forgiving when it is merited, when the block log is thicker than my sandwich (not talking about you Fluffernutter :P) of AGF, then I'm not as forgiving, and that is just how a difference of opinion can be from admin to admin, it doesn't indicate there is something wrong with one or the other. (Not that your necessarily insinuating that, but how your original statement looked didn't sit well with me) I also feel that I should at least receive the benefit of the doubt that I didn't just indef this guy because someone came and asked me to. If someone comes and asks me for such, I go and evaluate their side of the story too, I don't just hand out one sided blocks, and I don't just give indefinite either. I see in this case though where it may have looked like a one sided block being that I didn't go and take my extra time that I didn't have at the time, and go and look at the other editors actions and give them appropriate sanctions also.

@Jivesh1205: My block was unfair...you got to be kidding me...did I not explain that in the 4000+ characters that I put into this discussion? He was blocked, fairly given a what, 3rd 4th or 5th chance (can't remember off the top of my head, but i'm including the socks) + the technical unblock I accidentally gave out freely with the unblock list? He was in violation of his editing restrictions, the block was fair. The unblock restrictions may not be far (and i'm not saying that Kww was wrong in any way placing such restrictions), but the block certainly was fair.

@Kww: If there is bad behavior on the part of other editors, then lets address that, not just admit it exists. It sounds like were arguing here that there is a problem, but we don't want to fix it. If they are not following policies, then sanctions against them are not out of the question. And now you just brought a bigger problem that what this whole thread is trying to address, and is way bigger than us to be handling. Owning pages is a wiki wide issue, not just 1 admin or 4 admins issue. And your right, this is starting to look like a school yard where we are defending certain people while not addressing their own behavioral issues.

@All: At the end of the day, were here to create a good encyclopedia, and i'm not here to stop that, and i'm not going to continue the schoolyard issue. Against what I am thinking (my better judgement), and have explained above, I am reducing the block to one month. Before you read that and go "finally!", I expect that his conditions for "unblock" will be crystal clear this time, and that he knows what they are. My original plan, and which could have equally worked is he shows that he understands the reason why he was blocked, then shows how he won't disrupt, then we unblock him. This indefinite time does not mean i've chucked away his chance at an appeal. If I did that you would see a pink notice at the bottom of his talkpage telling him to go to BASC if he wants an unblock. The indef just puts no definite duration so all the time that is needed to address the issue at hand is taken. Now that I have reduced this block, if after he comes out to the same thing, I expect that he will be dealt with properly, because we have given him yet another chance despite the evidence that he can't follow the rules. I also have to completely agree with Fluffernutter that "If Calvin was misbehaving also, address Calvin's behavior, but "other disruption exists" is not a reason to unblock someone who's also causing disruption." But again, you guys think you can get him under control, so give it another swing, and lets see if we can make a good contributor. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Helsinki. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. hydrox (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No matter what the user's mistake, this comment was obviously made in good faith and was constructive, pointing out an important issue with the article. Please keep your Stalinist person erasing practices away from Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not Facebook or any other form of socio-political theater. Thank you, hydrox (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hydrox, you're accusing someone of "Stalinist person erasing practices" and "socio-political theater" because you disagree with a talk page revert they made (a revert of a comment made by a user with a history of disrupting Wikipedia)? That seems absurd. You might want to read up on Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and reconsider those comments. --KFP (contact - edits) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

They asked me why I did what I did, and I replied honestly. If the user is not interested in my motivations, they should retain from asking. --hydrox (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 You have to resort to attacking me? (Which by the way is against my talkpage rules) You could be a little more civil. Can I also mention that contemplating the regular editors is considered rude, especially when I'm called a vandal. I also have to bring up the point that CSD G5 applies in this case, this user is in violation of a block, and has 13 other confirmed blocked accounts. So could we salt things and assume a little good faith? I'm not the vandal here. If it's a valid concern on what I reverted, that's fine. Calling me a vandal and a "Stalinist person erasing practices" and claiming i'm making this facebook to use it as a "socio-political theater" is not. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not attacked you – I disagree with what you did, and I have let you know why. I don't think you are vandal, and neither have I said so. Sorry if you got such impression. There might be valid cases to template the regulars. As you can read above, I asked you to stop removing valid talk page comments, and I am happy if you cease from such activity on articles I look after. Thank you, hydrox (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask what you call calling me a "Stalinist person erasing practices" and claiming i'm making this facebook to use it as a "socio-political theater" is? It's certainly not civil (and I take it as an attack). It's not the truth either. I don't even understand what socio-political applications this has. And my apologies, you did not call me a vandal, you called my edits vandalism, and your template called them disruptive. Also you don't own these pages, so it's not like i'm crossing some territorial boundary by this. Besides, I don't even know what you patrol. But I do see how my edits could have been out of range. And I've been reverted by several other people before without a talkpage notice, or them being marked as vandalism. But their vandalism in your eyes, fine, as long as that doesn't cross into who you report or ask for action against, then i'm fine with that part. If I do see a serial sock in "your area" though, I will revert him if I wish with the understanding if you find it constructive, then you can revert me. I'm not going to feed the trolls (and i'm referring to the blocked user). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(tl:dr) I think you are now making yourself somewhat over the line statements, like me claiming ownership on articles etc. I simply disagree that we should remove constructive article contributions or talk page comments by users banned. I know it is a common practice, but I truly fail to see its usefulness. All personal stuff aside, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning on that topic. --hydrox (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I just get tl;dr'd when I was the one being attacked? Very well, I can move on, putting all personal comments, etc. away...The theory behind this is that you stop giving the users a reason to evade their block, then they won't continue. When you entertain their ideas, and sometimes trolling, then your giving them a reason to create more administrative work for everyone else. Also some vandalism is subtle, so much that no one notices or changes it. It's not to stop the constructive work, that's not the intention. Are there several false positives that may come up? Yes, very much so, that's why I don't get upset if people revert me. But my intention is to create the least amount of headache for the wiki. That's why I do it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In light of that reasoning I can kind of see the reason. I do admit it was over the line to revert your edit as "vandalism". It was just the first thought that came to mind when I saw it happening. --hydrox (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And probably throw some overreaction from me on some of it, and we get a toxic mix. Thanks for at least hearing me out. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2012. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Per [3]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Have it, will look into as soon as I find a chance. SPI has been a load today. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That user isn't a new uninvolved user regardless of a CU match. Review as appropriate. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Posted to the SPI several hours ago. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Koroknait1

Since you blocked User:Koroknait after my spi report, maybe you can also take a look at the obvious sock User:Koroknait1. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ana Sušac. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action. However, a new sock has already popped up: User:Andrea Ljubicic quicks rather loudly.--Atlan (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood update

DQ, per your request, I've included specific information directly linking three new IP editors as claiming ownership of comments made by an IP previously blocked for ban evasion as a sockpuppet of Instantnood. These three editors have been disrupting the talk page at Talk:Republic of China, one of which was blocked for 31 hours for misleadingly moving around the comments of other editors, and have engaged in edit warring on the page to restore the struck comments, reverting other editors nine times. Diffs are all at the SPI page. If you have a chance, could you re-review the matter? NULL (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay, either Wikipedia servers are lagging or my internet is being a piece of crap again. I suspect the latter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated, DQ. I understand this particular case was a difficult one, thanks for your time and effort. – NULL ^‹talk›_‹edits› 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awaaz-e-Kashmir.
Message added 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Elen has posted that she needs a little help from a regular checker, [4] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• All due respect Darkness Shines, I can stalk an SPI, even if I have a crappy connection. I get all SPI updates via IRC, and I have a 24/7 presence with 1 nick. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello User:DeltaQuad, I hope this message finds you doing well. Could you please close this RfC when you get the opportunity? It seems like consensus has been reached there. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I do agree with you that there looks to be a consensus, it's only been 4 days or so since it opened. I would personally prefer to wait a week at least a week before it gets closed, just to make sure we've got our ducks in a row and that all have had the time to comment. That's only for sections 1 and 2 though. Section 3 still needs time to develop a consensus for sure. I'll keep this thread on my TP until it's time, and then i'll close the sections as warranted. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:DeltaQuad, thanks for your response! Sounds good to me! Cheers, Anupam^Talk 08:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:DeltaQuad, do you think now would be an appropriate time to close the this RfC? It has been open for some time now and multiple editors have commented there. I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been meaning to close this for sometime, it's sitting in my tabs of my internet browser as we speak, but right now i'm in no shape to look/close an RfC. Sorry for the delay, just a lot to do, and life to deal with. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! I'm sorry that life is stressful for you right now. I hope things will work out for you. If you are unable to close the RfC, could you please ask another administrator to do so? With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If I don't get to it in the next 24 hours, i'll see if I can get another admin to close it. It's usually harder to recruit an admin for an RfC, but with in the next few days for sure. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I appreciate it! With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Berlin hackathon, and possible sponsorship

Hi! Would you be interested in coming to the Berlin Wikimedia hackathon, June 1-3 2012? I can offer some travel subsidy. Please reply on my talk page on mediawiki.org if you're interested, or email me at sumanahwikimedia.org. Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 03:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Will reply by email. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi, ready when you are. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 17:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Already done, just didn't put the notice here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IP needs to be blocked

I inadvertently edited an SPI archive. Please take a look. An active IP vandal is on the loose and needs to be blocked. Don't let my personal opinions about IPs vs. registered users get in the way. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, it looks like he's calmed down, but i'll look in the morning. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely the same user, give me or another admin a poke if he comes back. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

CU

Hi, with regards to your checkuser closure: September88 wasn't referring to the IP which is a suspected sock (39.47.36.30) in her statement but to another incidence in which she accidentally logged out and her IP (BEANS blanked by DQ) displayed. September's accidental log out IP (BEANS blanked by DQ), besides showing the same editing behavior,[5][6] geolocates to the same neighborhood as the suspected sock IP and SPA (39.47.36.30) as DS pointed out in his research. I certainly wouldn't have acted on the research, if September88 had corrected everything. Everything the sock IP/SPA did, is still there. But if you still want to mark the case closed, fine by me. Just that you know what this was about. JCAla (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can barely read what I'm seeing right now, all I know is where the keys are to type, so i'll take a look in the morning. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking this over, my AGF sensors are still going off looking over this. I'm thinking we might have a meatpuppet, but there is too little evidence to tell. Plus those ranges can be very dynamic. I did also hardblock a proxy that was used in the AfD. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was the same neighborhood plus editing behavior. But ok, we will see what happens on other AfDs. Thanks for looking again. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Who used a proxy? Was it Highstakes00? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: the size of that "neighborhood" (with geolocation) in my experience has been known to cross several American states to be wrong. (And i'm saying that as a Canadian) and the behavior was minimal to look at, and and didn't massively affect the AfD in the end. (Hence partly why I closed it)

@DS: User:200.98.197.34 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is the neighborhood of Mohra Nūr, roughly 8 miles from the capital Islamabad. Both IPs geolocate to that neighborhood which hardly has the size of several US states. JCAla (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

200.98.197.34 is not a proxy, it is assigned to Universo Online [7] Also it does not appear to be blocked.[8] or at least I thought when someone was blocked and you looked at the contributions it said at the top blocked? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: It's not the two together that I'm talking about, I'm talking about how each individual IP's geolocation could be off up to that size as I have seen many times before in my long history at SPI and Wikipedia. (esp when a proxy, open or closed, is involved)

@DS: You don't see the block notice because it's a rangeblock. It is not an open proxy (well at least when I first checked), but it is a closed proxy, called a web host, which is essentially hiding your IP (like a proxy) and there have been heavy consequences for leaving these unblocked. Evidence of major webhost here. Also if your going off of the fact that the whois site does not mention it as a proxy, I blatantly ignore such sites as they are very very rarely actually detecting a proxy, they are never a good indication of what your looking at. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oy

Responded at my own subpage. Hopefully to an acceptable extent — was hurrying out the door. Let me know if it's not the kind of thing you had in mind! :) sonia♫ 09:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I will likely be running over everyone's page and forming some more questions for before the panel so I know where i'm going to focus. You can also modify it as needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: ACC Flag Suspension

I have spoken with User:Deliriousandlost about the matter and when she originally let me know about the suspension, I responded as she asked me to. Apparently I did not give her the appropriate responses at the time but she did not have the time (or patience I suppose) to work with me or to talk to me about my responses. I was hoping that I would be given the chance to find out exactly what I did wrong (not the actual error, but the process that I did or didn't do to get to the error) so that I could fix it. I also thought that I would be given a chance to work with her or another tool admin before I was completely thrown out of the equation. As a side note, something I've already told her, I think that ACC tool users should be told if they have made an issue and given a chance to change or at least understand what they did wrong, because as it stands right now, the tool admins automatically suspend without first giving chance. I thank you for doing what you think is best, although I wish that people were given more of a chance. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You can ignore the above statement, it is still true, but I have gotten a response and more full explanation from User:Deliriousandlost as I am sure you know. Once again, thank you for doing what you do. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heh, just as I had my little bit typed out for you. I did hear about an email, but have not had a chance to look at it yet. If you would still like me to review it, do let me know. Do note, you can always come back in a month or two, show me some proof that things have improved (of course after ACC reinstatement), and we can see if restoring the flags is an option. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand. basically I have been given permission to find a "probation officer" to work with me on complete knowledge of WP:ACC/G and then I can request unsuspension. I will be on probation for at least 3 months and 50 correct edits while working with said "officer." I hate that this situation came to this, I only wish I would've seen my errors sooner. My plan is to spend some time familiarizing myself with WP:ACC/G and then try to find someone to be my "proby officer" and work from there. Thanks for your time. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am glad to see you have realized a little better of the reasons of Deliriousandlost's concerns. To address your feelings of lack of input, this is exactly what d&l means by being in #wikipedia-en-accounts while working requests where things can be pointed out as they happen and also provides a place to ask questions concerning the requests you are handling. This all can be worked out if your willing to not take shortcuts. Let me know if (if this is the way you want go) you have trouble finding someone as d&l recommended. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I got your talkback before your edit went through, almost like the talkback predicted the future?! :) I understand now what you and Deliriousandlost mean about the IRC channel, I just always thought it was for "if you need help." I must've overlooked that part in WP:ACC/G that it is also a place for things to be pointed out. I do believe this is they way I want to go, and I thank you for your work as well, Mlpearc. Like I mentioned above, I'm going to take some time off of ACC, and focus on other things while reacquainting myself with ACC/G. Then I will work on finding someone to work with. Thank you all again, it is very nice to see a united front where you all work together, especially when I may not have been the easiest egg in the basket to deal with. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll be fine we'll get through this Thank you DQ for the use of you page :P Mlpearc (powwow) 02:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)