User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/August

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

SPI Title move

Uh, I originally opened it at JerryDavid89 (You reversed the order as you moved it; page currently reads Please note that a case was originally opened under AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JerryDavid89. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JerryDavid89, which is exactly the opposite of what actually happened.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just haven't gotten to the clerking yet. I'm just finishing up looking at blocks. -- DQ(t) (e) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping on Bill Hicks...

...on July 12, when you semi-protected Bill Hicks. But the persistent vandalism of the exact same edits by similar-sound IP addresses started up again almost immediately around July 20 when the protection was lifted, and now it's worse than ever (see Bill Hicks history page — two editors other than me had to handle five reverts by 64.121.19.3 yesterday, and now 67.208.164.82 has started up. I thought, since you had semi-protected it already, I could ask you to do so again, perhaps indefinitely since this is a problem that goes back months. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Block extended for the one really abusive IP, and page protected for a month. Please let me know as soon as he comes back. He will probally be back, and next time, we'll get a good 3 month or more protection and maybe closer to a 3 week or more block. But as soon as he starts editing and doing that again, let me know. Thanks for you vigilance. -- DQ(t) (e) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That was very kind of you to let us come to you directly and save time and effort. Much appreciated. Thank you very much! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, it's easy for me to deal with cases I have already handled. -- DQ(t) (e) 04:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

When an editor is discovered to be a indef blocked sockpuppet (like Placebo, who you just blocked) what happens to the discussion he/she started on various talk pages? Should their comments be allowed to stand and are those sockpuppet comments given any weight whatsoever? Specifically, I'm referring to the discussion at Sondra Locke. Thanks for any info you can provide. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually the discussion just goes cold so we have the evidence later, and that we don't remove talkpage comments by legitimate users. You can take the socks comments at face value, just never use it in forming consensus. -- DQ(t) (e) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect

As to the Exit International article. I think discussion has reached a stage where consensus has been established. As I suspected, the result of the consensus is that User:Night of the Big Wind's opinions have not been accepted. In my opinion, the article should be unprotected, and if an edit-was ensues again, the correct way of action should be a block of Night of the Big Wind, rather than protecting the article for the third time. Please notice that I have expressed this sentiment earlier in this edit. Debresser (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected Ok, looks like you guys have come to a rough consensus, I will be looking more for blocks this time for anyone who wishes to disrupt the process, but if I deem it necessary, i'll slap the page protection right back up there. The key is not to edit war yourself, but to show that the user is editing against consensus and ask for some help. -- DQ(t) (e) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail}} From me. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 13:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 Responded -- DQ(t) (e) 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Reped. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 22:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello DeltaQuad! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspected socks

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:JamesBWatson --Ofterniostica (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your asking me to do exactly...I don't really get your question at all. -- DQ(t) (e) 02:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Knew you were some sort of troll. -- DQ(t) (e) 02:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand

I just want to let you know that I understand why you blocked me on accident. I did tag a lot of user pages for deletion. I will not do as much in a day so that just in case an admin blocks me on accident again. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, you can keep it up, it's just the way the script is configured, it took the revision user instead of the userpage I was on and blocked it, scripts sometimes can be stupid. :) -- DQ(t) (e) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. In order to make getting rid of user pages that are against Wikipedia policies easier, I brought up a bot idea at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#User page bot. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice

While continuing to nominate user space articles for deletion, this MfD happened. I was wondering if you have any advice about what to do. I would prefer you to not participate in the MfD because I am against canvassing. I just need some advice on how to solve this dispute. I would take this to the Administrator's Noticeboard for advice, but that noticeboard can be difficult. Joe Chill (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ya, ANI is not the way to go with this, your digging yourself a hole by doing that. It doesn't hit any CSD criteria I see, although some WP:NOT and common sense tell me delete this dude's page. I would recommend taking the scope of the discussion from 'some user declined my csd' to why you think it doesn't fit policy. Especially if the user is an admin, admins like dealing with the people who can give them constructive criticism (well most can...). Some do tireless jobs, some have very stressful lives, so when any admin sees that a user is disagreeing with an admin without a described reason, it just sets them in a mood not to deal with you. Now admins are supposed to uphold the community, be neutral, calm ect. but if you find an admin who does all that, let me know please, I want to learn somethings. So just a bit of more description instead of focusing on the decline action might help. :) Hope this helps. -- DQ(t) (e) 03:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that IP range. It is odd that the removal of content has been going on for days and was just noticed. Joe Chill (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting the evolution page. We needed it. danielkueh (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs, feel free to stop by here if you want protection again and I'll take a look. -- DQ(t) (e) 21:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
As you know, there has been a lot of heated arguments and edit warring in the Evolution page over a specific text, which has led you to protect that page. Currently, there appears to be a strong consensus to remove that text. A text that one editors holds dear. Nevertheless, I fear this editor, who is also an administrator, will not yield to consensus but will continue to argue over the removal of his text. I and I suspect all the other editors do no want to edit war over this again and would much rather move on to more pressing matters. Do you have any advice on how to resolve this issue if we are not able to do so on own on that talk page? danielkueh (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If the admin does not follow consensus, please come back here and let me know. Admins are supposed to uphold the view of the community. If an admin violates consensus, it will likely go to ANI, but I recommend that a third party look into it before it goes to ANI, so the stroy is solid and this isn't just viewed as a dispute. If you don't feel like contacting me publicly on my talkpage about it, feel free to stop by IRC, or leave me a message by clicking the (e) at the end of my signature. -- DQ(t) (e) 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will let you know if I think further assistance is needed. danielkueh (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback

I replied at User talk:Wknight94 to your query there. I agree with unblocking -- I'd do it myself, but I think it's your "case" right now! --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Noted, responded and unblocked. -- DQ(t) (e) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on RPP/Kearney High school

You declined the RPP saying that it's a content dispute. However, the content being added directly contradicts WP:NLIST, a part of WP:N, which says, "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." I don't see how this is a negotiable issue requiring dispute resolution--it's right in one of our most important guidelines, and the statement seems unambiguous to me. I don't see how it's any different than someone adding "John Q. Smith once took a bubble bath with Jane P. Turner" without a source to an article; or with edit warring to force in one's preferred genre on an album article without a source. But obviously I'm close to the issue (involved) so I may be misunderstanding...but what is there to take to dispute resolution? Watching here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry, looked deeper and found the source. I would like to note (if I remember correctly) the reason at RFPP was undefined, it would have made things a little easier if a comment was included there. Anyway, sorry about that, now protected. -- DQ(t) (e) 16:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks--sorry, I must have left off the rationale on RFPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Noted. -- DQ(t) (e) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Puffin Let's talk! 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but maybe watch where my signature ends next time? ;) -- DQ(t) (e) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RollbackerBOT

Hi, I've noticed you've blocked my bot called RollbackerBOT. I wish it unlocked because if it is a bot made ​​for use in es.wikipedia. You can see their edits here. --Sebrev (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please note the interwiki part on the userpage here. -- DQ(t) (e) 18:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Sebrev (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in Otomedius Excellent. Request for protection

Since two weeks ago, anonymous IPs are insisting on adding false informations in spite of my reversion efforts (and from other people):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otomedius_Excellent&action=historysubmit&diff=443302893&oldid=443272245

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otomedius_Excellent&action=historysubmit&diff=444203722&oldid=443995236

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otomedius_Excellent&action=historysubmit&diff=445256774&oldid=445254880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otomedius_Excellent&action=historysubmit&diff=445479352&oldid=445438065

If I keep on fixing this article is because I hate those people who love to inject false info in Wikipedia articles with expectations of it getting spreaded thanks to Wikipedia popularity (I've seen terrible stories of vandalic success in spreading fake infos), but they don't give up and I'm fed up with this.

Could this page be semi-protected? Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. with one revision you might want to look at. -- DQ(t) (e) 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much!! Just one question, what are you meaning with "with one revision you might want to look at"? Again, thank you. --Canyq (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, it was just the revision that happened before I protected which you have handled. -- DQ(t) (e) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ahh! Ok... I suspected you were meaning that. Thank you. --Canyq (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi, I should be back from my hols this weekend, so a bot run would be useful.. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 20:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ(t) (e) 03:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a puppetmaster

Hello, DQ. Can you help me get the SPI Cerejota initiated against me settled? Annyong has jumped to a wrong conclusion, and I am not satisfied with the result. Or does it not matter? I've contacted him and SirFozzie about this. Thanks for your attention. Yopienso (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm male... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, and have remedied my error. Yopienso (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with HA actually. Also, please don't canvass several pages. -- DQ(t) (e) 03:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Please help me understand what you mean about canvassing. Since you and HelloAnnyong were directly involved and had different opinions (until now), I felt it appropriate to ask both of you for a resolution to my SPI. Was approaching SirFozzie out of line? To me, it was going up the chain of command. Please instruct. Yopienso (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
DQ, Yopienso wasn't canvassing. When someone is wrongly accused, they generally react with alarm and concern and reach out for answers. When you say that you agree with HA, you are saying that you agree with a Wikistalk report, which is not a valid justification for alleging that Yopienso was friends with Gise or meatpuppeting. Based on the available facts and evidence in this case, there is no justification for that statement at all. I would like it very much if you would elevate this case to ANI or bring in outside parties because these continued allegations are not acceptable. There must be a presumption of innocence when users are brought to SPI. The burden of proof is not on Yopienso to prove that she is innocent, it is on Cerejota, who has competely failed to bring a single actionable piece of evidence in this case, and for all intents and purposes appears to have filed the case due to his involvement in a content dispute. Again, please elevate this for outside review and independent assessment by uninvolved administrators. I am sorry to have to say this, but the fact that HA cannot admit his mistake and continues to maintain his conclusion that Yopienso and Gise are meatpuppets, a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, tells me that he should not be involved in the SPI process. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I stoke the canvass part, it's not that important and I half understand why it was done (not that I completely like it). People brought to SPI are presumed innocent. I was tired last night when I wrote the last bit, it's now striked, my original comment still stands (as it did before this whole thread started). My apologies for the incorrect comment. I will not though delete the SPI just to absolutely claim innocence. I screwed up in my assessment, and I don't know what else to say. When it's late at night I try and keep away from editing, but there always has to be a last edit. -- DQ(t) (e) 16:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppetter?

Hi friend. You recently dealt with a Sockpuppet case that I put on SPI. I suspect the same user is back again with (at least) 2 new sockpuppets. The user is User:Allenroyboy / User:Trabucogold and the suspected new sockpuppets are:

I wonder if you could please have a look. I hope I'm not jumping at shadows, but his/her behaviour is almost identical, and these new accounts were activated the very day the old ones were blocked. If this is indeed Allenroyboy/Trabucogold back in action, is there any way to permanently block this person who insists on continued abuse? Many thanks Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done SPI filed and socks confirmed/blocked. -- DQ(t) (e) 03:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
for your excellent and thankless work on unblock requests. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Philippe. Keep in touch :) -- DQ(t) (e) 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Prox-imity Award

 Slakr's Prox-imity Award

For your work in helping to detect and block open proxies of all shapes and sizes, I hereby award you a magical proximity switch. I hear it allows one to magically close an open proximity circuit, so it surely must close open proxies in close proximity...or something like that. :P

Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks slakr, I know you do hard work with a bot in this life too, and being a bot op, I know how you feel some days. :) -- DQ(t) (e) 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY

  • Hello, about this edit... on top of being exceptionally big (97kb!) in size, shouldn't we be doing the right thing by denying the vandals the recognition they craved for? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'm not asking for the moon or the sky, just a plain, simple answer from you would suffice (per this section and this quote: "If unsure, ask."). Also, per WP:DENY and my clear conscience, I would again blank the talk page of this indefinitely blocked editor/sockpuppeteer's talk page (Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm interpreting it as a defacto ban!) unless you can explain to me why I cannot do that. Therefore, I would really appreciate you if you could answer me instead of acting ignorant about this (yes, your contribution history tells me that you're busy elsewhere but it would taken you only 5 minutes to respond to me, no?). So what say you? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, you have no clue how busy I am. It sometimes takes me a day to respond to talkpage messages because 1) I'm too busy responding to other people who have inquires that I need to reply to (like mailing lists, OTRS, IRC, etc...) 2) add real life; don't leave much time around. I was actually consulting with another admin as you just posted this. Anyway, WP:DELTALK overrides WP:DENY as DENY is an essay, whereas DELTALK is a policy decided upon by the community. -- DQ(t) (e) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, apologies for being a difficult customer but like the quote says: "If unsure, ask.", it is also my motto. FWIW, just to be clear and to avoid any misunderstanding if I can help it. Once again, thank you... and I shall bow out now in retreat. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I don't mean to snap at you like that, but I still have people who have been waiting for a response for days...I do things how they are based on a priority, and my status at the top clearly indicates I'm busy with something...I mean that was just overnight that the response was requested. Again, I'm not all mad at you or anything, it's just I got a lot going on, and sometimes it requires a bit of patience for an answer. I love people asking questions...but i'm human, I can only do so much. -- DQ(t) (e) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Like I've said, just a simple answer would suffice, I'm not those kiddy-clingy type... we're all adults, right? Everybody has their RL issues to deal with on top of their WP experience, no exception for you and me, no? I understand, no worries! Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe

Hello, DeltaQuad. I have engaged User:John Foxe in an extended dialogue on his talk page and feel that the block you imposed for his sockpuppetry has now served its preventative purpose. I ask you to read User talk:John Foxe#Dialogue if you haven't already, and to please consider reducing the block to time served if you feel comfortable with the direction the discussion has taken. Thanks, alanyst 05:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw a bit of it yesterday, but I got the case of TL;DR when i did try to read it. Looking at it today, it's even longer...that being said though, I do owe users I block the right to appeal, sometimes when other editors request it. I will look it over later today. Just so you understand though, I'm not to sure (from very very lightly skimming) I'm ready to unblock, or reduce time. I find 2 weeks (with his sockpuppeting and previous blocks on 3RR) excessive. The only reason why I don't find that excessive is because of the community evasion. He was offered a clear chance to come clean and admit it before a CU was ran and before I blocked. But he'd rather not, so what I will be looking for just so you know is:
  1. An understanding that socking was inappropriate, and so is community evasion.
  2. A apology to the community, because a user with those kind of edits knows the rules.
  3. Probally will be imposing some sanctions related to socking and/or 3RR.
I just wanted to be clear on where I stand going into this, but I will still gladly review. -- DQ(t) (e) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The tl;dr is mostly my fault; sorry to make you slog through all that. I appreciate your handling of the initial incident and I'm sure you'll act on your best instinct and judgment when you get to it, whatever you decide to do. Best wishes, alanyst 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
DQ, if you do consider lifting the block, I suggest you maintain the restriction from editing Mormon-related articles for one year that John Foxe was voluntarily willing to accept. I have seen many complaints about John Foxe show up at WP:AN3. A restriction should still allow him to participate on talk pages. Though he's voluntarily offered to accept a restriction, it should be entered at WP:RESTRICT, with blocks possible for violation. Admins should not keep having to see the name John Foxe showing up at noticeboards. Glorious crusades should take place elsewhere, even if he is one of the few non-Mormon voices. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to take any action right now and I will ask both of you to comment because 1) it's late 2) i'm not prefect, so here is my proposal:
  1. I'm not willing to consider a direct unblock, but a reduction is possible. A change to 10 days (as I felt when I originally did the block that two weeks was a little arbitrary, but I still thought it was a good time.) from the original block date would be my proposal.
  2. A full topic ban for a year seems excessive, but if the community decides after the unblock and stuff they want it, that's their decision.
  3. I am recommending a 1RR restriction on all Morman-related topics or any edits discussing such topics for 2 years. (This is because of the edit warring history)
  4. A full 1 week topic ban, loosely constructed, on all Morman-related topics.
  5. A restriction to one account, indefinitely.
  6. A strong recommendation, and warning, about doing school edits and making sure multiple accounts aren't used, and if they are at all, that another sockpuppet block be considered for longer than the 2 week block I originally imposed.
I don't want to just put sanctions on the user, but if this doesn't solve before the block ends, I think I will have to enact at least a temporary 1RR till the community decides what it wants. Again, i'm not fully recommending all of these, but the 1RR recommendation for sure is on my want list. Comment away guys, just keep it to the point though :P (TL;DR is a rule of this talkpage lol, just kidding) -- DQ(t) (e) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
DQ asked me to add my own comment. I am not too fussed about the length of the block but I still recommend a lengthy topic ban. John Foxe uses up a lot of admin resources at notice boards due to his editing of Mormon articles. I propose that a topic ban of at least six months is needed. He can still use talk pages and open RfCs on contested points. During the topic ban, any students whose work he is supervising should not edit Mormon articles either. If consensus is against a full topic ban, I could live with the 1RR restriction, but recommend it last for two years. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I approve of the suggested reduction of the current block length. I don't know what the full 1 week topic ban will accomplish if the article-only topic ban of a year is also ratified, so I'd recommend dropping the week ban. Restriction to one account is of course proper, and I've pointed John Foxe to the guidelines for school and university assignments, so I expect there will be no further concerns there. I concur with EdJohnston that a lengthy 1RR (or even 0RR) restriction would be a viable alternative to the article topic ban. Either one should help him get out of the edit warring habit. My only concern with 0RR or 1RR is that it's not always clear whether a particular edit is strictly a reversion, and this can lead to further contention.
I'm a little worried whether a few more admins oughtn't to be part of the conversation before proceeding with sanctions, but I defer to you two to decide whether that's the case. I want the process to be as above-board and fair to John Foxe as possible without dismissing what has happened, so if either of you feels another outside opinion is needed or this should be taken to a better venue, by all means please invite others or raise the issue elsewhere as needed. Or just go ahead with what you feel will best resolve the situation. I'll now withdraw from further discussion of sanctions so that the outcome can be owned by people who have not been in conflict with John Foxe. If any further input from me would be valuable, just holler. alanyst 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have set some restrictions although I'm not ready to fully topic can a user, I will leave that up to the community if they decide. Logging it at WP:RESTRICT now. -- DQ(t) (e) 04:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coal ball

Mission accomplished. --Σ talkcontribs 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

poop patrol

Hi, ready when you are. :) ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 In progress -- DQ(t) (e) 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Poop patrol

{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}} Hi, I'm ready for another bot run if you are around this weekend. thanks ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Started her up. -- DQ(t) (e) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone}}

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations.
Message added 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudu ~I/O~ 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone|silent}}

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

SiamoSempreConVoi

{{User:DeltaQuad/talkdone|silent}} So, what's the story with SiamoSempreConVoi talk page messages? GregorB (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppet and his comments should be treated with the same value of 'I' in WP:RBI. -- DQ(t) (e) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the same person has used the id of 'Ploydds' to post again on my talk page, I removed it, but would like this person blocked if possible. thank you.18abruce (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done Dealt with. -- DQ(t) (e) 07:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/August&oldid=1184904619"