User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/June

SPI case rename
I hope my move was correct but like you, I don't think that oldest account is related. I would have also endorsed for CU but am moving slower than you. :) Would it have been acceptable to have done the move and endorse for CU or would that be too many changes of state for a single clerk to do?

I hope my move didn't screw you up... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at it after you moved it, so it's fine ;) As for moves, I don't consider those status changes, it's only when you change the template at the top, and your not correcting yourself that counts as a status change. So you would have been perfectly fine to move and endorse. And also feel free to pile on if you reviewed the case to and we just conflicted, it shows you are getting to know the ropes. The move was correct for how the SPI was filed, I do suspect though that the case will be moved again away from the master that was named. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
during a recent content dispute here Nangparbat turned up doing the usual, once the account was blocked an ip pops up to revert  the ip geolocates to Sweden and appears to be a hosting service, could you check this out please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * and not a webhost. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking, most peculiar that IP appearing for just one edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

notice of thread related to your contributions
Hi - Please see - Administrators'_noticeboard - Its closed now, so a bit late to notify but i didn't know the identity of the other closers - thanks - You  really  can  19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually found this thread the day before, already closed. I know you would like to know the result, but please do be pacient with us, especially pending my red notice at the top of this page. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC
I'm around at the moment. Feel free to send me an e-mail. AGK [•] 07:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Found you. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help at the Turkish people article
Hi there, IP  which you blocked a few days ago is back again and has created a new account "User:Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood". They continuously remove cited information and has began edit-warring again. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol
Hi, I'm ready when you are! Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one problem right now, I don't have access to toolserver which has the files, due to the red notice at the top of my page. I will have to request that my key be changed too, so this is probally something that will not happen overnight. Sorry, -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My sympathies, my own PC has just got back from the shop itself. I'll keep an eye on the relevant page and be patient.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock evidence?
In responding to unblock requests, I came across the one at User talk:Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood, which you blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme. However, the investigation page Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive has no mention of Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood anywhere. This users edits seem constructive enough. I am hesitant to unblock that account, though, until I understand your reasoning for blocking it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out from two sections above this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I just wish to say that I don't have nothing to do with that guy accusing me. I think he took the reverts too seriously to try to involve me like this.-Ilhador- (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page posts
I have removed revisions from two pages where you linked another editor to personally identifying information. I am not 100% sure this is falls under the outing policy, but if you could refrain from reposting the material till I can get back to you (the basic info that the person has a COI is ok) till I get back to you tomorrow, while I confer with functionaries that would be great. Thanks, -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you message, I hope that this note finds you well! Normally, I would agree that we shouldn't "out" editors. But when they are employees of the marketing department of a company - as these two were - then exceptions should be made. By editting their own articles, they would appear to be corporately willing at a wider level to brake our own rules. One of these people has since changed her editorship to a newly registerd identity, and continues to this day to edit the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Trident13, just so you know, I brought up a hypothetical situation that's similar to this one for discussion with Arbcom shortly before the situation above was brought up on IRC. I hope to hear back from Arbcom within a few days. It may be that the community should have a public discussion on what the policy should be in this kind of situation. I'm waiting to hear what Arbcom thinks. I agree with you that Wikipedia has an interest in maintaining NPOV and preventing COI editing, and we will need to figure out how that should balance with the outing policy.  Pine ✉  16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message Pine, I hope that this finds you well! I agree that as opposed to solely naval gazing our own "outting" rules, there is a wider opportunity here. The big corporates are all depserate to mange their brand identity, and clearly entries here are part of thier brand management process. One of the articles referred to by DeltaQuad was not only editted by an employee, but created by them as well. Perhaps part of that wider discussion should be to offer to actively liaise with the big corporates, educate them on our rules, and offer them a specific interface which can assist in issues associated with their articles. My suspicion is that most would be willing to pay for such a service - possibly even via sponsorship - hence gaining revenue for Wiki Foundation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, talk page stalker here. I just wanted to point out to you that the personal information of editors who you think are paid is just as protected by our policy as the personal information of every other editor. No one has the right to "out" another editor publicly if that editor hasn't shared the information about themselves on Wikipedia. If you believe that you're dealing with an editor whose real-life identity is of paramount importance, your recourse is to contact arbcom privately about what you believe to be the identity of that user. Arbcom case precedent says that users can and will be sanctioned for outing others on Wikipedia in contravention of our outing policy, even if they believe the person has a COI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fluffernutter. This situation is more complicated than Arbcom's current precedent addresses. The "outed" information was already public, so it likely doesn't fall under the definition of "private information" which Arbcom's precedent addressed. What was unclear to DeltaQuad and I is if associating public information with the Wikipedia account should qualify as "outing" under the current policy. Furthermore, since Arbcom says "Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline", one thing we can discuss is whether the outing policy should get limited changes to allow for limited investigations of possible COIs in cases where the possible COIs should have been self-disclosed by editors but weren't. I think a community discussion on this may be appropriate.  Pine ✉  17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There may well be something to have community discussion over here, and I know you're speaking at least partially hypothetically, but if I understand you correctly, you're arguing that if information is public elsewhere on the internet - for example, if someone googling me can find details about where I work or where I live - then that's fair game to post on Wikipedia, even if the user hasn't posted it here? If that is what you're arguing, that's untrue - our policy is that such information is considered private unless the user posts or links to that information on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether my username is such that you can easily find that information; you still aren't supposed to post it. I suppose you could push to have policy changed to make "outings" like that acceptable, but currently they're not. Obviously there is some gray area, but I would encourage people to be extremely cautious in this area. WP:OUTING is a strong policy, strongly enforced, and you want to be absolutely sure that you get the community to change the policy before you start pushing the boundaries of it, especially since going against this policy, in particular, can affect people's real lives if you do it wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC) (Pardon me while I say "is such that" a few more times for good measure, and then remind myself to find a new linguistic tic to abuse) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fluffernutter for taking this up while my tablet was being a pain in the ass. Quick note, the information has since been oversighted. I now personally have a clearer view on things. Say that User X found user Y's girlfriends from facebook (and the wall was "public"), if you were user Y, would you want that posted onwiki. We all want some privacy in our life, but just because it's public, doesn't mean it should be linked. I think we can leave Trident13 with a note for next time not to do it, as I didn't fully understand myself. So to make this clear, we can say that the user has a COI, but to link their profile is another story. I mentioned having a discussion on the policy, because I thought it read as easy as looking through mud and left a grey area for discretion. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. So where does our policy actually say "that such information is considered private unless the user posts or links to that information on Wikipedia"? Maybe the policy should say that, but it doesn't right now. Regarding the Facebook example used above, if the information is irrelevant to Wikipedia, then yes there's no reason for us to have it here. I agree that there isn't a reason for a COI editor's private Facebook photos and personal phone number to be published on-wiki. However, it seems to me that evidence that's specifically demonstrates a potential COI would be appropriate for the community to know, particularly if the editor should have self-disclosed that information in the first place. Also, without such investigations taking place, it seems to me like the incidents described in US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia and this article wouldn't have come to public attention. Perhaps, as we were discussing, we need to find a way to tweak the policy a little. People have a right to privacy in their personal lives, but the community also needs to know about COIs including COIs that aren't self-disclosed, and I would think that we can find a way to balance those values.  Pine ✉  18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, it's right there in the first sentence of WP:OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine) I suppose we could debate whether it's only posting the content of the link, or posting the link itself, that's considered outing, but in my experience as an oversighter we treat links to personal information the same way we treat the personal information itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess both DeltaQuad and I lost that in our reading of pages of policies yesterday. Reading further down in the policy, "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy." In some circumstances, I would disagree, such as the examples I mentioned US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia and this article, where COIs should have been self-disclosed or the editing shouldn't have been done in the first place. It seems to me that we need to figure out how to thread the needle between a public "right to know" about COI editing, with the right of individuals to keep their private information off-wiki. I would appreciate your suggestions about how to do this, Fluffernutter.  Pine ✉  18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the needle-threading as it stands now (and here we get into the department of "I'm not on arbcom and hesitate to speak for how they would apply policy, so take this with a grain of salt") is that it's often ok, in cases of blatant COI, to say "I think this user has a COI on this article" or "I think this editor is editing to further the interests of [company]." When it becomes not ok is when you're saying "This editor is Joe Schmoe, who works at Blah Company" or "I'm pretty sure this is Joe Schmoe, look at this facebook profile I found to prove it". That someone might have a COI is not private - but the actual specifics of who they are, etc, which makes them HAVE that COI are often considered private. If you had evidence of that sort, you'd forward it to Arbcom, not post it on a talk page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see how the method that you propose can be acceptable under current policy, but if that's how things should be done in all circumstances, then why were we investigating and publicizing detailed account information like this and why do we have this article in public? Also, slight change of subject, I figured out how I and probably DeltaQuad read the sentence that you mentioned previously in a different way yesterday. I read it as saying, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment (on Wikipedia), unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." Your version is, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information or links to such information on Wikipedia." I think that your version is more likely to be what was intended, and at some point I hope that one of us will make a formal proposal to clean up that sentence.  Pine ✉  01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Swamilive
Now that one is blocked, he's already moved to this one. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (when I first saw it) by . I'll watch your user talk. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for fun

 *  Pine ✉  16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrunk to 100px just for size sake, but I like it and will probably move it to my user page soon. :) Thanks, -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your block
Hi,

could you please undo your block of User:Igny here, so that he can participate in the AE request concerning him. The original 3RR report was closed with "protected" after that board was informed of the AE request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to decline your request to unblock. Igny is now on his 5th 3RR vio, and after talking with a normal AE patrolling admin and an Arbitrator, we were all in agreement, that we can just transfer his responses over, and it would be for him to stay blocked for now. Thanks for staying aware though. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OTRS reminder
Pick up this ticket in the morning per request. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo in your candidature page
In your CheckUser answers, you respond that "I am currently perusing a Bachelor of Information Technology Degree (Computer Networking specification)" (emphasis mine). Do you mean pursuing? AGK [•] 12:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll fix it up. :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:SkepticAnonymous
I think you should be aware this user has returned from the now expired block you placed on him. Other than blanking his talk page, his first edit upon returning were these two edits, in which he made some rather strong, unsupported accusations against you. DragonflySixtyseven promptly removed the post from his talk page. Syrthiss responded.

I strongly recommend you refrain from being involved in this via any sort of blocking or other actions towards him, or even commenting about/to him anywhere. Rather, if the abuse continues post it to WP:AN/I and let other previously uninvolved admins handle the issue. It's obviously incendiary. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw these one of those diffs, and another that came up this morning via my watchlist. It might be an idea not to touch the button for him again, and for me to pull out what caused my blocks. Anyway I'm not too worried and I probably won't take him to ANI, but have another admin handle him. I'm just not a fan of ANI. The threat of vandalism if I "do anything" is actually serious though, and could get him a block. If he's reading this, I suggest he calm down and take a breath, because I didn't impersonate him, and I'm way to busy to even consider it. Though if I don't comment about him anywhere, how can I take him to ANI? ;) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  16:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I have looked, yes I do remember. I blocked two of his IPs for obvious evasion and making it obvious on IRC when requesting unblock. Someone should still have the logs if absolutely needed, as mine have been lost per the notice at the top. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  16:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, someone who threatens to conduct harm against Wikipedia should be blocked, at a minimum until those threats are retracted. That's more serious than the blatant personal attacks and unsupported claims. But, I'm content to wait and see. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Ironholds blocked him for a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes closure
Hi = If as you say - you are the reason its not being closed as your busy then just drop out of the close - we don't need you to be involved if you are busy - we don't need four closers at all - three or two would be fine - Are you an experienced closer - do you have a diff to some previous complicated admin closures you have made? thanks - You  really  can  08:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly did not read what I said. I said I was one of the bottlenecks. If you took all the "bottlenecks out" you wouldn't have a proper close. And the fact that your telling me to drop out after hours upon hours of trying to help close this is insulting. And for the list I took the extra time not to close the RfC on, my other closed RfCs:       , and my biggest close of all single handed (it wasn't my best close, I know): The tool apprenticeship trial. Now can I get a chance to help close the RfC that other people are leaving comments for me, to finish up our closure statement? --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what you said - So we have something in common, I also feel insulted by the inexplicable extended delay in closing the RFC - your busy at school .... as for your list of diffs - I was talking about major policy closers not merge discussions - anyway - User:The Blade of the Northern Lights - has given me some actual details , diff - so thanks anyway -
 * You never specified that you wanted policy closures, but I gave you one. I don't get what we have "in common", but as far as I understand, we don't. Your also still not reading completely, I don't have school, I have work...And don't take The Blade's number as static and come back and harass us if we need another day. Yes, I want to close this RfC sooner rather than later, but it needs to be properly closed because of the amount of scrutiny that will be from the community on our closure. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No rush, DQ, just FYI: WT:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 and WT:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogeshdube
Hi, I'm the user who initiated this SPI: Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogeshdube. Yogeshdube was determined to have abused another account to avoid a block. You helped close that, but I just noticed that Yogeshdube has not yet received any administrative action for sockpuppetry. The original one week block has expired and the user is now free to edit again. Is that normal? I just wanted to check. Michitaro (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I think I mistook the block for an indef block when I dealt with the case. Normally the block would be extended, but since it's expired, i'm going to dump a pile of salt in the mix, and not reblock him for now. I have given him a warning. Thanks for pointing it out. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OS Run
I would like to thank everyone for your questions and comments. If appointed I will strive to do the best job possible for the community and the project I will also keep in mind that according to this log I will be the only non-admin in the group and the best I could hope for is to pave a strong smooth path for future non-admins, again I appreciate your interest, concerns and support. Mlpearc ( powwow ) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for taking care of that little bit of personal info problem. Much obliged! :)

 Theopolisme TALK 23:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>

Hello!
Hello!

I've noticed through my patrolling of WP:UAA that it seems to be possible for the bot to 'look out' for serial sockpuppeteers like Bambi. I'm just wondering if it's possible to add to the list of sockpuppeteers that the bot watches out for, and, if it is possible, how this is done?

Great bot by the way!--5 albert square (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I actually need to get around to improving it. Like those accounts are only reported to UAA, and not written to an SPI. And a few other backend things are broken. But yes, anyway. There is the Blacklist in which the bot checks for regex based usernames to see if it matches. If you wanna give it a shot, go for it, and if your not sure on the regex part, or commands, feel free to ask here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again! We've decided that we'd like to use the bot on 2 socks, User:Demilealouise and User:Theunknownnun.  However, no idea how to start adding the code?--5 albert square (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, the whole point of listing it is to catch usernames that are similiar, so I need a base of what the previous usernames are so I can find a pattern to store it in the bot's black list. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, I will put that together for you, hopefully get it to you tomorrow :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)