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, Mar

Inter-Services Intelligence

Please do not close running RFC's again as you did here[1]. 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 [2]... 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 [3]). --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 [4] 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)

Well, the ISI discussion was originally between Darkness Shines and TopGun, so I guess they would need to agree (but both are on an IBAN with regards to each other currently). So, don't know how that would work? Your input on the Taliban content dispute between TopGun, Darkness Shines and me would be welcome. You can find it here. Your efforts are appreciated. JCAla (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can, probably today or tomorrow. I probably will leave the IBAN alone for now, and hit one at at time. I will need to poke the other two also and will probably create a subpage for mediating anything, but i'll look at what we have first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2 RFCs now an AFD

Merged. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, remember closing the ISI RFC and the next one twice? Now there's an AFD for the same content. You were the closing admin so I'll ask you to take a look. No further comments as there's an IBAN... but do take a look at the AFD and the article (you have context enough to understand or close if right). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, uninvolved editors have gotten involved there such as User:Mark Arsten and voted "keep". So this should not be censored as TG suggests. Also, TopGun is obviously violating his IBAN here as he is commenting on Darkness Shines' content and article creation - something Darkness Shines would immediately get blocked for as you can see on his talk page. JCAla (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified this at ANI, so no. Commenting on content (which actually does not belong to anyone) is not an IBAN vio... and this is not a censor attempt either but per consensus. If you attempt again to discredit my opinion labeling it as IBAN vio, I will report you because I've clarified this a number of times. Btw, uninvovled editors were there before too. Nw for instance, who came through NPOVN. I'll let DQ judge anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Linkies help guys :) Anyway, no worries with that. So let's see, if it was started on the 13th, then I need to be back there for the 20th, got it. But ya, i'll kick around and close it if no one beats me to it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, forgot to link the AFD! Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism

I must protest your closure of this given you were already involved having unilaterally closed an RFC regarding the same subject matter twice, Please over turn your closure and allow an uninvolved administrator handle it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If I was involved, I wouldn't of touched it. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. [...] advice about community norms, [...] do not make an administrator 'involved'. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the deletion, I am of the opinion that you most certainly are involved given your comments above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A link would have been nice. But you are certainly within your "rights" to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the link. Regarding your comment at DRV, why would I bring up something which you must have already read? The comments I have made at DRV are no different to what was written by other editors at the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mh ... 8 editors said "keep", 6 said "delete" of which some said "and redirect". What made you conclude there was a consensus for delete? JCAla (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@DS: Because maybe I misread a statement or something, and you brought up a whole new argument of me my close trying to censor Wikipedia. I will never deprive someone of their point of view on what I did, so long as it doesn't involve attacking other editors etc.

@JCAla: There was some socking/votestacking of some sort going on (see the CU thread below), and it is not a vote count, it's argument strength. And I thought I covered the reasons why in my close, but let's try again. I did totally consider keeping the article, but to start with, the article title was not appropriate. So with that cleared up, it was either keep or delete now. Looking over the content, I saw several non-neutral statements and quite a load of source synthesis going on. The POVFORK issues that others brought up had some merit to it. The first two sections of the article were purely facts that were duplicating another topic, or a POVFORK. The last paragraph about Balochistan conflict was the only one that had something usable in it. Not to mention the six cleanup tags on the article. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Most editors obviously found the "keep" arguments stronger than the "delete" ones. And there was an IP statement on both parts of the debate, so this was not limited to one argument. The six clean-up tags were added intentionally by those who wanted the article deleted. As far as I can see everything was reliably sourced. So, I think, it was either keep or merge into the article about Pakistan's support for terrorism. JCAla (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no synthesis at all in that article, I strongly object to that accusation. The sources used for statements of fact were from the academic press and the entire section Support for terrorists was sourced to the academic press. The only sources which were not academic were used only to source violations on human rights. The article should be kept, and do not say the information is in the ISI article, it is not as it was removed. The ISI article is to bloody big and messy anyway, it is about time spin off were made. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: I'm just going to come out and say this because I don't like dancing around subjects, you are counting the !votes, and that's a notion that I'm not going to deal with. Yes my close may have been controversial, but that is because i'm not counting the !votes, but looking at the bigger picture. About the tags, ok, they were there, but they weren't removed either, which means that there is a problem with the article relating to most of the tags. And statements of everything being "reliably sourced", which I partly disagree with, will not overturn this AfD. Better reasons are needed.

@DS: Ok, looking it over, WP:SYN was my mal-wording of the bigger problem, which Eluchil404 stated as "Accusations that the ISI supports terrorist groups or facilitates terrorism are easy enough to find in reliable sources, but it doesn't follow that a content fork dedicated to such accusations is necessary or desirable." But please understand that i'm not trying to attack you personally through what you wrote with this, and my appologies if it feels that way. I don't have a problem with a spin off, but I have an issue with the way this one was created as a POVFORK, and how the statements were made to look.

@All: I get the strange notion here from reading what I have that I might be coming off as supporting terrorism, that's not my objective, nor my opinion. My objective is to have a neutral encyclopedia. (which I know is a suicide mission in itself) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you support a move to a more neutral title? Inter-Services Intelligence alleged support for militants or similar? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

DQ, no, I am simply coming to a different conclusion with regards to what was the consensus at that AfD. I have a different judgement on what the majority of the editors said (yes) but also (!) about the weight of the arguments. And as can be seen, even part of those who were for deletion, at least favored a redirect or merge. I think, you did not take that into account. As for the supposed neutrality. Wikipedia as such is not neutral, let's not fool ourselves here. Wikipedia is a reflection of the majority opinion among sources considered "reliable". It does not give equal weight to minority positions (which in some cases may be very well right, and the majority might be wrong), it also does not reflect what i. e. dictatorship-run media see as the "truth" (which is a good thing), etc. Now, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), according to the majority position among "reliable sources", is supporting organizations which have been classified internationally as terrorist organizations. Almost every single Afghan civilian and ANA soldier as well as American, Canadian, European, Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban (and Taliban are responsible for 80 % of the civilian death and 90-100% of the military death) has been killed because of the recruitment, brain-washing, training, supplying, sending of brain-washed killers by the ISI. There is plenty of academic and other expert material on the fact, that militant organizations act as a strategic instrument for the military dictatorship in Pakistan. That is certainly worthy of an article or at least needs to be merged into the broader article about Pakistan's support to terrorism. As for the tags, oh, they were removed, but edit-warred back into the article. I didn't really feel the need to engage in an edit war for tags. I am sure, if more people had been aware of that article, that over-tagging would soon have come to an end. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Aah, I smell the usual dose of fringe theories and POV propaganda back in action. Just thought I'd pop in my timely advice, beware DQ! Don't let soapboxing-style propaganda flay your noble mission of upholding the neutrality of this encyclopedia. I fully support your actions. For now, I'll leave the matter between you and Darkness Shines/JCAla & Co and am sure you will work out a neutral solution to this. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is typical WP:POINT. First RFCs closed repeatedly, AFD resulted in deletion, all these mean, there actually is something wrong with the content and there's consensus to exclude it. You some how seem to be insisting on it till you've had your way. I think it will be better not to repeatedly convince DQ of the reasons for the content, rather let his judgement of the article included consensus stay because you're asking him to add a supper vote into the decision. Seeing the DRV, this discussion is moot anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, DeltaQuad, what do you have to say about this article that seems to have been created as a way to get around the closed AfD decision? A bit worrisome. Mar4d (talk) 07:47, 28 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)

Poop patrol

Hi DeltaQuad, I'm ready for a poop patrol run whenever you are. Also I was wondering whether you could tweak the code to include portal and template space when it runs? Currently it just covers mainspace, but provided the safe page list could accept portal:page name I think this would be a worthwhile extension. Ta, ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Adminship Interview

Dear DeltaQuad,

My name is Jake Crawford and I am a student at Michigan State University working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I am posting here to ask if you would be willing to answer a few questions about your experiences being a Wikipedia administrator.

Would you possibly have the time to answer some quick questions in the next week? The interview is for a Wiki-Project Management class at MSU and is completely anonymous. While we would be using your Wikipedia user name to keep track of responses, your name will not be used in any of our reports.

If you are able to speak with me, please respond or email me at crawf279@msu.edu. I would greatly appreciate your input and time.

Thank you!

Jake Crawford - crawf279

Michigan State University