User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/April

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi,

I was just looking on my watchlist and saw that I apparently reverted your archiving of the case above :S Pretty sure I never pressed that button, but my apologies. Not sure how to handle it so I figured I would just let you know. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 21:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid the MacMed's reversion; please let me know if it causes problems for me to do that. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks all good. MacMed: just rerevrt yourself when that happens :) Anyway, thanks for the note guys. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was came across the SPI and I think I found a connection that might merit not closing the case just yet. WikiManOne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) This user ceased editing about a month ago. I didn't make a connection until I saw the edit by Bahaha to Planned Parenthood earlier tonight. WikiManOne was active in WP:ALVA, of which Robert Hurt (politician) is a part and also got himself into a lot of trouble in the abortion articles. Do you think this is worth adding to that Bahaha case or filing an SPI or not worth looking into? Sailsbystars (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If I look into it now, I'll screw something up :D I'll take a fresh look in the morning as I wasn't sure about this case in the first place. It's currently on hold. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure at this point. It would explain the edit gap...but it seems like a bit of a jump for that. Did you have some diffs in mind? (You could be right though, that's why I ask) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Tom Periello was our congressman up until last November, when he was defeated by Robert Hurt. Wikimanone made several edits to Tom Periello's article to make him look favorable, but they were all sourced primarily to liberal blogs [1] [2], much like bahaha's contentious edits to the Robert Hurt page, only the edits to the Hurt article are in the opposite direction [3]. Baha also shows signs of being an experienced editor, with excellent use of edit summaries, and knowledge of 3rr and how to use a warning template[4], roughly the same experience level as WikiManOne. WikiManOne disappeared shortly after receiving a one month topic ban on abortion articles (for edit warring to make pro-life individuals look bad and pro-choice people look bad), which is about the size of the gap between WikiManOne and the two SPAs on Robert Hurt. The connections aren't the strongest, but there are a lot of them. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting finds Sailsbystars. I was surprised that the sockpuppet investigation turned up negative at first, but there is a possibility you found the main sock. Truthsort (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will replace this comment in about 5-9 hours with my review. Just been a bit more busy this weekend. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 17:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done w/ CU request. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take action soon and block User:Tomprox and BahahahaaO.o. It is quite obvious that WP:DUCK applies and now Tomprox is editing on the Robert Hurt. Truthsort (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

After Tomprox and BahahahaaO.o were blocked, SayHiWorld (who has not edited since March 26) has decided to make a return to the Robert Hurt article. Truthsort (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested and adding article to my watchlist. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 12:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso

is not appearing in this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

It looks like it did not get automatically put on the list, so now no one is seeing it. Do you know how to add the report to the list?

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It needs to have a {{SPI case status}} at the top in order to get transcluded by a bot which updates the case pages about every 15 minutes or so. I added one, so it should be listed shortly. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso

is not appearing in this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

I was not the original submitter but it looks like it did not get automatically put on the list, so now no one is seeing it. Do you know how to add the report to the list?

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it.... previous case was not archived so the bot went by the first SPI case status, which was the previous case which was closed (and thus de-listed). The previous case should be archived before submitting a new case if it is closed. If it is still open, just add the new socks to the existing case. This usually isn't a problem, but serial sockpuppeteers sometimes pop up faster than clerks can get to the cases. I learned how to archive cases after similar problems with Scibaby sock reports.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DeltaQuad. I did not agree with the HelloAnnyong decision about User:ConcernedPhotographer. As you have joined the previous discussion, perhaps you are interested in this comment. Anyway, thank you for your work, and sorry if I am bothering you. All the best. --Xabier Cid (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Will reply on his page. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 11:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Per IRC,

• California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -> lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)
• Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs)

Thank you so much,  Chzz  ►  04:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be able to look into today. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot where you wanted me to post this, but here is what I see/think

California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a list. Except for section 3 & 4 it's a list. I would recommend making 1 & 2 into paragraphs. Section 5, if it's going to be on wiki, needs to be a seperate list. It's way to big for the article. The colours and bolding confuse me in section six, I don't know what they are/why they are highlighted. Section 7, you have a template, then no template for yes/no. I would say try to stay consistant. 7.1 - What are these results for...what was voted on. Looks really well sourced and keep up the good work.

Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Posted on talk

-- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Best place for comments is the article talks - or, leaving notes for the students on their talks.

I've just copied your comments on the first one to Talk:California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Comments_from_DeltaQuad - I hope that is OK with you.

For the second - if, when you've looked at it more, you could post it on Talk:Education policy in Brazil that would be great.

My students should be monitoring those talk pages, and should respond on them and address any comments.

Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  12:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done All good and no problem. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.  Chzz  ►  00:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you with this, but I'm not sure how this kind of procedures usually develop and I don't want to risk their developing in the wrong way in this case. I saw that at the Ararat arev SPI you had requested blocks for 3RR evasion for the apparent Ararat arev socks, so the case has been moved to "Administrator Action Needed". Fine, but I'm worried - once you've moved it there, isn't there a risk that the whole SPI is going to end in a temporary block for 3RR violation? The problem isn't just momentary 3RR violations, it's that an indefinitely banned user is evading his ban by using socks. To prevent him from doing this, the sock accounts need to be indef blocked. I thought that evidence from IP addresses and behaviour alone would be sufficient for this, so I didn't request CheckUser.--Anonymous44 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I do see your point, and I planned to look into it today further. (I only did that bit because I had looked at the previous case on the merge) I will make sure that all of it gets handled. I don't have any more time today to look at it though. Hopefully I can look into this fully tomorrow morning. The only reason I asked for 3RR blocks was temporary to stop the disruption from those IPs. DQ.alt (t) (e) 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comments on my article - Education policy in Brazil. I am going to try to work on them, trying to make another push on the article by the end of this weekend. I really appreciate the help and welcome future comments/edits. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CoolKoon (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Air India Express Flight 812 at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!