Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 26 August 2011

User:DeltaQuad/header

I love people coming here and re requesting admin actions like reprotections, reblocks, and even redeletes. So please feel free to stop by and request the same action. 03:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Archives (Index)

2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2011/December 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March ISI 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/September 2012/August 2012/July 2012/October 2012/December 2012/November 2013/January 2013/March 2013/February 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/Early 2014 2014/July 2014/August 2014/September 2014/October 2014/December 2014/November 2015/March-July 2015/January 2015/February 2015/August-November 2015/December 2016/January-February 2016/March-May 2016/June 2016/June-October 2016/November-December 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please post all questions, comments or concerns related to the bot on the Bot Subpage

User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB

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:

• User:ColumbiaRiverDiver
• User:Wallawallaonion

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)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Misplaced Pages (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

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)

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 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 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 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 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 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)