This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for all your help reviewing unblock requests on unblock-en-l during November! By my count, you were third in the number of responses sent during this month, so you have earned the Bronze Wiki Award! Congratulations! Hersfold(t/a/c)04:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Really? Wow. Can you pass on those statistics so I can make up an official report like last time? -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I got an email from them too. Filed an SPI requesting CU, and depending on the positive result or not I'll look at semi-ing. But thanks for the follow up. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)04:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't want us to be too harsh either. Certainly I'd like executives / PR teams to contribute to a good, balanced article, and I do see that the newest editor left a lot of the critical content intact. ellevécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I would too, no doubt, and I don't wanna be harsh, but we can't keep coming back to new accounts every time. That's why I didn't block the master the first time around. As for him, I don't think he is related, but he'll probably come up in a sleeper check if he is, which I have requested. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)05:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Email from ClaudioSantos
Hello, AmandaNP. 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.
As far as I remember it, at the time it was not a proxy, it was only the software I was accidentally using at the time that made it look like it was. I have not rechecked it since. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't have bothered to tag that AfC, but it was related to an account that is doing nothing but spam advertisements for the subject of the article into existing articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok. But ya, spam can always be improved too though and it's not hurting anything being there. (and G11 would have worked better) But in this case i'm going to leave it just in case someone comes along to improve it. (or the person comes back actually doing things the right way. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)23:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}}
Hi. Thanks for the warning on my page, I guess the personal attacks were unwarranted. However, "biting newcomers" I am unsure about - if this stems from the personal attack, then Icannot argue against it. However, regarding their blatant vandalism of the article, then I stand every bit by what I said. It was infuriating them removing sourced material - some of which has been only used once and so would have been very difficult to bring backsave for reverting the article. Finally, it is vandalism if they remove it, even if they think the source is inaccurate. They would have to write in the discussion section to discuss this, and only if a consensus is reached can they remove the source. They cannot be the sole judges on sources and remove at their discretion. That is the reason for asking them to contribute to proper discussion, and I stand by my actions - regardless of what wikipedia rules say and if I am expected to give anonymous scum more leeway. Though regarding my personal attack, I do completely agree it was unecessary and unprofessional and can give the whole article and it's edit summary less integrity. Cheers again. SaSH (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the positive response. The biting new comers was related to comments like "Sign in and discuss" where you are telling them that they have to get an account to edit, which is incorrect, although it would be better I agree. As for their vandalism or not following policies, your right, you don't have to deal with it. Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. That's why noticeboards exist such as a few I will outline for you here:
Ok, so taking a look at this right now, the Malaysia page is a problem. Both Smilingfrog and Chipmunkdavis are edit warring. It doesn`t matter who started it, or who ended it (except in cases where EW doesn`t apply, like pure vandalism), it`s edit warring. I don`t see enough discussion on the talkpage either, so i`m really tempted to protect it right now, but I`m going to let you guys see if you can talk it out first. Singapore looks like it might go along those same lines eventually. My advice here to you is don't become involved yourself, but try and help them reach a consensus, and be that impartial viewpoint. Of course escalate it to the appropriate noticeboard as needed. As for the sockpuppet note, I can't just block someone out of the blue for old socking AND current issues. The current issues have to be enough to make the block if required. I'll try and keep an eye on the page, feel free to stop by here with more questions or requests for admin action as I have outlined above. Happy editing :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Point taken, you have warned him, sorry I'm really tired right now...so i'm trying to take as little action as possible...also why I needed that pointed out to me *rolls eyes at himself* I'll be back in a few hours to give this a fresh look, but for now Malaysia is full protected. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so i`m looking now on the Malaysia page and he seems to be making good enough talk, in a good way, for a discussion for me, and he hasn`t reverted on the other page. Now`s your time to talk with him. Also may I suggest that you don`t refer to him by 'kermit' it just seems to cause more problems. Editors can be problematic I know, but the discussion with Mkativerata on the talkpage looks pretty darn good and he's doing his share of the proof. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, DeltaQuad. There are certainly problems with Smilingfrog's editing, among them a good deal of edit warring. However, the problems are by no means all on one side. I think you should be aware of an earlier attempt by Dave1185 to get administrative action against Smilingfrog, which you can see here. In that discussion, both of them agreed to a voluntary interaction ban, though even while doing so, Dave1185 made a couple of parting remarks which were probably not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. Since then Dave1185 has initiated interaction with Smilingfrog by posting an edit warring warning to Smilingfrog's talk page, and has also made some somewhat aggressive remarks there. Dave1185 also has a history of incivility and threatening manner towards Smilingfrog. There have also been ownership issues, with Dave1185 and Chipmunkdavis acting in concert. Particularly interesting is the following, addressed to Dave1185 at User talk:Chipmunkdavis: " I'd love to do a revert to the pre tiny paragraph pre bad prose pre puffery version, but having had possibly more conflict in that article with Smilingfrog than others I wouldn't like to do it till I have accommodated any possible improvements to justify this. I cannot deny bias. However, if you reverted that would no doubt be far more acceptable..." That looks to me like meatpuppetry: "it might look bad if I made this edit, so please you do it on my behalf to avoid the problem". Dave1185's appeal to me did not produce the result he was no doubt hoping for. He went through the motions of agreeing to an interaction ban, albeit with very ill grace, but has not stuck to the ban, and has now appealed to you. This looks to me very much like admin shopping.
As I said at the beginning of this message, there are certainly problems with Smilingfrog's editing. However, Dave1185 has also been harassing Smilingfrog. I intend to give Dave1185 a warning about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey James, thanks for that note. I was getting the sense that this was not just one editor either that had issues, and seeing some of the talkpage messages I was very reluctant to use the tools, so I only stopped an edit war. Dave, these issues are on both sides, your talking with other editors on their talkpages like you have been is inappropriate, and mostly why I didn't take action. Getting involved and especially your revert to the version you supported on Singapore is as I see it a message your trying to get across to him that you can out revert him because you have more editors support you. I decided to read up on Smilingfrogs talkpage into the history, and some of the comments i'm seeing there are what I would consider personal attacks. You also give multiple threats to report him. That's the last time I don't read a whole talkpage when someone brings an editor issue to me. As for the admin shopping, yes going to an admin to get a second result and not talking it out with the original admin is along those lines, and is against the spirit of this talkpage. I think JBW was in the right field in getting a interaction ban agreement. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)10:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi DQ--you said, "try for a CU". Do you mean I should open an SPI? Or add this to the investigation for the suspected sock master? This is a bit above my paygrade and my computing power (I don't really understand what you meant with "one thing did come back that 94.31.198.161:8088 used as a proxy", but Zzuuzz knows what I've been trying to establish, and he has a pretty good hunch of who might be the master. I would love to be able to hand this off to folks with the technical know-how to do something meaningful; all I can really do is block briefly for vandalism and semi-protect articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That is me when I don't read my English before I click save. :P What I was trying to say is that that particular IP was used as a proxy before, but is 'looking' (meaning it basically could just be hiding) like it isn't there anymore. You mentioned in your request that you were looking to take this to SPI or CU or something, and I'd recommend that original route as several of the IPs are in the same location, so you might get a positive CU out of the account you mentioned. If Zzuuzz has investigated this further though, then I would defer to his judgement as he knows the history. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)17:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me but if you got them talking, then lets hold. (I'm also watch listing that page, and for the record you can block for abuse of multiple accounts without an SPI, just might be best to do the paperwork with it just so we know. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)06:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As i'm looking at the diff, I don't see what value it adds to the page as it is already stated above "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criteria; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.". For me the edit, although pointless, was supported by the RfC because of it's preexistence in the policy already. Hope this helps, -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)10:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I see it, thanks for pointing it out. (Otherwise it might have gotten lost) I will talk with my colleagues about it and get back to you. (Soon hopefully) :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain...
I know User:Iqinn and User:V7-sport were both indefinitely blocked, for edit-watting, at the same time. I found Iqinn's aggressive editing style, and his or her aggressive commenting style, represented a constant temptation to edit-warring, and to "responding in kind" to their personal comments. I would like to think I managed to avoid succumbing to temptation.
I felt sorry for V7-sport. I am not really that familiar with the details of the escalating disputes they had that resulted in longer and longer blocks, but from my limited observation, and my own experience with Iqinn, I figured the individuals behind User:Iqinn bore the major responsbility. I wrote to V7-sport, in mid-September, and asked their plans, were they planning to work on some other wikis for a while, and then request being unblocked with the record of their positive contribution on that other wiki.
V7-sport said they were still thinking about their plans.
Other than they were both blocked at the same time, was there a particular reason you thought v7-sport was related to Iqinn's sockpuppetry? If so, maybe there is a reason you can't offer that reason. But, if you can, I'd like to know.
It is my impression that Iqinn can create other wiki-ids, and that SPIs will only provide limited help. But truly confirmed sockpuppetry would prevent them from appealing the block and getting it lifted. I hope a checkuser will fully confirm this.
I did it in relation to an SPI case, and actually only the user I blocked was in violation of 3RR (I know i'm arguing the language of the text of the policy, not something I normally do). I counted the IP revert as the user for the case of the SPI, which breaks the 3RR. That's why I only blocked one not the other. (That's from 16:51, December 14, 2011 by my look) Also, User:Chrisieboy looked like they were ready to talk when things started. Hope this explains. Feel free to bring back any questions. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not to nitpick or anything...but Chrisieboy actually did violate 3RR.[5][6][7][8] It's certainly no matter now, I'm just trying to explain why I was confused. Both were reported at AN3, and I was just curious as to why one escaped a block. :) SwarmX02:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I reverted Jshan826 (and added refs. so it was not a straight revert) at 16:44 and again at 20:40 and 20:52. At 21:01 I reverted the sock, not Jshan826. Using a sockpuppet is an abuse of the system and should not count?? At 20:40, and definitely by 20:52, it was clear to me that Jshan826's edits were vandalism and I left appropriate warnings on his talk pages. I refrained from reverting Jshan826 again as it would have put me in breach of the 3RR; it was my understanding that I was up to the limit at that point.
For the record, I was warned at 21:12 and a case listed at WP:AN3 at 21:30, although no further edits were made by me after the warning. I was not actually notified that a case had been listed and only found out by chance. We don't prosecute people in absentia.
Jshan826 was blocked by the admin at WP:SPI, not at AN3; you updated the thread at AN3 to reflect the block which, I think, is where the confusion has arisen. I hope you can see that I was acting in good faith. I posted at WP:AN/I, but this has been ignored. I am an established editor; Jshan826's contributions speak for themselves. On that basis alone, I would think it unfair to treat us the same. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Bah...ya I see it now ;) yep, didn't catch that Swarm, thanks for following up on that.
Chrisieboy, yes you only did three reverts of the exact same content, but you did revert certain parts of the content 4x. To quote the policy as I did above "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." - WP:3RR. I'm not going to comment on the specific user. As in regards to ANI, AN3 is probably your better option, I actually saw it at ANI before the SPI and thought to myself that it should be at AN3 instead. Just a heads up in general, no hard feelings. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh, thanks DQ. :) And Chrisieboy, I don't doubt that you were acting in good faith— as I said at AN3, just keep 3RR in mind in the future and remember that there are very few exemptions to that rule, and you probably won't have to be on the wrong side of an AN3 report ever again. Regards to both of you, SwarmX20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
Re the closure, I raised the SPI because I was looking for an uninvolved admin or clerk to analyse the behavioural evidence. I figured that protecting the article was probably the only helpful action that could be taken, but I can't do it myself because I'm involved and it seemed too complicated to be done on the basis of an RFPP request. January (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well looking at the IPs they are all from Cyprus (the most recent editing the article, for the past 50 edits). Beyond that, I'm not sure semi'ing the article right now is the best idea, but getting a 3rd opinion might be the best idea so i'm not taking sides in a dispute. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure something is messed up with the archiving. Not only did Cluebot archive a bunch of threads which were still open, it also moved it to archive "1897." While 1897 I'm sure was a great year, I don't know why it started the archives with that number. I've temporarily disabled the bot.... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
sigh* Ok, all go employ some help today...I thought that would actually work or maybe I need to employ a bot of my own >_> -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e)15:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't wish to spam your userpage, so sorry if this is wasteful. Just want to say thank you very much for your reply and telling me about the noticeboards with regards to my concerns about vandalism (and my 'biting newcomers' and insulting them) a while back on the page about Queen Zenobia (that post is now archived in December 2011 section). I didn't know about those notice boards before, thanks again fot telling me about them, it is really helpful. Cheers. :) SaSH (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, could you remove the edit summary from this edit, from 02:38, 2011 February 28 on my talk page where I reverted a vandal. I didn't request the vandal's post rev del'ed, but when it was done the admin missed the fact that my edit summary included a link to that IP that had vandalized. Acps110(talk • contribs)17:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
