This user is proudly Canadian.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:DeltaQuad

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

DeltaQuad's Email backlog is currently:

Last message without a reply: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:47:59 -0800
Current number of messages that need reply: 5
Normal response times are about 72 hours currently
due to the amount of email I am receiving.
The most urgent of emails will be responded to first,
and there may be additional delay beyond 72 hours.

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

Update: [Normal]
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)


UTRS for Portuguese Wikipedia

Hello, DeltaQuad. With regards to using UTRS for Portuguese Wikipedia, do you have any news?

We had a discussion on about that and I believe there is clear consensus for using it there instead of the current system. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 17:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Teles:. With TParis back as a developer, I finally have some time to put into this. This will be my single priority with UTRS, so we can actually get this moving and on the road.
Instructions for translators: I will request that any translators create an account at [ Github] so that they can be given the permissions to edit the relevant files. From there, they will need to notify me so I can add them to the translators group. Once I've done that, they can start editing the translation file right on the github website. Also they will need to keep an eye on their email for new updates which will require translation.
Some information on the tool itself: will get it's own database, so it won't be confused or mixed with enwiki's. On the main appeal form there will be the ability to select either ptwiki or enwiki. We'll also have it so that it will default to whatever is pasted in the url like "" or something as such so you can set it to that by default. Any questions in which you have so far?
Courtesy ping @Salvidrim!:. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Amanda. I've joined GitHub as 'radixwiki'. Thanks, RadiX 01:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Amanda, excellent news! I have notified other sysops so some of them can show interest on helping. My account on Github is 'Lteles'. I can start translating ASAP. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amanda, good fay, I am also sysop of pt:wikipedia and i've joined GitHub as Le0nsaud. Greetings--Leon saudanha (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Leon saudanha, Teles, and RadiX: Invites sent, they need you to accept. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon saudanha (talkcontribs) 13:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amanda, i have translated te most messages of UTRS, but in time to save I think I just accidentally merge the ancient version of script with the version translated... do you can correct this?--Leon saudanha (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I am translating the file. Can you explain what is the meaning of "Revealed this appeals email" and similar messages? I am stuck on these ones. Thanks!—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 18:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Emails are hidden from normal tool users because that information is private. Checkusers and developers have an ability to unhide that information if it's needed for CU or administrative purposes.--v/r - TP 18:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@TParis: thanks! It is that the phrase doesn't seem to make sense for me. Could you please write the phrase in other words?—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
How about "accessed the hidden e-mail address from which the appeal was sent"?  · Salvidrim! ·  20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Got it! Thanks!—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 20:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Teles: Would you be able to pass on the following message to the ptwiki community to keep them updated?

Hi ptwikipedia, I wanted to give you an update as a community of where we are at with making UTRS availible for ptwiki. We have made some large strides in the past few months, but indeed we have meany more to make. As soon as the translations are done for the relevant file I will be able to show you what the appeal form (from the blocked users point of view) will be like. I'm excited for that to happen.

There are still many files that need to be prepared for translation and I'm working on those. As of this moment, there are 50 messages to be translated, many of which came from updates made in the past 24 hours. We also have a working list of bugs that need to be addressed for you guys to be able to have your own version. These pages are updated dynamically.

While the translations are not yet availible on the beta interface, it is availible to play around with if you wish. You can't break anything there, or if you can, it's the developer's fault.

As for the design, ptwikipedia will have it's own database, using the same links that enwikipedia uses. The configuration that determines which language you get will be provided through a cookie. With the databases seperate, you will not be able to see each other's appeals, so there will be no confusion.

If you do have any questions or requests for features, please do let Teles know, who can pass them on to @Salvidrim!: - Your tool Ambassador.

— -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Message sent.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot-reported UAA

I saw there was a backlog at UAA, so thought I might contribute. I blocked User:Homoz and then re-read the instructions. They say "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA. Nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." Homoz hadn't edited yet; should the bot be reporting such accounts pre-emptively? Fences&Windows 10:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Interesting, I had never read that subpage before. I understand that waiting until the user edits would also reduce the number of reports coming in. At the same time though, I stay back from trying to get myself involved in interpation of policies and best practices surrounding UAA/UPol. So with that, I'll ask that you seek a brief consensus of the people who watch the noticeboard, and then if that is fruitful, I'll need some time to code it in to the bot. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bambifan101 active? enWS getting Disney shite

Hiya. Hope all is well with you.

At enWS we are getting Disney type IP edits, and I was wondering whether Bambifan101 was active again? Or whether there was another PITA editing away similarly, of whom you may be aware? Examples are

etc. s:Special:Log/delete. And that doesn't show much at the specific IPs (one edit), I will hazard a guess that there are other edits in the range, though they are big ranges, and presumably busy locally. If there is any intelligence that is available publicly, or can be public, I would appreciate the help so I can shut it down more gently. If email is better for you, you know where I am. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


After 5 years of unstructured since ACTRIAL, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

IP claiming to be blocked user BuickCenturyDriver

Hello! I recently came across (talk), who is claiming to be BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (example), an editor you indeffed in March for socking. Care to extend the block? Also, he's cast several votes at AFD; what's the proper procedure for those? Striking through? Outright removal? Thanks. Rebbing 11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(tps) Just one point of clarification: BCD has been indef-blocked since March of 2013. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected; I just looked at the top of the block log. Also, I see there is an SPI file for BCD. Should I take this there? I'm not clear about the proper protocol for sock IPs. Rebbing 12:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications


You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ACC for zhwiki

Hi DeltaQuad! Some zhwiki sysops and I am quite interested in using waca for our account creation procedures. Currently we are using our unblock mailing list, but due to the Firewall the requests are becoming overwhelming. Moreover, being able to get the requests' source address would mean we can give out ipblock-exempt more appropriately.

So would you think it's better for us to piggyback onto (if that's possible after all), or to spend some time and create our own portal? Thanks! Jimmy Xu (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jimmy Xu: I'm sorry for the delay on responding to you on this. I read it and some reason it did not register in my head. A lot of the answer to your question depends on if you are looking for it for people who need accounts, people who already have accounts, or both. Cause there are two different softwares used here to achieve that. @Stwalkerster and FastLizard4: informational ping only -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-43

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Sorry for the abrupt departure; my internet went wonky for a bit. I'll talk to a BAG member about it and get back to you. ~ Rob13Talk 05:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-44

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


I made a wrong call here. Thank you for pointing it out. --QEDK (T C) 04:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Just FYI. I was not using surfeasy but the built-in VPN on Opera browser. I think this will be a problem for more and more people. Thanks for letting me know what was happening.--Aganon77 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

..."Secure proxy provided by SurfEasy Inc., an Opera company based in Canada. By using the service you accept the Terms of Service. VPN connects to websites via various servers around the world, so your connection speed might be affected." That's directly from Opera's settings. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-45

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DeltaQuad. You have new messages at WP:PERM/PM.
Message added 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indic scripts in Indian articles

Hello! I was looking through the history of WP:INDICSCRIPT and found that you were extensively involved in its creation as evident from here. I started this section on India's talk page and made the concerned change to the article some time back. But User Tiger7253 hasn't stopped reverting those edits and we've kind of been in an edit war ever since (it's been around 20 days). I believe I was right in interpreting WP:INDICSCRIPT and removing the IAST from the infobox. Could you please intervene and give your opinion there? - Nirinsanity (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Block of

Could you disable talk page access for this range as well? Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-46

19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi DeltaQuad.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi DeltaQuad,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DQBot reporting bots at UAA

Your bot just reported a username, "BacDiveBot", as a possible {{uw-botublock}} situation, but I declined the report because it's an approved bot. Just curious, could you instruct your bot to ignore "bot" usernames for a few days after they're registered, and then to ignore them if Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/USERNAME exists? Of course, this is a minor and low-priority matter, and the occasional false positive like BacDiveBot isn't a problem; it's just a minor feature enhancement that I'm requesting. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Díaz image

Please explain to me what was the reason to delete the File:Adriana Díaz.jpg? You just deleted it without any reason... Seriesphile (talk ·ctb) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I appologize, I read the discussion wrong, it's restored and I have changed the copyright licence to something that comes close to matching. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-47

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, DeltaQuad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-48

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On avoiding War

I am approaching you as well as other two experienced editors, not for any canvassing, but for advice and clarification.

It is not until spending time in the trenches that you start to notice that the WP:3RR, as currently stated, benefits the “bold” who dares to make changes in any given article. If you are standing in guard against erosion in the hands of a careful and systematic sculpting, the 3RR offers little protection in the face of determined and experienced ideologues.

By reverting the unsolicited and unexplained change, you have already committed the first strike, according to the 3RR.

The burden of proof, I think, should weight on the person who submits the change, particularly if the said editor has not advanced an explanation nor sought consensus on a heated topic. They have struck first, and their action should thus be considered as the first strike, retroactively. More to the point, if a bold editor has been reverted, with an explanation that suggests seeking consensus, such editor should respond to the request and move to the Talk Page rather than revert back. What do you think?

In your opinion, what are the options in this case (here and here)? This editor made a change on a controversial topic without explanation or consensus. I reverted the change and explained that a consensus is needed to consummate the change. The next day, the editor failed to seek consensus or engage me in conversation. Instead, they went ahead and reverted my change with a summary that fails to convince me.

I already have admonished them that this is a topic that requires consensus implying that before making any change the editor should submit their views on the Talk Page and discuss the matter before making the change in the article. If I revert this editor, it would be my second revert, and in the eyes of some, I have already violated the principle of the rule. But if I leave it as it is, I am allowing a un-consensus edit to remain in the article (besides, changing it back later would be harder as the new edit gradually appears to become the standard).

As I said above, my understanding is that the person who brings the change should also explain, and if advised about seeking consensus, engage the community on the topic. I would appreciate your thoughts about my position, and suggestions about how to proceed.

Note: I am aware of the WP:0RR. I approve of its principles. That is why I am approaching you for advice. But IMHO, it works better with dedicated and good faith editors. Also, in the comments above I may have given the impression that I only stand in guard at the side of articles. As my contributions show, I regularly work with content, submit edit summaries, and make liberal use of the articles’ Talk Pages. Caballero/Historiador 16:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do intend to reply, I just don't have the energy to do so tonight. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Caballero/Historiador 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Caballero1967: So your absolutely correct when it comes to spirit of the policy should be taken over technicalities. It will be absolutely frustrating sometimes to be reverted especially for what feels like no reason. I'm not going to dive into specific content case here, just the theory. The whole point behind 3RR and edit warring rules is the parent policy of consensus and the broader principle of collaberation. Editors who go in and revert without reason or edit war are violating those policies and principles. So when you have an editor that you have tried to talk to on the talkpage, maybe even stopped by their user talk, and are not getting a response, then you go and seek consensus. If the topic area is very very specific, that might only be another person agreeing with your change, without anyone opposing it. The more people you have, the stronger the consensus is. You can obtain such consensus from third opinion or other dispute resolution areas. Once you have done your part to obtain consensus, restoring consensus would be your next step (ideally not within 24h). If you are then reverted again, getting a different editor to revert and confirm the consensus would be the following step. While you doing this, leave talkpage notices and really try and discuss it with the user. If they revert again without discussing, then it's become a brightline of 3RR if in 24h or edit warring if over 24h, take your pick. Even slow edit wars are sanctionable, not just within the 24 hour period. So at that point, the edit warring noticeboard is the place to take it, and then consensus can be restored without further disruption. I get that it feels like your leaving bad material up, but it's just the way the wiki works, until policy is changed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this beautiful response. You lucidly summarized (splitting infinitive) the frustration we have to endure: "it feels like your leaving bad material up." Perhaps if we think of Wikipedia as a river, that we only make a tiny visible mark in the flow of information and only for a little while (we don't even make a dent since a tinsmith has to be brought to repair the indentation), then we could allow ourselves to let "bad material" stay up in the article without much frustration. But where should we find the motivation, then? How to take hours away from our schedule if we are just ghosts showing but weak tiny signs of life in this enormous encyclopedic project? Please, overlook these senseless rhetorical questions. Instead, notice that I am thankful for your thoughts. One more thing, though: how to avoid appearing as canvassing while garnering support for your cause? Cheers, Caballero/Historiador 11:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


Since you've been on Xparta's case before, I have to ask if a CU and rangeblock is viable for the master and his socks. For your perusal: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xparta. --QEDK (T C) 17:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible, yes; appropriate, not at this time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-49

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello. In this comment on a totally frivolous WP:AIV report against me by Florinbaiduc regarding edits on Traian Vuia, you warned that the next revert would result in a block, regardless of 3RR. Well, he's at it again, this time in a revert-war against two editors (me and Andy Dingley, over totally unsourced nationalistic claims that Traian Vuia, born a Hungarian citizen and then becoming a French citizen by naturalisation, was instead a Romanian citizen... - Tom | Thomas.W talk

This is only 2RR. Leave him be unless he goes further. Florin needs to draw the distinction between opinion and reliably sourced before we can add such a claim, but it's not disruptive as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thomas.W:I will report you again for vandalism if you do not change his nationality (we're talking about his nationality, not citizenship) back to Romanian yourself. This is already not a content dispute, but vandalism. You do show lack of understanding about basic concepts such as nationality vs citizenship in Wikipaedia, but still try to teach others. You do show ill mannerism (changed the text yourself, without any discussion), and ill-intent towards that page, and fully qualify as a vandal Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
He's a three reverts within less than three hours now. And as for what Florin writes above see long discussions on Talk:Traian Vuia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm watching this on my watchlist and I closed the ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So you support the addition of unsourced claims to push a nationalistic viewpoint?
This has been meatpuppeted to 2RR whilst there was an open ANI issue. What other option do editors have other than using ANI? ANEW would either reject it as 2RR alone, or you seem to require editors who aren't pushing unsourced content to push it to 3RR (and give admins an excuse for blocking them too) just to see a brightline 3RR from DonFB. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't support any one side of the argument, Andy. I'm not sure how your connecting Florinbaiduc and DonFB together as meatpuppets. It was appropriate for the initial part of the ANI to get the direct administrative action due to the attacks made by Florin, as I wasn't around to deal with it from here. If DonFB were reported to ANEW should, as an edit warring (not just 3RR) noticeboard, have protected the page like I did to stop the edit warring. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If I were to have blocked Don, I should have blocked you back at 754583523 or 753849279. But I did neither to give you guys a chance to cool the water a bit. It does seem that a consensus is growing on the talkpage for now, but enforcing it by revert after revert or one-sided blocking...accomplishes nothing benefiting the encyclopedia. Another day or two without more opposition and I would consider it consensus. Consensus rarely develops in a handful of hours. The more we do get into reverting though, the tougher the sanctions get. Before I forget, more venues like WP:3O, Mediation (which I saw was shut down due to lack of willingness), and WP:DRN. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the last revision of the talk I saw before replying to this was [41]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Just stumbled on this discussion. Since I'm here, I thought I'd say I ain't no meatpuppet (sounds like a bad country song to me). Don't know the guy, and he don't know me. (If it's a he of course.) I am kind of curious how someone wrongly accused of being a meatball could be found innocent. How would a person prove they don't know another person? Inquiring minds want to know. DonFB (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

Hi DeltaQuad, can you adjust your bot to leave the noindex alone here? (e.g. Special:Diff/754654379). — xaosflux Talk 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ran out of time tonight dealing with other administrative tasks and bloody messes. I'll try and get this tomorrow night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your close on WP:ANI

Hello. I just wanted to point out that there was no content dispute on ANI, as you wrote in your close, just a discussion about content based on one editor having misunderstood the text, a discussion that ended when the misunderstanding was pointed out to them (about half an hour before Boing! commented on it), just as I wrote in my comment when collapsing that discussion. Which might seem like a negligible difference but isn't... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that it may not have been a's lingo that as an Arb I may have sandwiched together too easily. I'll be mindful when using that wording. I still think my point stands though that ANI was not the place for whatever label we do put on it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Integration testing

Hi, you deleted Integration testing citing CSD G5 criteria. Integration testing is a very well-known topic in software engineering and this article about it has existed since 2003. CSD G5 criteria clearly does not apply here; it says: "...applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others" and "...the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." This has both substantial edits by others and was created 13 years ago. Please speedily restore the page. Any copyvio revisions should be purged one by one from history. Thanks, jni (delete)...just not interested 20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, that was a mistake when trying to clean up a big mess last night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amanda, thanks for fixing it! AnomieBot managed to delete some incoming redirects; I have restored those myself. Cheers, jni (delete)...just not interested 18:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Signpost mail

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

Go Phightins! 00:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: I believe in open onwiki responses to things that do not require privacy. I also find only 75 words very restrictive for the second question as it's so wide open, therefore please excuse the brevity used.
My first goal would have been 2 years ago, but being reelected, my first goal is to reestablish bi-weekly meetings for the Arbitration Committee.
I hope to influence the role of the Arbitration Committee to preform at it's peak potential to assist the community in building the encyclopedia.
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: most inappropriate to respond to a Signpost email in this way. Tony (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Tony1: I really don't get where you're coming from at all. Not all commenting to the "press" has to be done behind closed doors. Ks0stm (TCGE) 06:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm a bit confused as well. Is the alternative of no response preferred? ~ Rob13Talk 09:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't planned on further interaction here, but since you ask a substantive question, Rob: if we'd wanted a public response on a talkpage, we'd have posed our questions on this talkpage. When we email questions—clearly intended for coverage in our upcoming edition—we expect an emailed response, and have never had to spell that out. I don't have time to continue watchlisting this page. Tony (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi, DQ, I'm afraid it looks like you have to keep doing it for two more years. Better luck next time! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-51

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Hi, DQ. Just following your suggestion with a {{YGM}} tag. ---- Rrburke (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Christmas Lisbon 2005 b.JPG

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Season's Greetings

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Seasons Greetings!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message



This is not a Club Penguin screenshot. Anyone who plays CP knows this. I had this ordered by a third party image designer who gave it to me as a gift. I own the image. File:Batreeqah-Avatar.png

Hope this clarifies any misunderstandings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeqah (talkcontribs) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Either way, it's going to require evidence of permission from them, as long as they hold the copyright. The problem is, I dug deeper, and what I found wasn't encouraging. I traced your image back to a wikia wiki where your name was placed on the title of the image without the weather background. It's on a personal wiki for an administrator to Club Penguin Wikia. So i'm not sure where your getting the title "image designer", because this gives me the feeling that that person took parts of images that were on club penguin and merged them together, which is still very much in violation of copyright. This is more evident when you go looking at the images up close and see that the edges of them are cropped out. So unless said Wikia person can provide evidence of permission, the image will have to be deleted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Evidence: You can scroll down to the bottom of that page to see that it was the image that was posted on my talk page on the CP Wikia. Batreeqah (Talk) (Contribs) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Even better, the direct image page claims fair use File:Batreeqah_ava.png (see the file page), and therefore Ocean did not have the copyright. This is now obviously a derivative and no permission exists. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're trying to say since I am not a lawyer. The image is licensed under fair use but I can't find a template to put on the image description page. Batreeqah (Talk) (Contribs) 20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(talk page stalker) Hello @Batreeqah: I've been following the discussion and the issue with the image is that it is a derivative work (which means it was made from another image) which the creator didn't own. That means the creator of the original image (probably club penguin) owns the copy right to the image, and that the derivative may infringe on Club Penguin/Disney's copyright. Basically the image that was made for you, was made from another image (one Disney/Club Penguin owns) so the image isn't really yours in the eyes of the law, its still Club Penguin's/Disney's property. This basically means the image is Non Free Content which has very specific rules with how it can be used on Wikipedia. Since the image is unfortunately NFCC that means it is in violation of our (wikipedia's) WP:NFCC Policy, specifically sections 7, 8 & 9 which state,

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria Policy

I hope this makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi. After reviewing the abusive emails from Aries009 (I got one too), I've upgraded the block to indefinite - I hope you don't mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ MusenInvincible

So, someone comes right out and admits that they are MEAT, and there is insufficient evidence? MEAT is not part of SOCK? Oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To call them a sockpuppet. Meatpuppet is obviously a different story. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
yep, which is why i wrote this. SPI doesn't deal with MEAT? Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi there DQ. :) I just noticed that DeltaQuadBot is adding users to User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait using syntax like *{{User|Example}}. The problem is that this breaks for --=Titanus=-- as they have an equals sign in their user name, causing the page to appear in Category:UserLinks transclusions with errors. Is there any chance you could update the bot to use syntax like *{{User|1=Example}}? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Did this a few days ago. You may wish to verify the changes are correct. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me - thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DeltaQuad!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, DeltaQuad!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Año nuevo en Concepción.jpg Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. -- WV 02:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colmar–Meyenheim Air Base

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Colmar–Meyenheim Air Base you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS request from User:HankMoodyTZ

Could you take a look at this UTRS appeal? It might be entirely unrelated, but earlier today you range blocked an IP range that this editor has used in the past to evade their block (see 2A02:27B0:420D:AD00:3275:12FF:FEFD:923 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for example). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given it a look over. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Southparkfan 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi DeltaQuad. I want to submit a WP:IPBE request (anonymous proxy editing). What should I do? I read the related section but I don't know how to submit my request (details and rationale). Should I send my request via email (to you)? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The best way to request IPBE is using your blocked proxy, request unblock via UTRS. If you wish for your reason to be private and not viewable by administrators, please email the functionaries. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay and thanks. Aren't you one of the the functionaries? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I am yes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-02

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI follow up

Based on your CU findings in this SPI, could I get you to actually block the editor in question? I know this is usually a clerical function, but I don't think the clerks have noticed. (It's been a full day, quite a bit longer than it usually takes for a block based on CU results). Because the case has been open for so long, it looks on this SPI main page like a case where CU didn't turn up anything. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hutchison 3G UK rangeblock

Hi. A few months back, you checkuser rangeblocked (talk · contribs) for 3 months. Today, I found (talk · contribs) socking in the same manner, and is also a range in the same provider. Is there any collateral damage if we blocked this range? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I saw this just now for the first time in between all the automated messages. I'll look at it in the morning. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I've issued some more blocks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Tech News: 2017-03

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg

Copy from other page

Thanks for uploading File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks, I had Christo send the required email many weeks ago and I believe it was confirmed by the one who entered the same type of comment as you did on my talk page. Can you please check and confirm? Many thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a ticket number I can search by? Without that, it's a needle in a haystack to find. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Boreal Forest Ring.jpg

Hello. I did have the copyright owner of Boreal_Forest_Ring.jpg send a release email to OTRS, and I had them send the filename of the upload along with it. I'm worried it didn't get associated properly because I didn't upload the file to commons, only locally to english wikipedia. Would that be the problem? I sent the copyright owner an email asking if he got a response to the release with the OTRS ticket number. Thanks --Blacklemon67 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So as long as the email was sent to vs, then it would have been processed regardless of it's file location. I've likely seen the majority of the emails dating back at least 150 days, and I don't remember coming across it at all. There is the possibility that the copyright holder for the image did not include a URL or any discernible information as to where the file was, making it impossible for us to review, or they sent it to the commons queue, in which case it's buried in over 350 open tickets. Either way, the ticket number is the easiest way to track it down for me if you can obtain that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm... I had them use this: and it looks like it sends them to They would've gotten a ticket number replied to them after using this, right? I sent them an email asking for that, I don't know what the ticket # is myself. --Blacklemon67 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
After they send the email in, usually the system auto responds and gives them a ticket number but not always. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, the copyright owner responded and this is the ticket number: Ticket#2016120910001948 --Blacklemon67 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, it got stuck over in the commons queue. I've moved it over and marked the file for review. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Thora Birch - Konerko.png

Hi Amanda! I just emailed <> with permissions. Can you confirm receipt and remove the appropriate delete notices? Thank you! Donmike10 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I do see your ticket #2017011710014938, for your tracking purposes. It will require more information in which I will reply to at some point today. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, Amanda. Just keep me posted and I'll give whatever. Donmike10 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Jackmayphot.jpg

Hi! I received your message about Jackmayphot.jpg on my talk page. A month ago, the owner of the photograph sent the permission (that's why I placed the template "OTRS pending"). The owner used the online form that was available for this purpose. Have you not received it? If not, tell me and I will tell the owner of the picture to send an email to I await your response!--Ane wiki (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I emptied the queue earlier today, and nothing has been received at that address that is tied to the image you uploaded. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response. I will ask the owner of the photograph to re-send the permission, but this must be send to, or to Anyway, the permission is not going to come from the account associated with the photograph, because the owner of the photograph is a third person who has not participated in the making of the article in which the photo was used. Do you need to know what that mail is? Or can you locate the permission by the name of the photograph? Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I go through new incoming emails daily, and while I don't process them right away, i'll often find the image and tag it with permission pending from the email. So if it is sent to, then I will receive it and you'll see the tag change. If you wish to track the email, either the system will reply automatically with a ticket number, or I will post that ticket number to the image. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Please, if you can post the ticket number into the image, I will thank you :) --Ane wiki (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Reservehandverfahren Booklet.jpg

Hi, Permissions for the image was forward to Wikipedia before Christmas. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your email was found, I apologize for the inconvenience. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This exchange

seems slightly worrying? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1821

Could explain your closure of the 5 December 2016 report in this case in a little more detail? Particularly as to why no action was taken? Given the available evidence, I genuinely don't understand how you can conclude that Antonios1994 is not a sockpuppet. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A sockpuppet, possibly. Antony1821, there is insufficient evidence presented to link them. Of your evidence, point 2 & 5 are valid. I am just not willing to block on those alone. You need direct connections from your SSP to previous blocked socks. That said, trying to read over your statement of the fact you think something is two different sockmasters confused me (and still does), and I thought you were claiming that this wasn't Antony. Also as you can see I ran further CUs below after, there was no crossover from that account into Antony's range(s). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
May I ask why you consider the other points invalid, particularly point 1. The choice of username is an expression of identity. That seems important for sockpuppet investigations. From my perspective, we've got an editor, who, by their own admission, has used multiple accounts, has chosen basically the same username as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned editor (User:Antony1994), has the same peculiar writing style as that editor, has the same general interest as that editor (Greek football), has repeated a number of particular edits made by that editor, and has repeated the disruptive behaviour, namely uploading copyrighted images, which is what got that editor blocked (see 1, 2, 3). That's too much overlap to just happen by coincidence.
All that being said, there were a number of CU checks run while this account was active, so it begs the question why was this not discovered that way? This brings me to the two masters point. My claim is that User:Platanias25 is a new sockmaster, not a sock of Antony1821, and that all subsequently blocked socks were operated by this person. Take a look at this case. CU evidence confirms that someone has used multiple accounts to conduct an edit war, so the blocks are clearly appropriate. However, CU evidence provides no link to Antonty1821 and no behavioural evidence was presented to link the two either. All subsequent socks have been blocked based either on behavioural evidence linking them to these accounts or CheckUser evidence, which goes no further back than Platanias25, since all previous accounts are stale. These socks have shown a marked change in behaviour. None of them have uploaded images, copyrighted or otherwise. There is a new interest in the finance sector. Perhaps most strikingly, these socks have moved away from editing only subjects with strong national ties to Greece. Given the lack of evidence and change behaviour, I submit that this is a different case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The connection to the previous account of A1994 was not a connection I had made, now that I've made it, I find points 3 & 4 valid. I still reject the notion of point #1 though, because in my experience, I have editors who have pointed the finger because of similar name, and similar topic area and been completely out to lunch on the connection. So the name by itself, I don't count, and I count other cross-over behaviors separately. If you need to, chalk it up to just how I think.
That said, if I accept your notion that Platanias25 is the split, then I have to conclude that A1994 would also be a shoot off. I've looked at the CU logs, and the before and after of that SPI you mentioned, everything is still within the same smaller country, and has overlaps of ISPs, but not ranges, just like A1994 does. And we often see sock development to new articles/change topic areas as a way to throw us off as they find they are too quickly blocked in the areas they are known, but can't help to maintain some tie to them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)