User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/February

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.

Ok, I've borked another commenting-out edit. What obvious coding am I missing? :^/ Tiderolls 02:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Tlx}} Tlx likes the template as #1, not the comment. ;) [1] -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

grrr... Tiderolls 02:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The same IP has been evading his block with this IP 194.170.28.239. Considering he has evaded his block at least 6 times and evaded his block literally minutes after a range block, do you think its time to semi-protect the articles and talk pages? It does not look like he's going to stop block evading and he has continued the same behavior which got him blocked in the first place, including personal attacks (see [2]). Pass a Method talk 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a webhost, so i'll check it when I get home, but can you point me to the original block again so I don't have to go pushing through all the archives? and which pages do you think should be protected? (We need persistent evasion on those pages to protect) -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of semi-protecting the Rind et al. controversy talk page, most IP comments on that article are probably by the same IP commentator. The original block is here. Pass a Method talk 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Another round of whack a mole. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - all recent edits were done by proxies. IP is an open proxy for the one listed - Issued 4 IP blocks in relation to proxies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He's now evading his block on the talk page of Rind et al. controversy with this IP; 213.175.169.130. Can you semi-protect Talk:Rind et al. controversy please? History shows persistent evaision on that tak page. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Possible IP is an open proxy for the IP mentioned...but then again i'm not looking that hard. Besides he's just going to leave again, so evasion for a week.

IP is an open proxy for 221.130.162.48.

Per his comment on the TP that we won't allow him to edit for a week, i've given the TP two weeks semi. This guy really wants to play whack a mole with us and is probably follow this discussion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help with UTRS over the past several weeks! I think the tool is really incredible, and there's no way it would have gotten done without your help. Thanks a thousand times over! Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the closure of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways#RFC_on_coordinates_in_highway_articles still in progress by you? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but feel free to take it if you wish, I just knew no one was going to touch it for weeks, and I just keep getting distracted away from closing it. :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't do it, as I'm involved in the discussion. Just wanted to make sure, that your comment at WP:ANRFC is still actual. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you plan on closing this soon? --Rschen7754 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are questioning your close at WT:HWY. Perhaps you may want to clarify? --Rschen7754 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and give it a look tomorrow when i'm fresh. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this RFC was spiraling out of control. Thanks for stopping the madness. Dave (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Anything I can do to help. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad,

I am considering setting up a Tor node, but obviously I don't want it to prevent me from editing WP (I'm not using Tor myself). Unfortunately the WM/WP policy pages on Tor are not always very explicit and/or up-to-date. I was advised by Snowolf that you may have up-to-date answers to my questions, so here they are :

• is Tor blocking policy global (meta) or local (different WPs, different policies) ?
• are Tor nodes blocked automatically according to the public Tor IP list (using TorBlock ?) or on a case-by-case basis ?
• are only exit nodes blocked ?
• are blocked nodes soft-blocked or hard-blocked ?

Thanks. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know I am not ignoring you, I do have an answer for you, there is just one technical detail that i'm not sure on, and that I need to clear up before I answer your question. Sorry for the delay, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but thanks for this message. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So the Tor policy I say is global because it does go along the lines of the global proxy policy. As far as I remember TorBlock and/or TorNodeBot catch as many as they can already (i'm pretty sure they are both active). They are hardblocked if they are marked as an exit node router in the Tor directory service. One way around this is to reject Wikimedia IP requests on 208.80.152.0/22 (not sure if there is a second range. Or you can also apply (just note it here is fine) for IP Block Exemption, though the first is preferred. I'm going to leave a talkback notice at another admins talkpage who knows even a little more than I do on this subject. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What DQ said is accurate. You just want to ensure that your tor node is set up such that it does not exit to Wikipedia (I generally consider it better just to ensure you cannot be an exit node, but I cannot dictate to you what you want to do). So long as your computer does not exit to Wikipedia, it will not be blocked. (However, if you try to edit Wikipedia through tor, you may will likely find that the exit node you get routed to is blocked. But if you have a valid reason to be using tor, IPBE can be granted fairly easily.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for details and suggestions. Actually I don't plan to use Tor myself (at least for the moment), and I will probably start as a relay node anyway. However would I decide later to set the node as an exit I would rather not block WP as I believe it is important to provide read access to WP to people using Tor for legitimate reasons. Hence I will apply for IPBE when/if necessary (I already did on WP:fr). Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, drop me a TP message or an email if you can't access my TP when you need it. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I found that my ACC Account has been suspended for my inappropriate handling of 73268. I apologize for this mishandling, assuring that I won't repeat this mistake again. I, thereby, humbly request you to reactivate my account. Regards, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As all other tool admins are like, we like to discuss with the user about why things are such an issue, and why we suspend. If you could give me a poke on IRC or if you don't have it indicate whether you would like to continue this conversation here or not, that would be great. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to continue the conversation here. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well. {{Checkuserblock}}s are the most sensitive blocks made on Wikipedia. They are mostly for sockpuppets, sometimes even serial sockpuppeteers and then with a new account have the ability to either create a mass headache for administrators while they aren't catching on, or the ability to hide until they are found, which could be a good while down the road. These are the most important blocks to watch for, so much so that sysops can be desysoped for modifying such blocks without a CU or ArbCom. Please be absolutely sure no rangeblocks or checkuserblocks exist when you create an account. I have now unsuspended your account. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you . I will definitely be more careful and responsible while handling cases hereafter. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Deltaquad, ready when you are for a run. ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done but please drop me an email asap re. Wikimainia. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This user did go through Unblock-en, and from my opinion at the time it was not blatant naming so not against the policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have unblocked the account and suggested that as the username is problematic for some that they seek to get it changed by a 'crat. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this is the first time today my stalklist caught onto things that there was a message here. >_> Looking back at it, I see I could of AGF'd a little more and asked them to change their username. I will keep this in mind for the future. I'm not sure if your composing a reply to them via email, so I will leave it to you as it probably is best you do it anyway at this point. (So they aren't confused by my reply to unblock-en-l, and your unblock) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:DeltaQuad, can you please close this RfC? It has been open long enough to allow several users to comment and the RfC tag has expired. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you have a nice night! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to our previous correspondence, your Audit Subcommittee candidacy page has been created. Please visit the page to review (and if necessary, edit) your nomination statement, as well as answer the standard questions. You should also keep watch for any further questions the community may pose. Feel free to contact myself or another arbitrator if you have any questions. Once again, thank you for your offer to serve on the subcommittee. –xeno^talk 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear DeltaQuad,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated my entry. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "For the record, all there all are rangeblocked because they are webhosts." What does that mean exactly? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A webhost is a service provider for websites like Wikipedia. The will have their own IP address. Most of the time they are used just as proxies are (except this is exclusive access) to evade blocks and the community. So we hardblock them as proxies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you detect one? Is this one, 174.34.131.84 ? It resolves to freehostingcloud.com Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep it is and now another rangeblock laid. Usually the company names, if you google them, from Robtex or DomainTools you can find them easily because it will say "domain hosting" "webhosting" etc. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another one User:27.130.46.134 Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an ISP, but doesn't rule out the proxy use yet. I'll check when I'm able to run a few checks from locations I trust to be accurate. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• 68.39.100.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't tell what's going on here, but you seem to think this is a sock account. I'm giving you a heads up that the account is most definitely alive and causing problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it's his static IP, so you won't be seeing him again anytime soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is "he" and how has he controvened policy? I'm not (necessarily) doubting your judgment, just being thorough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I would have had the wrong answer for you. I did think it was in relation to a sockpuppet investigation incorrectly, but a functionary has verified that there has been abuse of multiple accounts and that the existing block is sufficient and appropriate. It is related to the sockpuppet investigation around Screwball, but is not Screwball himself. I don't have much more information other than that because it's data i'm not privy to. If you would like I can see if I can get the functionary to post a response here, no promises though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Put simply, this was a situation where there was, historically, more than one set of socks, with different sockmasters. A previous SPI had not specifically commented on IP addresses, but the CU response was such that it could have been interpreted that this was the main IP of a specific sockmaster, Screwball23. As it turns out, that was correct; however, it was the main IP of a different set of socks, and not Screwball23.

  Something for people to keep in mind is that, when it comes to contentious debates, it's quite likely that there is more than one person holding a particular view of what is neutral and balanced, and sharing the same view (even when using the same terminology) doesn't make them socks of each other. It can sometimes be very difficult to sort it all out, though. The block on this IP is appropriate both because of the edit warring and also because of the creation of named accounts, and to use the named account(s) to evade a legitimate block. Risker (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:EditRoll ← This is him, 99.99% sure --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up this is being looked into since I first saw your post. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[3], [4] – Out of curiosity, are you the unsuccessful ArbCom candidate mentioned in these diff's? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know I am not the user you mention in those diffs, but if I read it correctly it does not mention that this user was ever contacted. I do think that this method of mass talk page positing is inappropriate, but in the interest of being open, I am willing answer questions in relation to this. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Deltaquad, when you're ready I'm ready for a new bot run. Ta ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I will get to it today, because TS is out for maintenance, which could kill the bot, but i'll try and run it tomorrow, depending on when i'm traveling. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jeff, I'm not seeing any specific section calling my attention, is there a specific part you want me to look over/respond to? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hi DQ, I've stumbled across this discussion about the use of Indic scripts in article leads, including the continuation on the now-archived thread on this talk page. It has not been easy for me to understand (or more correctly, to find) exactly what the decision was, and without better communication of it, it will just become forgotten. I think that the decision should be summarised and placed in the WP:Manual of Style somewhere, although I'm not sure exactly where would be best. What are your thoughts? Regards, Bazonka (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your right, it should be mentioned somewhere, but it has to be noted that it's just for India-related topics. Do you know of such a page that would just note that specific topic, or are we going to have to put it in a odd spot? (Which was my original hesitation) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This'll be it: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. However, the page is inactive, so I'll raise it for a wider discussion at the village pump. Bazonka (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion to resurrect the MoS page on WT:MOSIN. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

182.52.146.83 (talk · contribs) 118.173.116.179 (talk · contribs) Thaizokku (talk · contribs)

Probably sock-puppets of Pelaisse (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ༆ (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, all three of those accounts look like they were making constructive edits. The two IPs might be the same user, but their edits were not bad. Your reverts, on the other hand, removed a lot of copyediting. I think you're being overzealous. If they start being disruptive, come back. If not, I don't see any reason to pursue it any further. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for volunteering to coordinate this. I know you guys will do a great job. The RFC has been moved out of my sandbox to the location in the header and is awaiting any tweaks the coordinators would like to make to it before going live. Thanks again! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get home. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)