User talk:DeltaQuad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
en This user is a native speaker of English.
fr-3 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.
es-1 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
Search user languages
User talk:DeltaQuad/IP
User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB
User talk:DeltaQuad

DeltaQuad's Email backlog is currently:

Last message without a reply: NULL
Current number of messages that need reply: 0
I have a light work week and some
things going on, replies to messages
will likely get a response within 24 hours.

If your message came on or after this date, your email is still being
attended to. If the date passes and you don't receive a reply, let me know.
This page is automatically updated by a bot.

Update: [Normal]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory

Before I finish clerking this SPI, I have some questions. I have a "cheat sheet" for complex mergers as the standard procedures don't address them. However, I've noticed that sometimes they don't work as planned, and so much depends on subtle permutations. In this instance, we have two cases. Both have archives. One is still open.

These are the general steps I wrote down for something similar to this (Option #1):

  1. Move the case page to the correct name, leaving a redirect and checking the box to move subpages.
  2. Edit the case at the new name, switching all occurences of the sock and master names as appropriate.
  3. Edit the redirect at the old name, replacing the redirect with {{SPIarchive notice|newcasename}}.
  4. Delete the redirect to the archive page.

Another option that isn't perfect (we lose a small amount of revision history) has the benefit of being safer (Option #2):

  1. Take the one archived case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2Shadow. Copy and paste it in the right spot n the UnbiasedVictory archive.
  2. Delete the Light2Shadow case and delete the archive.
  3. Do a standard move/merger then to Light2Shadow (with subpages checked) with the rest of the "normal" steps.

This is actually similar to Option #1 and may be better (Option #3):

  1. Move the incorrect case page with subpages checked (if there are any) to the correct case page, leaving a redirect. Delete the correct case page to enable the move.
  2. Restore the revisions to the correct case page.
  3. Correct the master on the correct case page.
  4. Replace redirect at the incorrect case page with the correct case name ({{SPIarchive notice|newcasename}}).
  5. If there is an archive on the incorrect case, manually copy and paste all the pieces from the incorrect archive to the correct archive to make it complete.
  6. Delete the incorrect archive (if applicable).

I might have gotten Options #1 and #3 from you, but I can't remember for sure. In any event, if you think one of them won't mess things up, I'll try it, although undoing this sort of thing isn't easy, and sometimes it's impossible.

Which of the three options do you like best? Or is there a fourth option (Face-smile.svg)?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Option 1 - or archive directly from the case to Light2Shadow archive, including a link to the original case history in your edit summary. Though more information is rolling in, so standby. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Option #1 it is (don't understand the second possibility as there's also an archive for Unbiased Victory). Regardless, I'll wait. I don't mind that HJ Mitchell blocked the socks (I understand that at least with some there was ongoing disruption), but I wish he hadn't tied it to the UnbiasedVictory page (e.g., he could have just indicated it was sock puppetry). After the merger, one possiblity is I block them again, or I can just let the tags establish the connection. As an aside, in case you haven't noticed, I've been having a rather unusual conversation with the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, Bbb, I didn't mean to make your life harder! I'll amend the block logs and tag the accounts when we get to the bottom of the issue (or don't worry about stepping on my toes if you want to do it yourself). That is a very odd conversation... Anyway, DQ, could you elaborate on what more information is on its way and do you have any idea when it might be available? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Information about the filer and potential additional socks for the user reported in that case. It's one of those networks where it's busy and hard to tell the difference between accounts. I'm consulting with @Callanecc: about the case over email, and we should be done in the next two days, esp. with a day off for me tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Bbb and HJ, I wouldn't worry too much about reblocking with a different link, the redirect and user page template will take care of explaining the difference. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I know, Callanecc, but it's nice to have it appear in the block without having to click on it and go through the redirect. Anyway, it's really not a big deal, just me being overly fussy (the clerk side rather than the admin side). HJ, not to worry and no apologies necessary. If you don't mind, I'll take it from here once the CU conference adjourns. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, the way I clerk (like not using the admin tools) is with what ever the hell makes some sort of logical sense and doesn't put every one through hell :D. That said, the "conference" is almost complete. We are winding down to the final technical results, and i'm waiting on one other thing. Expect delivery tomorrow night (in my eastern time zone of course). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── DQ, thanks for responding to my ping. I again was going to clerk and complete it, but, sigh, I hit a snag. When I gave you three options, you picked Option #1 or archiving directly to the Light2Shadow case. Option #1 won't work because the Light2Shadow case exists. You can't leave a redirect, you have to delete it to do the move. As for the other alternative you mentioned, I always use the archive script. It sounds like you're saying to archive manually to the Light2Shadow case. If you explain how to do that, I can try it. But I'd then archive everything first so when I block the editors, it blocks them with the correct SPI case page linked in the block message (don't see why that shouldn't work although it's backwards). What is wrong with Option #3 (other than I've had trouble with it in the past)? I realize I might have to do some manual cut and paste (never understood why), but, otherwise, it should work. I don't know if I'll lose some case history. At this point in this saga I'm not sure I care. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, at the time I speed read your list and was on my way to work, but wanted to give you a response. Option #3 which is a SPI history merge (coined from WP:HISTMERGE) is the best option. Apologies for the confusion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Echoing a previous comment of mine, I will clerk it tomorrow as I'm tired and it's late here. However, your answers to HJ Mitchell on the case page cause me one concern. It seems that the one account that is unlikely to be a sock of any of the accounts listed is UnbiasedVictory. Should be be blocked? HJ, do you have an independent reason for blocking him indefinitely (you mentioned edit warring generally in one of your posts)? What are your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
No sockpuppetry reason as far as I see it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Merger complete. Some tidies by HJ and me. I closed case.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations, DQ (here and at the SPI). I've unblocked UnbiasedVictory and the rest are resolved one way or another. And thanks to Bbb for doing the heavy lifting. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DQB query

Hey, DQ how's been ? just want to run this by you, could and/or would you be willing to change DQB's template at UAA from  Clerk note: to Symbol comment vote.svg Robot clerk note: this would help distinguish, obviously, the reporting bot and any comments from editors/clerks. I do realize not many editors/clerks make comments in that section, but pointing out say, false positives would be helpful if it were easier to tell the difference. I have a template version in my sandbox. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea; the section is called "bot-reported" but the formatting of the UAA page is already as confusion as it is, differentiating between human and bot clerk notes would seem like a helpful detail. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This is already done by Legobot at WP:CHU/S. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to it, I might be able to get to it tomorrow. What is the new template code to be used? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with template criteria for use with bots but I've created {{Clerk-Note-bot}} which is adapted from {{Clerk-Note}}. Mlpearc (open channel) 08:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


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

Eurodyne (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014


Can you check User:-revi/대우건설 fits own subpage for WP:LTA? If yes, please move it to there, and if not, just leave it as is so I can tell other admins about it. (Asking you because you are listed as helper on WP:LTA.)  Revi 06:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Long time since i've contributed to LTA. The only thing I would add is the list of socks like other LTAs have. But if he's crosswiki and has as many socks as the category says, it's low, but an LTA can still be started imo. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I will fill that out when I have time to check all the socks (+50) activity on enwiki.  Revi 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-50

17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please reinstate suspended ACC tool account

DQ, would you please reinstate my ACC tool access? I emailed the list, but it's not getting much response, and of course I was booted from the list because of the suspension. I don't know how you feel about it, but I hate the 45 day rule. Thanks,   Thane — 06:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I pinged a tool admin last night, they should have dropped you an email. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.   Thane — 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Tech News: 2014-51

16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


... new arb! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Congrats DQ, I think your demeanor will bring good things to the committee. Farmer Brown 12:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC) (dennis)
  • Congratulations DeltaQuad :) –Davey2010(talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis, Gerda, and Davey! -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome onto the 2015 Arbitration Committee. In the next few days we will induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email from the email address you wish to use for registration on the various private wikis and mailing lists. Please also indicate which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term (if you don't already hold both).

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are automated registration emails, please follow the instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or GorillaWarfare (the designated newbie contacts) directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to being appointed. Please promptly go to the Identification Noticeboard and follow the instructions linked there if you are not already identified.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Screen shot Pacific Liner 1939.png

I do not see your rationale for deletion of this file. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So the reason why I decided the final consensus was to delete (even though I would have liked to have seen more participation) is the NFCC §8. As it's a movie which is copyrighted, and the set is long since gone, NFCC §1 did not play a part in the deletion. §8 notes that the image has to significantly increase the reader's perspective of the article. I feel it failed to meet that criterion. If you had some actual budget figures in there and specific commentary about the entry to the boat, I could see it. But what you put in words on the FFD, can be written into the article, instead of represented by a non-free image. If you add such things to the article that I listed, I'd be happy to restore, or if you think my decision is flawed, there is always deletion review. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to set out the case for deletion of the image, as there were initially only two editors looking at the issue. I still feel that the set was a major factor in lifting an essentially B-film into more of a A-list category, although the confluence of having a number of up-and-coming studio players as well as a group of well known character actors, and a plot that mirrored the news headlines of the day, were also factors. I will try again to find a suitable image to illustrate the article, as that is my standard M.O.A. in creating and/or developing film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Arfæst Ealdwrítere

This editor, whom you have checkuser blocked, has posted an unblock request quoting you as having given admins clearance to unblock. I have, of course, not done so, but would be grateful if you could take a look and decide if I am being cynical in my disbelief! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: Just scroll up a bit on the talkpage. ;) One thing I will ask, don't take my statement as a clear reason to unblock, allow the normal evaluation process and determine if the deception that was done is now prevented before unblocking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I did see that; possibly I am a little over-cautious at the concept of reversing checkuser blocks. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest..................


Just out of interest, why wouldn't DQB have picked up on this username? As it is, it would appear to be ok but when I saw LOLO in the name I thought it would've been picked up by the bot and was quite surprised there was no report at UAA!--5 albert square (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of it being similar to YOLO? I'm not getting the reference otherwise. The bot works off of User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist, checks to see if the username has similar looking characters to evade detection, and disregards anything on the whitelist. Happy to explain further if you wish. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking it would've been picked up along the lines of YOLO or even just LOL :)--5 albert square (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Tech News: 2014-52

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up regarding our discussion earlier

Hi, DeltaQuad. I just wanted to check in with you to see if you're still up for performing those minor edits to the pending update/improvement to the ACC Guide as we discussed in November. I see that you haven't yet done so (no worries; you're probably busy), and I'd like for us to finish the necessary work so that the revision can go live. Let me know when you have some time that you can spare. I'd like to collaborate this roll-out with you and finish it. Happy holidays! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh jeez...I apologize. Go ahead and make the move. I'll fix it as time goes on. If this happens again, feel free to ping me like two weeks earlier. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Seasonal Greets!

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello DeltaQuad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
--L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

SPI Flagators

Thank you for providing an explanation for reverting my comments. I am not trying to change the outcome of the investigation. However, I would like to present my side of the story as I was not afforded the opportunity to contribute before the investigation was concluded. The case involved new and very new editors using the same IP address. When I appealed by email after being banned, I was told this was irrelevant, if the same IP address were used then it was an automatic SP finding. If that is the policy, then that is the policy, fine. But two things: i) I think new editors should be made aware of the policy before they receive a ban, or really before they start editing; and ii) I would like all the facts of the case to be part of the record that is available on WP. Flagators (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not following up on your talkpage. I can understand your want to tell your side of the story. The reason why we do not allow posting after a case has been archived is because it gives the impression that the closing administrator did not take whatever is added into account. If any of that new information convicts or clears someone's name further, then it looks like the closing admin was not doing their job. The only way we normally allow for it to be posted, is if you talk to the closing administrator, so that they are aware of what you are adding. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Makes sense and I appreciate the information. Flagators (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Franta

Meat or socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Socks.  Confirmed Akdo121, Laxide13, Alfonsa1, Uooss. If you could do up the SPI paperwork to please, that would be great. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume by "paperwork" that you wanted a case to document everything: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laxide13. I opened it, clerked it, did all the blocks and tags, and closed it. That's a first. :-) (The master's history, particularly his deleted contributions, is interesting.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but User:Mirkotor escaped my notice as he didn't comment at the AfD. However, he edited the article, and some other things in his history make it likely he's also a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 Unrelated and thanks. I also added the diff at the SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
My apologize, I am new to Wikipedia and I don't quite get all the rules and obligations. I have already commented to the AfP as I have edited Connor Franta's article. Mirkotor (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
DQ, thanks. @Mirkotor, no need to apologize. You might consider blanking your sandbox as it has a draft of the Franta article. No reason to have it in your user space anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's now blanked.--Mirkotor (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)