User talk:AmandaNP

Nominate someone to receive a DeltaQuad Award today!

Archives
2009: Dec 2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec 2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec 2012: Jan, Feb

IP blocks

You wrote "For the record, all there all are rangeblocked because they are webhosts." What does that mean exactly? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A webhost is a service provider for websites like Wikipedia. The will have their own IP address. Most of the time they are used just as proxies are (except this is exclusive access) to evade blocks and the community. So we hardblock them as proxies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you detect one? Is this one, 174.34.131.84 ? It resolves to freehostingcloud.com Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep it is and now another rangeblock laid. Usually the company names, if you google them, from Robtex or DomainTools you can find them easily because it will say "domain hosting" "webhosting" etc. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another one User:27.130.46.134 Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an ISP, but doesn't rule out the proxy use yet. I'll check when I'm able to run a few checks from locations I trust to be accurate. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

68.39.100.32

• 68.39.100.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't tell what's going on here, but you seem to think this is a sock account. I'm giving you a heads up that the account is most definitely alive and causing problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it's his static IP, so you won't be seeing him again anytime soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is "he" and how has he controvened policy? I'm not (necessarily) doubting your judgment, just being thorough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I would have had the wrong answer for you. I did think it was in relation to a sockpuppet investigation incorrectly, but a functionary has verified that there has been abuse of multiple accounts and that the existing block is sufficient and appropriate. It is related to the sockpuppet investigation around Screwball, but is not Screwball himself. I don't have much more information other than that because it's data i'm not privy to. If you would like I can see if I can get the functionary to post a response here, no promises though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Put simply, this was a situation where there was, historically, more than one set of socks, with different sockmasters. A previous SPI had not specifically commented on IP addresses, but the CU response was such that it could have been interpreted that this was the main IP of a specific sockmaster, Screwball23. As it turns out, that was correct; however, it was the main IP of a different set of socks, and not Screwball23.

  Something for people to keep in mind is that, when it comes to contentious debates, it's quite likely that there is more than one person holding a particular view of what is neutral and balanced, and sharing the same view (even when using the same terminology) doesn't make them socks of each other. It can sometimes be very difficult to sort it all out, though. The block on this IP is appropriate both because of the edit warring and also because of the creation of named accounts, and to use the named account(s) to evade a legitimate block. Risker (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:EditRoll ← This is him, 99.99% sure --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up this is being looked into since I first saw your post. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RainbowDash / Futtershy and an unsuccessful ArbCom candidate

[1], [2] – Out of curiosity, are you the unsuccessful ArbCom candidate mentioned in these diff's? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know I am not the user you mention in those diffs, but if I read it correctly it does not mention that this user was ever contacted. I do think that this method of mass talk page positing is inappropriate, but in the interest of being open, I am willing answer questions in relation to this. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

poop patrol

Hi Deltaquad, when you're ready I'm ready for a new bot run. Ta ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I will get to it today, because TS is out for maintenance, which could kill the bot, but i'll try and run it tomorrow, depending on when i'm traveling. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jeff, I'm not seeing any specific section calling my attention, is there a specific part you want me to look over/respond to? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing scripts from lead

Hi DQ, I've stumbled across this discussion about the use of Indic scripts in article leads, including the continuation on the now-archived thread on this talk page. It has not been easy for me to understand (or more correctly, to find) exactly what the decision was, and without better communication of it, it will just become forgotten. I think that the decision should be summarised and placed in the WP:Manual of Style somewhere, although I'm not sure exactly where would be best. What are your thoughts? Regards, Bazonka (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your right, it should be mentioned somewhere, but it has to be noted that it's just for India-related topics. Do you know of such a page that would just note that specific topic, or are we going to have to put it in a odd spot? (Which was my original hesitation) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This'll be it: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. However, the page is inactive, so I'll raise it for a wider discussion at the village pump. Bazonka (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion to resurrect the MoS page on WT:MOSIN. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still continue

182.52.146.83 (talk · contribs) 118.173.116.179 (talk · contribs) Thaizokku (talk · contribs)

Probably sock-puppets of Pelaisse (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ༆ (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, all three of those accounts look like they were making constructive edits. The two IPs might be the same user, but their edits were not bad. Your reverts, on the other hand, removed a lot of copyediting. I think you're being overzealous. If they start being disruptive, come back. If not, I don't see any reason to pursue it any further. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

Please do not close running RFC's again as you did here[3]. This is an entirely different RFC regarding the article layout, not the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thread merged -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Your closure is being reverted [4]... I think there was clearly no consensus in a very recent RFC right before this. Isn't admin closure meant to stay closed once it is done? (Another admin endorsed your closure here [5]). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To be flat out honest, this stupid that this is being reverted. We are talking about just making the text a section header now, AKA the same proposal. RegentsPark was right to reclose the debate, but now it's been reverted again, and now we have a random support vote? I'm tempted to just close this again, but i'll wait for RegentsPark or another admin to comment before I do because of the new vote...but seriously lets not make this a lame edit war. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly... RegentsPark won't undo this again as he specified on a user talk... but it is a bad precedent to undo admin closures and add new comments... precisely WP:POINTy / lame editwar. I reverted that back but undid my revert to stay clear of an interaction ban but I've asked this at ANI in a ban clarification. This has been now closed three times including the original proposal's closure. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DeltaQuad and find this all a bit silly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Closed for the last time hopefully by myself, next stop if we get another revert is ANI imo, but it will be the lamest ANI thread ever. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What is lame is unilaterally closing an RFC which is about article structure, not content. Thank you for discussing it. Perhaps you would be good enough to let me know when I am allowed to participate in the dispute resolution process again. Do feel free to comment here [6] if you can be bothered to discuss the issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this was an unilateral closing. Though the RfC was on structure, it was still arguing the same claims that the last RfC was going over, and the attempt to just put them under a new "structure" RfC looks like an attempt to undermine the previous RfC. Whether that was your actual intention or not, i'm not going to guess. You aren't prohibited from creating RfCs, and your assumption that there are bigger and better things = 1 month as you noted on RegentsPark's talkpage is telling me your not understanding that you need to reform your proposal, talk it out with the people who opposed your last RfC, and come up with some happy medium. It's a process of 'propose, no consensus, talk, refine, and repropose' until you find the right solution. A lot of what i'm saying is coming from WP:CONSENSUS. It's not the best to propose an RfC right after or during the previous one, especially with such opposition, because people will then feel like they are being bugged, and forced to !vote so that the same thing doesn't happen again. It's like the Pending Changes RfC, there is only a new proposal now to give a cool off period for people to deal with the the previous RfC and for idea refinement to occur. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I find "silly" or "stupid" (your own nice words) is to close an RFC based on a previous RFC which didn't even reach to a consensus but only had two editors which edit from a strong Pakistani point of view participating. The RFC was closed by the proposer himself before wider participation by the community, to come up with a slightly different proposal from where to work from. I didn't find the time to participate in the last proposal, but would have participated in this one. I also want to point to the fact that "consensus can change". JCAla (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, silly Strike, those were not my words lame and stupid were not the best words for me to use above, but I was only commenting in regard to the reverting of the closure, not towards the RfC. I will not look into the claim and possibly discount !votes because an editor has a strong POV in one area or another, each editor is entitled to their own opinion. As for the level of participation, it had from 15:18, January 17, 2012 to 15:31, February 16, 2012 with an RfC tag, it was also transcluded on WP:AN from 10:12, February 15, 2012 till it's closure last night on the 28th. There was plenty of time for people to comment if they were even remotely interested in the topic.Darkness Shines also commented that the RfC did not reach a consensus for change. Now all that being said, as with several of my previous RfC closures (see my contribs) I clearly note that consensus can change and will never deny that fact, so feel free to reopen a new RfC down the road once it's all talked out or a refined proposal comes through. But it is disruptive to the consensus process to repost the same relative RfC (which is a fact you don't seem to be bringing up, so I assume that you agree) as before right after or during the consensus process. Ideas need to be reformed, talked out and rehashed as I said in the post above yours. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. You are saying, another RFC can be started but first people should give it another try to discuss things on the article's talk without an RFC. The problem is the already involved editors have repeatedly found it difficult to productively come to a common conclusion, that is why input by the community is needed. That - as of yet - has not been the case. Only the involved editors have made a statement on the previous RFC. JCAla (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible that that could happen, and that's when you should probably Request a third opinion or use another relevant noticeboard. I would also like to note Nightw posted an opinion on the neutrality of the text from WP:NPOVN. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightw has been an involved editor in some previous disputes, his is not a fresh opinion and it doesn't come as a surprise to some. JCAla (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

NW was enlisted through WP:NPOVN before as well as now... that makes him uninvolved since he doesn't edit those articles. His views being in disagreement with you are a totally different thing. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not about opinion, it's about the tone. JCAla (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, regardless of NightW being a fresh opinion or not, you do still have what I said above. Lets discuss the issue at hand, not the editor. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Does calling for a third opinion make sense when there is already a guild of several editors with standing positions? Noticeboards is an option. But TopGun and me i. e. went to the noticeboards for a Taliban issue, we are still waiting for replies from fresh editors. ;) JCAla (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, I actually was using "Third" opinion more as a term not necessarily as #3. So I would be willing to look over the disputed content and give my opinions from a Wikipolicy point of view, but will not be forming an opinion, so like a mediation. I might be willing to do it for your other issue to. Both of you would have to agree though. Does that sound ok? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:35, 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)

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)

Tb

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