User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for page protection

Why won't you pre-emptively protect the pages I asked for? The vandalism will occur (I'd bet good money on it), so there is no reason for other editors to waste their time fixing vandalism that could have been prevented. Spidey104 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I enforce the polices, I don't create them, Sorry. Also, what about all the good contributions to come? Also page protection should be short, and only to the required affects of stopping vandals. By doing that, we would be assuming. -- DQ(t)(e) 21:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know about that policy. Thank you for explaining. I would say that there aren't many good contributions to come. The articles are about events that are over (and unable to restart), so nothing more can be added. Furthermore, of those articles that I watch the only good contributions come from registered users, who would be able to edit through a semi-protection, and the IP addresses are vandalizing or edits so misguided that they usually have to be reverted. I think 1 month is short. It would get us through the period of when the vandalism will be the worst. Spidey104 12:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For serendipitously cutting off tendentious argument by a block-evading user at RFP, I hereby award you the Admin's Barnstar, and along with it offer my sincere vote of thanks. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) but they will be back. >_> See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haeretica Pravitas for further details. -- DQ(t)(e) 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

Just a note, when you protect a template like this, please remember to wrap the protection template in <noinclude> tags. This particular case caused Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates to go from ~10 entries to 9100+. It's been removed now, and the category is slowly emptying out, so no harm done. Just something for future reference. :-) Keep up the good work! Avicennasis @ 17:45, 26 Iyar 5771 / 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I blame it on Twinkle because before the nice new interface, it automatically did that :P so I assumed...my bad, and I will be sure to watch for that :) -- DQ(t)(e) 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries. :-) Like I said, no harm done. Everyone's allowed a goof now and then, especially when they usually do great work (I see that barnstar up there!) Avicennasis @ 18:21, 26 Iyar 5771 / 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolback denial

Hey DQ. I just want to let you know that when I rollback using Twinkle I always warn every user on the spot, however yesterday Twinkle was having problems on and off all day (there's even a post at the ANI about it) and so I used STiki instead, which will not warn a user if the edit in the backlog is older than a few days and from an IP. Presumably this is to prevent false warnings of people with dynamic IPs but there is no way to change it in the STiki options afaik. I believe that with huggle you have more control over this and I would ask that you reconsider my request for rollback privileges. It can't hurt that only.02% of my edits have been reverted :). Thanks! Noformation Talk 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not looking deeper, I will look at it again right now. -- DQ(t)(e) 19:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done while distracted by socks. :P -- DQ(t)(e) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, DQ! Noformation Talk 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

American Airlines Flight 191 GAR

Been a month now, we're still waiting. Could you please get back to this review? Thank you. N419BH 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness sorry, will try and get on that today/tomorrow. -- DQ(t)(e) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's alright, I know you're busy with all the shiny new buttons :). N419BH 20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go

For your continued hard work at SPI (the tools have definitely been bestowed on the right person) and your hard work in deletions and protection of pages I give you this award as recognition and thanks:

DeltaQuad has been inducted into the Order of the Mop,
for their commitment and dedication and is entitled
to display this award for being a fantastic admin,
Kind regards, thanks and happy editing,
—James (Talk • Contribs) • 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 45

Thanks DQ :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:56pm • 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Botlaf

Hi DQ, any chance of a bot run this week? I hope to be online part of this weekend. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sorry that I haven't been running it weekly, toolserver keeps telling me that there is not a suitable queue for it, so I have to fix that somehow... -- DQ(t)(e) 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've not been on Wikipedia as much as usual of late and I should probably remove some of the tests that are either too time consuming to use. The great advantage of this is that you can accept a very high rate of false positives because they are all manually reviewed, but beyond 95% it is not much more useful than clicking random articles. ϢereSpielChequers 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my mind?

I saw you semi-protected those three subpages of mine. Did you see them at WP:RfPP and forgot to leave a response or did you read my mind? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd bet that DQ just forgot to {{RFPP|s}} them. =) —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I was reading your mind :) Actually, most of the time I have enough time to protect/tag the article with Twinkle, but don't have the time for RFPP posting. I try to put them up as much as I can though. -- DQ(t)(e) 02:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello DeltaQuad, A520 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

SPI submission not showing up in active case list

I just submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlrios but it's not showing up in the active case list. Is it just a lag or did I do something wrong? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it was lag. Sorry for the interruption. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's there, you have to wait until :00, :15, :30, or :45 after for it to show, that's when the bot updates. -- DQ(t)(e) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Again, sorry for the bother, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

PP at Miss World 2011

You have just PP'd Miss World 2011, probably after seeing my note at WP:RPP. There is nothing fishy going on: these women's entries are effectively one-line BLPs, as at Miss Universe 2011. IP editors and SPAs in particular are coming in with nationalist tendencies, adding uncited heights etc, or increasing their own favourite's height and sometimes decreasing the height of an opposition candidate. It is trivial stuff in my world but not trivial to the contestants. I explained the situation to User:Orlady yesterday for the other article and she semi-PP'd that one, which has made a difference already. She seemed to accept the BLP situation and that my reverts (and sometimes also those by other people) were protected by the 3RR exception for BLPs.

I am actually trying to find cites for all this stuff but, tbh, I'm more into industrial history and Indian castes than beauty pageants & so it is an on/off sort of job.

Hope this explains. There is nothing particularly fishy about it. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, full protection is likely to be counterproductive because there are apparently new contestants being announced all the time due to staggered national competitions. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, by fishy I mean, I didn't fully look into weather it was vandalism or BLP vios because either way it warranted the same protection. And I'm pretty sure I only did semis, if I did do full, let me know. -- DQ(t)(e) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!

Participation
GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.

Progress report

During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.

Coodinator election

The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), and Torchiest (talk).


Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Burger

Please follow {{PROD}} removal instructions at Eugene Burger. I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if your going to revert that one, might as well start on the the other ~27. :) User talk:Alwayspericulum and Special:Contributions/Alwayspericulum might help explain. This is also possibly a sock, but this user is not new to Wikipedia. -- DQ(t)(e) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
All I am saying is if you are going to remove the tag, follow procedure to do so. The template tells you what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So for a person who spammed 43 deletion tags in a matter of minutes + that being their only contribs, and that I blocked, you think I should have followed the procedure for everyone of them? ... That's excessive and very time consuming. The user already has a denied reviewed block. -- DQ(t)(e) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
All that you have to do in the edit summary is say something like "RV WP:PROD by WP:SOCK WP:SPA" in each edit summary I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but the mass revert script doesn't allow me to do that. Maybe talk to User:Timotheus Canens to have that changed. -- DQ(t)(e) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2011. 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.

Block of User:86.8.218.114

Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now looking over the diffs a little better, it does look more like it is not vandalism directly, and maybe this should of been the block reasion: "Edit Warring: Continuous adding of incorrect information" or something along that line. -- DQ(t)(e) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. If they come back after their latest block I will, if I notice, try to help them. I get the feeling they were jumped upon for not conforming to some obscure standard on airport standards and although they were told about this it escalated way too quickly to accusations of vandalism (which as far as I can see it never was) and comments like yours may help if they do come back as I'll fell more able to say to them "it wasn't vandalism but you were doing things wrong". Apart from one initial attempt there was never any attempt to explain things to them, e.g. the idea of consensus was never mentioned. Hopefully we haven't lost a potentially useful contributor. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of Arnithorri

I see that you have blocked Arnithorri for vandalism. Certainly that is the way the editing looked at first, but looking deeper I don't think it was. I am inclined to unblock, but thought it better to consult you. You can see my reason at User talk:Arnithorri. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey James, thanks for pointing this out. The "vandalism" I went on was the last two diffs, and the smileys add to the article back in '07. It's clear now after looking back that the smileys belonged, and that the last two edits were probably a misunderstanding. Just thought I would give you where I came from on the "Vandalism" part. Anyway, again thanks for pointing this out and I hope to see you around. -- DQ(t)(e) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I too saw the last couple of edits as vandalism at first, but I didn't see the smileys. Also, having thought about it a bit more, I do think that there is a significant element of AGF in assuming that the latest edits were not vandalism, as I wonder about the motivation for wanting to delete the article. However, I think we can afford to assume good faith: we can always reblock if there is any continuation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AGF in the fact that it wouldn't continue. -- DQ(t)(e) 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out...

Hey there, I do thank you for your assistance in the last article after an IP address attempted to re-add an unreferenced entry or source of former employees as per BLP material set by another user. I will still continue to monitor the article, however. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles internet was the only reason that I portected it :P but anyway there is an SPI for the guy now. -- DQ(t)(e) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizovne, Iaaasi

Hello DeltaQuad,

I would like to bring these matters [1][2] to your attention on the grounds that you told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne that "On hold pending further investigation, hoping to be back in 1 or 2 days. Poke me on my TP if i'm not back."--Nmate (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, so I looked over the evidence again, there is still some ties to Stubbes99, I hope that this is just one of them playing sock, and not a third party now involved. But i'm tired of evasion by these two and am hoping this is not a meat, so I have endorsed. -- DQ(t)(e) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, In my opinion, Bizovne is not a sock of Iaaasi, they are in cahoots with each other for certain purposes. Bizovne is Slovak, and Iaaasi is Romanian. The two countries they live in, are not even adjacent with each other, but both are bordered by Hungary.
And because Iaaasi is blocked from editing Wikipedia, and because Bizovne can't speak English even at a basic level, and because they both pamper a grudge towards Hungarians([3] [4] [5] [6]) ¶ ([7][8][9]) for historical reasons, they have superabundantly enough reasons to be in cahoots [10][11]. So that Bizovne is a recruited meatpuppet of Iaaasi, and not a sockpuppet of him.--Nmate (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility) and his activity on Wikipedia). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous :) Best Regards. --Bizovne (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear DeltaQuad,

Sorry to "hijack" this topic a bit but since the meatpuppetry of Bizovne's being discussed here I thought I'd ask you whether is there any possibility for sanctioning meatpuppetry in connection with behavioral evidence (even though you've closed the SPI case) or not? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I will say I am willing to consider action for meatpuppetry, but please understand that 1) Your diffs have to be conclusive 2) and I do apply tl;dr, so short and sweet is the best. I would also have no problem with you going to another administrator (preferably SPI clerk if you do) for them to look it over. -- DQ(t)(e) 00:08, 12 June, 2011 (UTC)
The recapitulation of my proofs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Iaaasi commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 on Wikimedia Commons on 07:39, 9 June, 2011
  2. Bizovne commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel [12] is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 here on English Wikipedia on 11:00, 9 June, 2011
  3. On Wikimedia Commons, Iaaasi refers to Bizovne's report made on English Wikipedia that "User:Darkercastel was blocked today on en.wikipedia as scokpupept of User:Stubes99" on 14:21, 9 June, 2011
Perchance it is a coincidence? Because if so, then I have to think that that Bizovne is not only ilk of Iaaasi, but they are identical twins with some clairvoyant abilities chiefly after this map:[13] can also be found not only here on the user page of Bizovne, but here , too, on the archive user page of Iaaasi alike.--Nmate (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The same map is also placed on the user page of CoolKoon still by the influence of Iaaasi with a very different caption. On the other hand, that Bizovne recognised the same obvious sockpuppet of Stubes99 , Darkercastel, 2 hours 21 mins later on English Wikipedia than as Iaaasi had done that on Wikimedia Commons ,which SPI report of Bizovne Iaaasi even referred to 3 hours 21 mins later then on Wikimedia Commons, can happen without not having been any connection between two of them, is hardly credible. Please note that the account Bizovne was created on 18 March, 2011 : [14] , but Stubes99 was blocked for indefinite time on 26 August, 2010 [15], so then Bizovne may not have been familiar with the account Stubes99 at all.

Second, here, Bizovne had reverted me [16] and the next user who edited the article was a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Dadamereu [17] And at the article Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, I had deleted the edits of one another confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi ,User:Attila99, and then Bizovne restored those edits made by the sockpuppet of Iaaasi two times without having edited the article beforehand:[18]->[19]->[20]]. Too much coincidence.

  • Also, on 11 March, 2011, here told Iaaasi (when he was yet allowed to edit Wikipedia) that "If we take in consideration such old events, I can also remind the participants about Nmate's blocks for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility"
  • And, yesterday, on 11 June ,2011, here, at your talk page ,DQ, the argument of Bizovne was the same meticulously:"*Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility) and his activity on Wikipedia)."
  1. Iaaasi commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 on Wikimedia Commons on 07:39, 9 June, 2011
  2. Bizovne commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel [21] is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 here on English Wikipedia on 11:00, 9 June, 2011
  3. On Wikimedia Commons, Iaaasi refers to Bizovne's report made on English Wikipedia that "User:Darkercastel was blocked today on en.wikipedia as scokpupept of User:Stubes99" on 14:21, 9 June, 2011
Perchance it is a coincidence? Because if so, then I have to think that that Bizovne is not only ilk of Iaaasi, but they are identical twins with some clairvoyant abilities chiefly after this map:[22] can also be found not only here on the user page of Bizovne, but here , too, on the archive user page of Iaaasi alike.--Nmate (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Nmate :) Your arguments are weak.
You are right, this map is also placed on the user page of CoolKoon still by the influence of Iaaasi with a very different caption. On the other hand, that you recognised the same obvious sockpuppet of Stubes99 , Darkercastel, 2 hours 21 mins later on English Wikipedia than as Iaaasi had done that on Wikimedia Commons ,which SPI report of yours Iaaasi even referred to 3 hours 21 mins later then on Wikimedia Commons, can happen without not having been any connection between two of you, is hardly credible. Please note that the account Bizovne was created on 18 March, 2011 : [23] , but Stubes99 was blocked for indefinite time on 26 August, 2010 [24], so then Bizovne may not have been familiar with the account Stubes99 at all.--Nmate (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Second, here, Bizovne had reverted me [25] and the next user who edited the article was a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Dadamereu [26] And at the article Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, I had deleted the edits of one another confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi ,User:Attila99, and then Bizovne restored those edits made by the sockpuppet of Iaaasi two times without having edited the article beforehand:[27]->[28]->[29]]. Too much coincidence.--Nmate (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)--Nmate (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This are only your speculations. In the same manner I could bring even stronger arguments for a meatpuppetry relation between you and User:Hobartimus (Bizovne (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC))
No, you could not. I provided lurid diffs to my assertions , and unlike Iaaasi, neither I nor Hobartimus is banned from editing Wikipedia ,so we have no reasons for operating with meatpuppetry.--Nmate (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Nmate, I have proofs of your off-wiki communication with other Hungarian users --Bizovne (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not prohibited, Iaaasi--Nmate (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, on 11 March, 2011, here told Iaaasi (when he was yet allowed to edit Wikipedia) that "If we take in consideration such old events, I can also remind the participants about Nmate's blocks for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility"
  • And, yesterday, on 11 June ,2011, here, at your talk page ,DQ, the argument of Bizovne was the same meticulously:"*Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility) and his activity on Wikipedia)."
--Nmate (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This conversation with Bizovne / Iaaasi is over on my part, anyway.--Nmate (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Nmate, stop bringing unsupported accusations. You'd better confess your off-wiki communication with other Hungarian users (off-wiki communication is not illegal in itself, but when it is used as a tool for canvassing like you do it is not ok) --Bizovne (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, my accusations are supported by diffs in timeline order.--Nmate (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizovne & me (CoolKoon)

Ok DQ, I'm sorry to take another part in hijacking your talk page, but I feel that something definitely needs to be done in case of Bizovne because it's obvious that he's lying and trying to deceive everyone so that he can get away with the things he did on WP. First of all, I'm aware of your TLDR clause so I'll try to be as brief as possible (which might still result in a somewhat long text, but it's really for the sake of clarity only). Also, please note that the story might include some of my speculations too just to make up for "continuity". These might or might not be true.

First of all, my interaction with Wookie began not on EN WP, but on SK WP (he edits there under the name of Wookie). First of all he's been a long-time editor on SK WP (which's well-known for its heavy nationalism, autocracy and hostility toward disagreeing opinions for anyone who understands just a little bit of Slovak) and he came to EN WP only recently (March 18, a few weeks before Iaaasi's been blocked for good on the 29th of the same month). My interaction with Bizovne in fact began on SK WP in connection with a discussion on another user's talk page (sorry, it's all Slovak, but I'm including it in hope of being read by someone who understands it). Then a bit later (April 18) I wrote a (somewhat unflattering) note on Wladthemlat's talk page questioning his motives behind some of his edits. That's when he started his more regular edits on EN WP as well, first with a "good hand, bad hand" strategy (he used his "real" account to make "good" i.e. less questionable and offensive edits while his sock IPs to make make the "bad" ones). However I've revealed both his IP socks (with considerable help from himself) and since he made some offensive remarks to me and other Hungarians on my talk page (e.g. called me a fascist, all in Slovak of course) he's been blocked for a month.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. If you take a look at his edits from before his first block, it was mostly about reverting my, Hobartimus' and Nmate's edits. However after his block has expired he's started to systematically attack/revert/report a user he's never met before, never heard before and obviously never interacted with (because as we know from his previous edits, he's interacted mostly with myself, Hobartimus and Nmate). However a mere month has passed and all of a sudden he's reverting edits of Stubes99's sock accounts. Since I never mentioned Stubes99 at all (and presumably neither did Hobartimus nor Nmate), the only place he could've learned about him and his deeds was via Iaaasi.

You can see the most recent development and the most palpable evidences above, which (together with my little story above) point to the obvious fact that Bizovne has been recruited by Iaaasi for meatpuppetry (i.e. making edits on his own behalf on WP). Since Iaaasi's managed to gain quite a reputation of being an email canvasser. Since he's probably used one of his countless socks to contact Bizovne, it's fairly to easy to prove his affiliation: an admin with appropriate privileges (an arbitrator AFAIK) might check for the email communication between Bizovne and other users and then cross-reference that with Iaaasi's list of sockpuppets. And I'm sure that an email would turn up, which'd be the undeniable proof of Bizovne's meatpuppetry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 In progress will look into this as soon as I can find a bit of time. -- DQ(t)(e) 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 Blocked -- DQ(t)(e) 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sexual slang

The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version.  :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should still be removed preemptively.

I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — Coren (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Delta, just to let you know there's a similar problem at Template:LGBT slang in case you're willing to keep an eye on it too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done &  Done. Feel free to repoke. -- DQ(t)(e) 23:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Helen Lucy Burke editwar

I've got to run to work, so you stepped in at a right time. I've been trying to get a good discourse going between these guys, and haven't blocked anyone yet - I'd appreciate it if you didn't, either, unless absolutely necessary. Of course, you're your own person, so you're welcome to take whatever action you deem fit. In any case, I'll be back in twelve hours or so. Cheers, m.o.p 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and the page has been protected for 4 days, so unless they start personal attacks again, or edit war on another article, then I won't block. -- DQ(t)(e) 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you threatening a block?

How could I have been blocked for edit warring when I was trying to remove what I thought was obvious vandalism. I was removing the bracket that he added all the time and other edits that he was overriding. How is that an edit war? --86.45.75.42 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your last edit specifically, i'm talking about all the reverts you did ealier today, in which you acknowledged there was a dispute ('several times you've removed my words and are trying to "wipe" me out, that isn't a solved dispute') but kept reverting. Also, I am not threatening, I have decided not to place the block, i'm warning you that in the future if this happens it will result in a block. -- DQ(t)(e) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

helping a brotha!!

Hey DeltaQuad!!! :) you are a good wiki brotha and you do help put others. I have a request, how do I change my wiki user name? how do I apply for it. I want to change my current wiki user name/account name. Please explain it for me and make it as simple as you can. Thanx.

Msrafiq (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to ask (regarding that wiki user/account name change topic), if I change my wiki account name, will this also change the number of edits I have done to wiki, or the duration of time I have been contributing ti wikipedia, because I am an old user and I treasure my contributions to wikipedia, I dont want to lose my user edit count and my user member duration period!!.

One more thing, I have permission to use AWB, will the new name remove my authorization to use AWB?

Thanx again!!

Msrafiq (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you can take care of a rename at WP:RENAME, all the instructions will be right there for you. Your AWB access will not be moved automatically, so just poke any admin on their talk page, or come right back here once your renamed, and I can switch it over for you. -- DQ(t)(e) 12:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi, ready when you are for another run. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 In progress -- DQ(t)(e) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

AWB authorization for my changed name account

Hi DQ :)

up there ^ in your discussion page, you'd notice I asked (as Msrafiq) to be granted rights to use AWB when my account name had been changed, and you said you would, well its changed now. I had rights to use it as Msrafiq and I would like to be granted that for this account. Thank you once again DQ. 

:)

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ(t)(e) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DQ. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

Hi, would you please consider removing the block on this article? No diffs were provided of any edit warring or any explanation as to why a block was needed. I am unaware of anyone having been blocked as an editor. This block seems only to freeze in place a preferred version of certain users at a time when the article is likely to draw reader attention.

Since it will undoubtedly be brought up, I did myself various times try to restore a timeline section of the article which hand been composed by many editors (I neither began the section nor expanded it myself) and which was then deleted according to an edit summary-asserted consensus which does not exist on the discussion page. In any case, I have no intention of restoring the timeline section again myself if no other editor is willing to do so.

I also find it odd that the account requesting the freeze has made no contributions, only reversions, and a strangely selective few at that, on the page.

Please remove the block. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Declined to unprotect the article. Multiple users including yourself seem to be in dispute of the content of the article. There are several times since the 11th where reverts have been done because people do not agree with the content and it's being reverted two or three times, with up to 5000 bytes being changed at once. Also, you are involved in this dispute and seem (from my look over of section 22 "Delete Timeline section" on the talk page).
Because there are multiple editors involved, not just a few, I have fully protected the article. I am a neutral third party going into this, looking, and finding a dispute in content causing an edit war. It is not up to me to change the content on the page or to protect a certain version. An administrators attention was requested at Requests for page protection and I responded. I honestly don't really care what's on that page unless it is in violation of any policy.
Now there are two options for you: you can use {{editprotected}} once you establish a consensus or you may appeal this at requests for page protection. -- DQ(t)(e) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. As I explained, since no one besides myself seems interested in restoring the timeline section, and several editors--or at least accounts--would delete the material any way were I to restore it, I am not interested in fighting the matter. You don't seem to mention any othe major dispute--the 5000byte edits refered only to that issue. Just one question, besides those 5000byte reversions did you see any other ground for the block? I don't want to waste my time appealing on that ground alone if there were others you considered. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have requested that the article be unblocked here under whatever conditions be appropriate, see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done Unprotected and watching. I also saw another user restoring the timeline and seems to be on the same side as you, User:Hashem sfarim. I trust that both of you will keep discussing things. If things get out of hand (or reverts start again), I will protect again. -- DQ(t)(e) 21:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Xherdan Shaqiri protection

Many thanks DQ. It's on my watchlist as it is so I'll be keeping an eye after the week is up, any nonsense and I'll post another note. All the best. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please unlock the Marshall Sylver page

Hi, Delta. Over the past few years, Marshall Sylver, or representatives of his, have been laboring to remove any record of Sylver's documented and reliably sourced criminal history from the page. In its place, they've been placing advertisements for Sylver, his products, and his "hypnotize-your-way-to-success" seminars. (A check of the article Talk Page will demonstrate this.) The latest SPA is 180North, who is now trying the revert-and-get-the-page-locked approach to editing.

Would you mind unlocking the page? I and another editor agreed on my last round of edits. But Sylver's latest "rep" appears to be trying to work the refs. Feel free to review my responses to his comments. Thanks. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a little more history of what's been going on for the past few years: [30] [31] [32] [33] The accounts even go so far as to use Sylver's press releases as "reliable sources." --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and it was reverted. The latest additions were proposed on talk and given reasonable-sounding sources, and weren't challenged until now. I'd suggest that the disputing editors actually discuss the matter, instead of just yelling at each other. I've pretty well given up on it, myself, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what "it was reverted" refers to, but please note that the "reasonable-sounding sources" 180North provided are actually links to dispositions of court cases that... we don't have access to! 180North is championing these as "reliable sources." Also, he's trying to scrub the article from Thestreet.com -- something Sylver has been trying to do for years. In short, he's trying to remove reliable sources, and replace them with red herrings.
As for "yelling at each other," I have responded on the article Talk page. After four years of Sylver and his reps trying to turn the page into an advertisement, how much more of this nonsense are we supposed to endure? "Assume good faith" does not mean "suspend all disbelief." -- LongLiveReagan (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  In progress Please sit tight for a moment while I look at this from a sockpuppet case point of view. Thanks. -- DQ(t)(e) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

HP, again

See [34] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 Protected article. -- DQ(t)(e) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Thanks ...

... for thinking outside the box, and protecting the article as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410. Smart call. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. -- DQ(t)(e) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Thank you for the help on the Abuse response email! That was nice of you to do so. Sorry I didn't respond to the email that I sent because I was at my friend's house and I didn't have time to do so.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

Hi Delta. IMO IPs are at the root of the disruption here. It seems every week a different IP shows up, edits disruptively, and then disappears. I think there's every indication that there are socks/meats at work, and suspicions have been voiced by more than 1 editor that this is the case. As a matter of fact I filed an SPI: but CU cannot connect an IP with a confirmed account. I strongly urge you to only restrict IPs from editing and allow confirmed users to edit. This will determine once and for all if the IPs are socks/meats. – Lionel (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Just noticed semi-prot. Great. How about 1 month? FountainView may be targeted by the IPs, and when he comes back they may try to bait him at Pipim. – Lionel (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
SORRY! Just noticed full-prot. Oops! (It says semi-prot at WP:RFPP.) Reinstate request for semi-prot for 1 momth. Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IPs are at the root of the disruption? I think the root of the disruption is that a certain user will not allow attempts to remove the peacock wording that the article is currently flagged for (by an experienced editor) and that another experienced editor has also attempted to correct. If that certain user would discuss rather than simply blindly reverting anything that comes from an IP, then, there would be much more progress made on the article. 69.89.205.152 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits such as this [35] don't exactly qualify you to discuss disruptive behavior 69.89. – Lionel (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for 2 weeks on Edit Warring, one of the IPs for 31 hours (as of yesterday). It still looks like there is a content dispute here, 1) Link the SPI and I will see if there is enough merit to change the protection or 2) come to a clear consensus with most (all of the major who are not blocked) editors, and we'll go from there. Sorry. -- DQ(t)(e) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the SPI [36]. The whole WMO/Bello episode would fill volumes. As soon as Bello went inactive a few weeks ago a slew of experienced IPs with few edits and a Bello-style starting working on Pipim. When confronted with socking, 75.128 went inactive. I know I know circumstantial. I'll probably be accused of seeing Bellos under my bed. – Lionel (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been blocked from account making after I made an account.

Hi there, I've been using the IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.100.20.87

However, you will note that I did make an account before you blocked said IP from making a new account. I made this account as others also use the IP and as such, I thouht it would easiest to make my own account. Secondly, I made the account so I could sign my post in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Dispute_on_what_a_source_claims.

However, as the account creation was before you blocked me, I'm confused as to what to do. Will I still be able to use this account? If so, is it best to wait until the ban on the IP is lifted?

Gorlack36 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you, since blocks are preventative, and besides your admitting the IP is you, I can't verify that you are the IP, I say avoid all the subject area what caused the block in the first place until it is expired, or you could get blocked for evading a block. Just stay away from the subject till the block expires and don't get in any other mess and I think you should be fine. -- DQ(t)(e) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for clearing that up. :)

Gorlack36 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2011. 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.

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

User:180north

I'm writing with regard to User:180north, who is a co-worker of mine and whom you blocked for allegedly using multiple accounts. However, the alleged sockpuppet investigation you conducted (found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive) lasted only six minutes before you blocked 180north. No checkuser was done and nobody else commented in the investigation. This does not seem like much of an investigation to me. The alleged similarity between 180north's edits and the edits by the other users who were subjects of the same sockpuppet investigation is that all of these editors were involved with editing Marshall Sylver. However, 180north disclosed in the first sentence of their very first edit to Wikipedia, "I represent Marshall Sylver." [37]

I don't find it implausible that other people could have been editing on Sylver's behalf back in 2007, in which case 180north should not be charged with and blocked for the alleged sockpuppetry which other people may have engaged in four years ago. From your comment "Quackers" in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive, I assume you are applying the duck test, but this is far from the "obvious case" contemplated by WP:DUCK, due to the four-year gap and the difference in writing style between 180north and the other editors.

Incidentally, 180north was never warned or even questioned about the alleged sockpuppetry before you blocked them, which I believe reflects a lack of assuming good faith.

Finally, I don't understand the clause "The user did explain that the other account noted by Hersfold" in [38] -- there's at least one word missing, or one word too many, there.

I will note that I am a registered Wikipedia editor, but I am submitting these comments as an IP user to avoid having my Wikipedia identity become known at my job. --99.140.181.172 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When I reviewed 180north's unblock request, I conducted a checkuser scan on them, which for me is standard procedure when reviewing any unblock request related to sockpuppetry. Due to the age of ProFromDover's accounts, I was unable to verify any relation to the accused sockmaster, however I did confirm that 180north was nonetheless using multiple accounts against policy. They have since admitted to this via email, however their explanation regarding this account does not match checkuser data. 180north's original block was placed based on what I believe to be very convincing behavioral evidence, and is now being continued due to the sockpuppetry that has since been found. As you should well know, considering who you are (your name came up in the checkuser scan), warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, and third-party unblock requests are not accepted, regardless of who they come from. Depending on DeltaQuad's feelings about this, I am willing to give them the standard offer, however they must request that, not you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hersfold is right, I won't accept any third party unblock requests. He knows how to email me or use and unblock template on his talkpage (requesting in the unblock that I take a look). I might be willing to offer something a little different than a standard offer, but something like that would apply. I also do request that he contacts me or Hersfold directly about this case if he wishes to be unblocked. -- DQ(t)(e) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Conditional unblock on user you blocked

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

-FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for quote

Not a problem. The witticism about "X and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee" has been around for ages, so it's not original to me (but since 50 cents no longer is enough for a cup of coffee, I adjusted for inflation). Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Thats the page I help with, the only page, but I need help I have no idea what to do, I've won the battle and exposed the villains, but I need help to deal with them and clear the talkpage so that work can continue. There is so much work to get done, and two people have caused such incredible grief and problems I've been to some arbitrator thing and that went okish, sortof, for a while, and now this, just to get one single paragraph of the article improved has cost me so much. So much, and work hasn't even yet begun. You'll see as you look all the detail, but two things I can stand up for more than anything, I'm truthful and I can deliver on all claims and I want the work, which is just starting to go ahead as smoothly as possible. there is an FAR which I began, it's to improve the article where I couldn't do it alone, and it is perfectly legitimate and necessary. There are new sections, new material, updated facts to go in there, and the article is in a mess. The talkpage needs cleaning up, I don't know the commands for it, the bloke told me {{archive upper}} but that doesn't move things to archive, he was just , well, you'll work it out if you have time. Or please, help refer this to whoever you can to help me. I can't go through another 20 hour stretch of learning procedures. I need help I need adopting. Penyulap talk 03:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see on your talkpage that User:Danger has already adopted you right? If you haven't there is another offer on your page and probably would be a bit better than me since my adoption material is not fully complete, and ArbCom/GAs/FAR are not my primary editing areas, and I haven't been involved in an arbcom case at all. Be glad to help out if you have specific questions. -- DQ(t)(e) 11:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/June&oldid=1184905297"