Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is proudly Canadian.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fox2k11 (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 11 August 2014 (→‎talkback: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:DeltaQuad/Menu

User:DeltaQuad/Templates/Off and On WikiBreak

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

SPI question

Hi, you closed an SPI I submitted saying it's dynamic IPs. So to clarify, it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple IP editors to gain talk page consensus if neither IP is blocked? If it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple users, what is the appropriate noticeboard? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is one big difference that isolates whether it's socking or not. If it's just a group of IPs, and they aren't particularly claiming that they are different people, then no it's not socking. Because people's IPs can change easily depending on an ISPs policies. As soon as there is a user account involved though, with IPs OR other users, it's socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The case is two IPs claiming to be two different people to gain consensus and break 3RR when it's clearly one person. How is that not socking? Kirin13 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3RR violation was not mentioned in the case. It looks like the 3RR was a few days ago, so i can't block on that basis of WP:PUNITIVE. As for the IPs talking as if they are one, I'll will issue a final warning to them about it (and remind them about 3RR) after dinner, and the next offence will be blockable. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with the situation and thanks for your patience with me. I didn't mention the 3RR earlier because it was stale and because I don't formally report 3RR without warning the user (which I felt I could not do because it was on different accounts). Thanks again, Kirin13 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheodred sockpuppet

Hi. I am feeling a bit perplexed about the SPI issue. Another sockpuppet of Sheodred has returned, this time as 109.79.231.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) since the SPI has been closed. The IP, which is based in Ireland (the same location as Sheodred), removed the sock puppetry notices and as far as I can understand, IPs are not allowed to remove sock puppetry notices. But according to this message which I removed from my talk page and find that it is troubling, the IP is actually shared by a billpayer. I also find this message to be very troubling as well. I'm thinking about opening another SPI on this. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23: Just so your aware, i'm not ignoring this, just haven't got much time to do anything today. I'll try and respond tomorrow morning or afternoon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. BTW, it seems like the message has already been reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised at all given that it's a Vodafone mobile phone range. It could be the sock, maybe it isn't. Either way, continue to revert the stuff you know is him and deny him the pleasure. If you ever get an account, that is truly the best time to open an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been with the project for over 6 years actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: My apologizes, my tiredness got to me, I meant if he ever got an account. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Ashbeckjonathan's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upsidedownness

Just a request from an editor: having the "talk" portion of your signature appear upsidedown... Would you consider having it appear right-side-up? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many ways people have obscured the talk portion of their signature, and I find this more on the mild side. I see how people may find it confusing, but I'm not one who stands in a crowd. I like to be unique (despite my stealing of it from Deskana). I'm open to change, but I would have to find something else which suits me first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Rollback Powers

Thanks so much for the rollback power. You won't be disappointed. I just completed the course at the new admin school. Thanks again! Bobherry talk 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Homni-MonteDa Cunca

Additional diffs you requested on 7/21 re [SPI here] from July 17 have been posted. Please reply to us (Ladislav Mecir,Martijn Meijering, and myself). --Wuerzele (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladislav Mecir, Mmeijeri, and Wuerzele: I apologize. We have a huge caseload (as you can see at WP:SPI) and sometimes I lose track of cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting us know.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Another Festal82 Sockpuppet

Hi, another obvious sockpuppet of Festal82 has appeared: GLA1976. The new account popped up within the last hour and removed the Neutrality/External Links tags on the Seth Abramson page without any reason, and deleted my comments about the need for a cleanup after confirmed sockpuppetry on the Talk page [1] (under the false claim that they were 'archiving' them, but actually they simply deleted them entirely). They also whitewashed the negative comments from the "controversy" section of the article, and reinserted more of their metamodernism spam: Special:Contributions/GLA1976

I've come to you first, since you handled the case previously, and I didn't know what the correct way of dealing with this is, since Festal's SPI has now been closed [2]. I hope you're able to help with this, and perhaps the Seth Abramson page should also be protected? Thanks. Esmeme (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is refile Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82, as I just did. Also semi'd the article for 3 months. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your swift action on this, and I'll know what to do if this occurs again. You're a star! Esmeme (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And…another obvious sockpuppet, AllurbaseRbelong2us, has sprung up already, unfortunately. I refiled another SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82, but perhaps it would be wise to extend a similar protection to the metamodernism page, while these disruptive sockpuppets keep springing up? Thanks once again, and I just hope we can see the last of this soon, as I fear Festal's tiresome tactics have already scared off several legitimate editors. Esmeme (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replied @ SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. 2001.
Message added 15:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thank you. When reverting good-faith edits using STiki, the options available to notify the user on talk page are very limited. Hence I use it sparingly unless there is an absolute need. I understand tools like Huggle do not have this drawback and I'll be sure to notify from now on. I always leave a talk page notification for blatant vandalism unless there is an edit conflict and someone else has tagged the page already. Btw you did not give any input regarding my request for reviewer rights.[3] Should I apply for the reviewer right separately at WP:PERM? Regards,  NQ  talk 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies, I thought you were applying for that on a separate page, and until now, I haven't followed that page. And it must be the edit conflicts, because there was a group where several were not done in a row. None the less, I've read over the criterion for Reviewer, and i'm  granting it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You've been very kind and helpful. Regards,  NQ  talk 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

"Osama bin..." usernames

Original discussion - For the record. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DeltaQuad. Actually, I mostly reported usernames that had the string "Osama bin" in them. Are you telling me that "Osama bin" does not conjure up thoughts of Osama bin Laden? - Hoops gza (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does. It's still not a blatant violation of the policy to have that name in them. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Hoops gza: 'Osama bin' simply means - Osama, son of.. "insert name here". Osama is a very common Arabic name and Laden is a somewhat common surname. Having those names alone, does not warrant a username block.  NQ  talk 22:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there was a string of names like "Osama bin Retard" and "Osama bin 9/11" and "Osama bin Twin Towers" and "Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden", I politely disagree. DS (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: Almost all the names, listed were blatantly disruptive like you said and I don't have an issue with them. My point was that in the mix were names like "Osamabinzaid" and "Osamabinamer" which shouldn't be misconstrued just on the basis of having the term 'Osama bin' in their username.  NQ  talk 03:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @DragonflySixtyseven, Hoops gza, and NQ: I think the point trying to be made here, is 'Osama bin (something half decently nice)' is not an issue, and it's where i'm raising the point. I left it up to the editor to refile if the name was bad enough. Maybe 'stale' isn't the right word which was brought up in a convo between @Connormah and Rjd0060:, as usernames violating the policy should still be blocked. The issue I and Connormah were trying to raise is if the mass nomination of anything with 'Osama bin...' in it or other people's names like Lebron James are not username vios by themselves, without something like 'is a terrorist' on the end. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the variations and exact matches on the names of people like Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler? Connormah keeps declining these on the grounds that they are stale. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples of usernames which he declined:

- Hoops gza (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start by saying, I don't have all the answers. I'm one sole administrator who can't solve project wide issues. Your request in my opinion really dances in the grey area of the user name policy. I think it would be better if the specific usernames you are asking about were talked about at WT:UAA to get a community wide view. Personally, I see both sides of the argument, but it seems a little heavy on the side of WP:CENSORSHIP to be quite honest. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Fox2k11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Fox2k11 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP&oldid=620706982"