User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/April

Verdict?
I believe you already read my comments in this talk page. Is that ultimately the verdict is just protecting page for a month? Also, is that SPI call it is legit means both user are different? I'm pretty sure if i'm rolling back to more "correct" version, another wave will come again, and is that 1 month protection enough to wipe that alarm? I'm working long time, with all editing is legitimate call according to guideline, i do not want this happen frequently, which is annoying. Thank you. --Aleen f 1 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better than blocking the two of you. It gives you the chance to talk it out, and then when you guys have talked it out, and calmed the war down, we can open it back up. If he's refusing to listen to you at all or respond, or you have a previous consensus, let me know, and I will deal with him individually. I'm sorry I protected the wrong version, but I have to remain neutral and out of the dispute. If you two can't come to a consensus, I suggest you go for a third opinion. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had conversation before and use example of previous tournament such as 2010 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights and UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights, but finally get ignoring. It makes me blur, why past can be but not at the present? I didn't see him get any consensus to do that, so either he try to owned the article by making his rules or beyond than that. I'm really not sure. --Aleen f 1 11:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Found the relevant discussion on the user talkpage of the other disputing user. So, unless your edits are backed by existing guidelines or policies, then you actually do have to talk it out as each editor brings something new to the table and is allowed to edit. That being said, they have to edit within policy and respect consensus. They don't have to get a consensus to make a change though, otherwise Wikipedia would be stuck in the stone ages. Editing an article != (does not equal) the person trying to own the article. So, my recommendation to you at this point is to get a Third opinion and if that still doesn't work, then a request for comment will close out a consensus, and then there will be no more change, without a new consensus. Per my talkpage rules, I have now also notified the other editor that is involved because you did mention him directly. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, i think that involve original research, example, i got sources reveal IB Sports in South Korea, but he change to IPSN, and so i never find something about IPSN. Second is ESPN Deportes Radio as reveal by source, and not ESPN, ESPN is more about TV broadcast, the same case as BBC, i think that involve original research, as fact we present at the moment is not exist in source at the moment, and also in case we want to clarify. --Aleen f 1 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my intervention here. Probably I wasn't supposed to be here anyway, but here it goes. When I changed IB Sports to IPSN, I did it, because IB Sports is a rights handling agency, which in turns owns a broadcaster named IPSN, as stated by the reference. So I thought it would be correct to change to IPSN, since we're primarily talking about broadcasters. Second, I don't agree that ESPN Deportes Radio and ESPN Caribbean should have their space in the article. First of all, there's no such thing as ESPN Caribbean. What actually exists are feeds of the US ESPN to several key markets in the Caribbean. That in my opinion doesn't account for a separate broadcaster. The same practically goes to ESPN Deportes Radio. ESPN Deportes Radio is a radio service/channel in the Spanish language owned by ESPN that is broadcast in the US. Now, if you're are actually talking about the same broadcaster, in the same region, why the hell should we differentiate? It ain't logical to me to do that. The BBC is also a funny story. Aleenf1 changed the radio entry to BBC Radio. And he did it for what? If we're going to follow the same logic, then the Television entry should be BBC Television. Saying that "stating only BBC in the TV section because BBC is more of a TV brand" is the worst excuse that I've read in ages. There should be coherence at least, and with such differentiation, there's none. As such, BBC should stay for both radio and TV. Hope I was able to answer to all of your questions.JDamanWP (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, UEFA awarded the rights to IB Sports, not IPSN, and JDamanWP is quite hypocrite in the term he set. IPSN is a "channel" owned by IB Sports, but when ESPN Carribean, ESPN Deportes Radio and also BBC Radio, in terms to clarify for the readers, also he stated that is "channel or department", LOVELY disagree by himself! So the standard and logical expression that he set was quite bizarre. Use the correct name even it is a channel, but for clarification for readers to get clear image about the broadcast, is not degrade article in anyway. Furthermore, i think JDamanWP had double standard chant and different views are unacceptable, i object the double standard comment! --Aleen f 1 12:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think that I got myself wrong at the IPSN/IB Sports issue. So, in certain terms, you're right. However, I disagree when it comes to differentiate the BBC's radio service from it's TV service, as if they were different broadcasters. The same goes to ESPN Caribbean and ESPN Deportes Radio. In the same way, according to you, we should introduce SportTV 1 instead of SportTV, just because such broadcaster announced that all matches will be broadcast on such channel. If we went that way, then the article would be to confusing to read, as there is to much unnecessary information there. If the readers want to know what channels from such broadcaster had it's time slots covered by UEFA Euro 2012 broadcasts, then they should check the references for that extra information. They're there not just to confirm the info present in the article, but also to give more information, if the reader is interested. JDamanWP (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Finger-cross, we are information provider, we not asking people to read the references, i'm also disagree your example to use your country broadcaster, that is only your country, it is easier for people to find out. I can agree to restore BBC Radio as BBC, but only restore ESPN Deportes Radio to ESPN Deportes. ESPN is a regional broadcaster, than clarification shall necessary, and the pure ESPN is for United States, not UK, Asia, Latin America, Brasil. The main point is: "Who broadcast it?" ESPN which purely from US can broadcast to ESPN Deportes, Carribean, UK, Asia? In different view, i can see you more want "Who are the boss?" mainly because you pointing at the department. That is the offer i can do. --Aleen f 1 03:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, can you possibly unblock that article? It seems the another editor didn't discuss it since my last reply 4 days ago, and i eagerly to work it again since press had released the new information. Thank you. --Aleen f 1 03:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the page in the hope that you guys will not edit war again. If I need to I will take appropriate action again. I apologize for not being around for the discussion, but feel free to come back if you need someone to help clear up policy or if a source is reliable or not, or other clarifications about the affect of the policies. Also I encourage you guys to continue discussion here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your rangeblock of 95.156.128.0/18
As you probably remember, you blocked this range to prevent the continued disruption of User:Ana Sušac and sockpuppets. As soon as the 2 week block expired, they returned to continue their ridiculous Li Xiannian hero worship: see here. Could you please reblock, perhaps longer than 2 weeks? Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also this promise to continue disruption.--Atlan (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we have User:TaoKing as well.--Atlan (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry i've been out the past few days, and WilliamH beat me to it and slapped a CU block on it for a month. I would have reissued the block, sorry for the delay. Feel free to come back here and ask again if he continues past the month block. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the talk page of somebody who has NOT been blocked indefinitely
Take a look at the edit history and especially the edit summaries of User talk:Alison Buchanan. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection is the best I can offer right now, if he starts editing other pages and continues to harass per the ANI, lay down the blocks as much as we can. If you need my assistance pinning down ranges and everything, i'm here if you need it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WilliamH (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

poop patrol
Hi, ready when you are. cheers  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Hi DeltaQuad. I undid a rangeblock on 213.239.192.0/18 due to what looked like collateral damage per this unblock request. Wanted to let you know and also was hopeful you could review as knowledge of rangeblocks is not a strength of mine -- Samir 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I redid this block just before I ran out the door and will explain when I am back, but this block is needed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  12:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is actually a webhost which frequently act as a proxy even if they are not open. Functionaries also confirm that these kind of ranges can be easily be abused. Therefore all blocked webhosts need a legitimate reason to use a "proxy" (so we don't have sockpuppets getting past this, and an IP Block Exemption (checkuser needs to look through this first). -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot bambi wording
Hi. When your username bot picks up *bambi* it says:

Matched: bambi|teletubbies -- DQB (report me to the authorities / my master's talk) 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Deferred to To WP:SPI as User:Bambifan101. -- DQB (report me to the authorities / my master's talk) 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This implies that it's done something - I expected the bot to have posted to WP:SPI from that wording. Can it say 'could be user:bambifan' or something. None of the bambi names I have seen have been bambifan fwiw. Secretlondon (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ as it should have been long ago, you should start seing a new msg. As for the Bambifan filter, I leave that up to UAA admin patrolers to update or remove or add, because I don't watch UAA. WT:UAA or someone who frequently patrols there would be the best contact. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad redirect
Hi, I was going through and fixing bad redirects and found the following. Not sure if that's intentional but figured I would mention it just in case something funny happened that you didn't know about. Night Ranger (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuvola gnome-fs-trash-full.svg Nuked. Probably part of a test or help. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Meta involving you
Hello. Back in February you changed block settings for. I'm now discussing his (suspected) global disruption at Stewards' noticeboard.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Expired block on sock IP needs to be reinstated
Hi. You blocked User:70.167.147.67 a little over a week ago for block evasion of, I think, User:West1806, who is still blocked for socking (investigation here). Just off block and 70.167.147.67 is right back at it here and here. Could you please block 70.167.147.67 again? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, another SPA IP, User:70.187.12.40, also coming in via "Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-10", has started blanking the same material here and here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet another SPA IP from Cox Atlanta, User:98.179.25.191, here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Time for a semi-protection request, although RPP is horribly backlogged right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Freshly Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting. If the deletions are considered sockpuppetry can I revert a 3rd time? Meters (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RRNO you may revert as "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." is not considered edit warring. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User is not banned or indefed, only on a moderate block, so I'll leave it for someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)
 * Good point. I'll consider indef'ing him when I have a few moments. Maybe we ought to change that statement. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but way above my pay grade! Meters (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Call me confused; but I don't see any blocks on either the reporter or any of the IP's. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the reporter needs a block, but I didn't block the IPs because the sock is editing on dynamic IPs making it impossible to hold a block, so that's why the page is semi'd. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension
Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have mail
About an account creation request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and actively stalking my email for any replies. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship Interview
Dear DeltaQuad,

My name is Jake Crawford and I am a student at Michigan State University working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I am posting here to ask if you would be willing to answer a few questions about your experiences being a Wikipedia administrator.

Would you possibly have the time to answer some quick questions in the next week? The interview is for a Wiki-Project Management class at MSU and is completely anonymous. While we would be using your Wikipedia user name to keep track of responses, your name will not be used in any of our reports.

If you are able to speak with me, please respond or email me at crawf279@msu.edu. I would greatly appreciate your input and time.

Thank you!

Jake Crawford - crawf279

Michigan State University
 * Replied via email. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding English translation to articles under WP India
Hi there, sorry for disturbing you. There has been a discussion going on at my talk page about how we should add English translation to films under WP India. I'm currently working on the article Tere Ghar Ke Samne and I added the Hindi/Urdu scripts to it, but it was also removed. I understand removing Hindi/Urdu scripts because it can be used to write a one-line stub on the native language Wiki, but what about English? Tere Ghar Ke Samne translates as In Front of Your House. If readers don't get the info from Wikipedia then where? And I also have an issue with writing a stub on the native language Wiki instead. I don't know Hindi or Urdu and I had to contact someone else to get the translation. My friend told me to contact you. Should I add it back or start a new discussion over at the Indian Cinema Workgroup? Thanks for your time. Fireblazex3 (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus here about it. Secret of success  10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reopen the can of worms about the discussion, as the editors involved know 10x more than me and made the arguments. If your looking to change things, this is not the place, the talkpage that the last consensus was on is. I additionally cleared it up here and this should help with any issues you have on what it applies to, but broadly speaking when I made that close, I was thinking of no exceptions to the rule. Let me know if you have further questions about what the close affects. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Link adjusted --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not looking forward to change it but the issue was rather improperly implemented. Nothing about English translations (which were part of the RFC) were mentioned in the consensus. Only the IPA and the scripts were discussed. Hence, I thought of asking you. With regards, Secret of success  05:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not feeling my best tonight, my stomach is disagreeing with me, so I probably read you wrong, I'll look again tomorrow. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So turns out I gave you the wrong link above to the clarification ^_^ Anyway, there were several sections not directly mentioned in the close I made because I used a blanket all "all other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass." But still as I said on my talkpage the consensus was considered to be remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation. So in this case, no, there would have to be a change in consensus for people to add English translations to the article. As for Fireblaze's questions, I can't answer some of those and you would have to ask the people who participated in the RfC. If you would like to get a new consensus regarding the subject, the place where the original consensus took place is the best place to take it back up. Hope this helps. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, since there has to be a change of consensus to add it, do I take it that a standstill should be made for the english translations, or that they should be removed on the basis that new consensus is required to re-add it? Secret of success  05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove on the basis of the "replace" part of the consensus comment. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Crystal clear for me, thanks. Secret of success  06:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RE:Admin Panel
Regarding the Wikimania panel, I know some people :D


 * 1. Odder is a pl.wiki admin since 2006 and is also going to Wikimania because he already have a scholarship from WMPL.
 * 2. DerHexer is a de.wiki admin since 2006 and Steward since 2007 (I don't know if he is going to Wikimania trough).
 * 3. Alhen is a es.wiki admin and crat since 2005 and is waiting the answer about his scholarship from WMF to know if he is going to Wikimania (I talked with him and he is interested).
 * 4. Lvova is a ru.wiki admin since 2008 and also has a scholarship from WMPL to go to Wikimania (she is also a girl, which is good for me so I will not be the only one present in the panel). ;)

BTW, I'm also a commons admin, and if Steven didn't come trough I can talk about that wiki as well. Béria Lima msg 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well ahead of your talk page message there! User:DeltaQuad/Wikimania/Admin Panel/Deryck Chan Deryck C. 06:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Just an FYI I was going through Users with the ACC flag and no access to the tool and there's only one user that their request was denied and still has the flag, then noticed you were involved. Just a poke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 18:35, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya if I remember correctly it's because he does edit notices left and right all the time. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

R-9e=56
I have a good reason to this is either Nangparbat or another editor. But I would have to email you the reasons. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then send the reasons to me, because i'm not endorsing on that. I'm not guaranteeing immediate action though per the rest of the backlog and my other backlogs. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have mailed you, I will need your actual address to attach the PDF I wrote up on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Artie04
This? Is Brilliant. Thank you very much for making sense of that gawddawful mess. Valfontis (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I found one more, sorry. =/ 86.** IP (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll pick it up or the CU should, whoever gets there first. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Hershebar
Could you by chance answer the move request at the talk page here? I believe there's enough evidence to show that other user as the true sockmaster, plus it will then match the long-term abuse case that has been opened. I don't think the move should be controversial, but have no idea how to go about moving and merging a sockpuppet case. Calabe1992 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look when I get some extra time, but won't consider this of priority. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarah (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification
Hello DQ, you might want to see this ANI topic regarding a user you blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Returned... Again
Thought I'd let you know that this user is back again, already. Check. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vikas.insan fresh off block and back to old tricks

 * Saw your message up-top, moving this to User:EdJohnston's page instead since you're taking a break and just doing sock maintenance. Ed was involved in the longer POV issue, so maybe more familiar. Enjoy your break! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, fresh off a Special:Contributions/Vikas.insan for abusing multiple accounts (which he moved to after getting called out for long-term edit warring), User:Vikas.insan is back and playing the same WP:I didn't hear that all over again. Adding honorifics like "Saint... Ji Insan" as we've constantly said not to do on Talk pages of articles and his own Talk page, removing clearly cited mentions of past criminal cases as Not everything is historically important, the major incident of Dress that caused riots and was in highlights is as-is there and I have not removed from there, but other were proved by High Court of Haryana & Punjab as fake allegations, etc.

He's reverted each of my reverts, so I had to back of 3RR. And despite my posting specifically for this on the Talk page, he ignored my post and just said ''you still disagree? please prove me wrong on talk page, then put it here''. This user has a long-term pattern of being an SPA to defend the interests of Dera Sacha Sauda and its founder Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. There may also be another sock, User:Yogesh.insan978 who was SPAing on the same topics during the block.

I've been dealing with this lot for around a year now, and the exact same arguments over over where they insist on giving the leader a bevvy of glossy titles, and hand-waving away murder and rape court cases. Yes, charges were dropped, but they were all over the media, the article mentions their being dropped, and they're still frequently cited my academic writers as evidence of the controversies surrounding the group. Thanks for any help!

I tried filing this at NPOV Noticeboard, but honestly the pattern is so blatant I figured best to bring it to the attention of the last blocking mod. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for forwarding to Ed, it's not that I'm on wikibreak, but that I have so much to do both on and off wiki for Wikipedia that you only see me here every so often. Was going to tackle it today, but thanks for taking it to him, really does help :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

poop patrol
Hi ready when you are!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI Clerk Training
Hi, I think I can meet with you over IRC. When is a good time/how do you want to do this? Thanks! Keilana | Parlez ici 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucky for you I just finished exams today :D so i'm free for the next while except Wednesday night (tentative), for sure not Friday Lunch time, and Saturday i'm traveling. I'm usually around a lot on IRC (at insane hours too), several of the channels there. If you can't find me, ask for me, someone can hunt me down. :)
 * Yay for exams being done! I'm usually around sometime between 19:30 and 7:00 UTC. D'you want to set up a first time, then work from there? (most convenient for me would be after 4:30 UTC today.) Keilana | Parlez ici 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm...We can give it a try, I don't know how tired I will be though, so maybe just preliminary information. That is just after midnight where I am and with not much sleep last night with exams, i'm not sure how long I'll last. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, is there a specific channel I should go to find you in? Keilana | Parlez ici 00:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * is the SPI dedicated channel. :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the mail
On the heels of this, it's rather hard to construe the remark here in a way that is different than how its target perceived it. That said, you have my full permission to do as you see fit. Toddst1 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will reply by email again. :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam
Hey DeltaQuad, you assigned rollback and reviewer rights a couple of days ago "per private request". Were you made aware of the fact that the day before you approved those, Arcandam had had his request for rollback declined at Requests for permissions/Rollback? Also, I'm interested as to why you also gave reviewer rights, even though they are not currently being handed out (since pending changes is not active), although admittedly it may be reactivated again quite soon, so I can see the reasoning behind that. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded IRC. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang RfC (Part II)
Hi User:DeltaQuad! I hope you are doing well! I just wanted to inform you that a new RfC concerning which draft should appear in the "religious and philosophical implications" section of the Big Bang article has been opened. Hopefully you can monitor and eventually close the RfC when that time arrives. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Archived on 12:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)