User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2015/August-November

YGM

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

This is a pretty sensitive topic so I prefer to discuss it over mail. Regards, --Eurodyne (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Just FYI, DQ has been pretty busy and/or otherwise preoccupied these days so if it is something time-sensitive you might want to also reach out to someone else who can help, either directly or via the CU or ArbCom e-mail contacts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Sensitive is not the word I would use. You can mention one, without referring to the other. As I have said before (or at least that I thought I had said before), given your history, I'm not ok with handling your requests off-wiki, and will not be responding to the email. If you would like to discuss it here, that's fine. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that number of accounts and account status should be private. Anyways, I would like a clean start and you put a sanction on me saying I could not create any other accounts. I'm not clean starting to pass an RFA or anything but I have leaked some personal information before and would not like to be identified in the future. After this, I promise to limit myself to one account and stop using this one. Eurodyne (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of deferring the close?

I'll take my desysopping as gracefully as I can, but it would be nice if someone on Arbcom would take notice of TRM having forced false information into an article after its veracity had been challenged. Maybe some time will allow someone to notice that no remedy is aimed at that, and that TRM has never admitted that the contents of his edits were in violation of policy even if all edit-warring concerns were set aside.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If I inserted false information then it was absolutely accidental; ten years of working hard on content appears to have been entirely overlooked. This is all about the poor judgement and poor vision of certain admins. It would also be nice if someone on Arbcom would take notice of Kww having forced BLP violations into articles as I noted in the talk pages of the case. Kww has never admitted that the contents of some of his edits were in violation of his own implementation of his interpretation of policy. But I think we're already clear that this will fall on deaf ears. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) with apologies to you DeltaQuad, this kind of soapboxing/forum-shopping is an inappropriate use of your talk page.

• Thank you both for your comments, I'll try and formulate a response tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  It's not necessary for you to respond to my comment at all, of course that doesn't preclude a response to Kww. However, I see this as a sign of a polemic and problematic attitude that needs no further comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to discuss...

A possible removal of my sanction stating my one account rule. I'm willing to discuss it here. --Eurodyne (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eurodyne. Right now my concern is that you haven't abided by the spirit of your unblock conditions, particularly the Admin shopping one. You've definitely got it down to the letter, but that is it. Since our issues a few months ago with that, you've been rather inactive. So I haven't seen the positive trend I'd like to see before removing the restriction of the new account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

After a few months of good, active, contributions, are you willing to remove my active sanctions? eurodyne (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

UTRS

While it's tempting to go deny a bunch of unblocks out of pettiness, you probably would like to go disable my UTRS account instead of presenting me with that temptation.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DQ often being otherwise busy à lot of the time, I've proceeded with deactivating your UTRS account. Thank you for your diligence in notifying us, and thanks a lot for your dutiful service throughout the years. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Global locks

DeltaQuadBot reported an account for bad username, but the account had been globally locked about half an hour before the bot reported it. Could you tell the bot to check for locked accounts, so that it doesn't report them and so that it can remove them automatically if they get locked after they're reported? It's hardly a big deal, but it would just be a little more convenient and avoid making the bot look silly. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely something I can look into, I'd just have to see how the API works for global locks and I doubt it would be that would be hard at all to code or test. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Archival of talk page

Yo DQ! I know you're otherwise occupied, so I've taken some liberty to archive your talk page, especially since it was growing rather cluttered thanks to automated deliveries. I've only archived the automated stuff and whatever had already been responded to. Hope you don't mind too much, I know it's pretty... bold? But I'm trying to be helpful and support you however I can. In the same spirit, I've unsubscribed you from the two automatic deliveries for now, feel free to re-add your name if you wanted to keep receiving them, or if you wish to resume in the future. It was done here and here. I wish you well and hope you see you around again, in good spirits, whenever it becomes possible again. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I need to stay on Tech ambassadors for the sake of UTRS/DQB, but they don't have to stick in the archive. But ya, sadly keeping way too busy these days but always an email away. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I've never been happier to be reverted. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you

...but the open ticket UTRS report that transcludes to Category:Requests for unblock hasn't updated in eons. Did you set that up? No biggie, but I thought I'd mention it. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot (talk · contribs) hasn't updated User:DeltaQuad/UTRS Appeals since July 26th, but has continued its other tasks. I've looked through DQ & DQB's userspace and can't seem to find a "shutoff" that might have been inadvertently triggered. My next best guess would be an issue on Labs (I remember at some point in the past Labs had logged DBQ out for some reason?). I'll e-mail DQ about it, just in case! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...bloody labs again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And stuck again. Could you please give it a nudge/prod/bludgeon when you have a spare moment? Thanks, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 and MusikAnimal: As far as I understand, I am still waiting on moderation for my subscription. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot

Hi! I noticed that when someone tags a report at WP:UAA/BOT with {{UAA|e}}, DeltaQuadBot removes the report but does not move it to the holding pen. Since the {{UAA|e}} tag indicates that the user's edits should be monitored, I think it would be best if these reports were placed in the holding pen. Maybe you could edit the bot so that it places reports with {{UAA|e}} in the holding pen, similarly to what it does with e.g. {{UAA|d}}? Belchior90 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Never recieved. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention and suggestion Required

User:D4iNa4 is recently returned from an SPI block and started edit warring and removal of contents about Pakistan victory 1 and a Picture 2 from [Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts] with a really blatent reasons, for which he was warned for Edit Warring by a user on his talk page 3,since then he started warring logged out 4 and oversighted the details.Now can you Please tell what can i do about this Duck. HIAS (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Special VU

Hey DQ. What was the deal with User:Special VU? I noticed their articles and was somewhat suspicious, but is there some history I should be aware of? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got... a Github notification

Can you check there? Thanks. --Rschen7754 04:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Urgent UTRS fix needed

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

e-cigs arb case

Hi, thanks for agreeing to take over this case. We've just passed the revised PD date with no outcome in sight, I wonder if I could impose upon you to make a post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision to indicate to case participants when you expect there might be a resolution? Understandably, some of the parties to the case, who might be facing some form of serious sanction, have been left in limbo for almost six weeks now, and I'm sure some guidance on when the case might be concluded would be warmly welcomed and provide them with some certainty. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Request of Removal of Sanctions

Hi DeltaQuad.

It's been a few months since I last came to you and have been making active and positive contributions to the project. I haven't violated any of the sanctions since my unblock a year ago listed here. Regards, eurodyne (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Eurodyne:, I haven't forgot about your request, just have been busy with ArbCom work. Give me a short while and i'll get back to you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look forward to that. eurodyne (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My one question for the moment is: Will you abandon your account globally or just locally? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to stick with this account. I'm not abandoning anything. I'd just like to edit sanction free from now. eurodyne (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about vacating all except sanction 1 for the time being? That would give time to assess how you handle the release from the other ones before letting you go to create a new account? That obviously wouldn't stop any admin for blocking you again if you did violate some of the wording of the expired sanctions, but I feel like a BASC appeal would not be the best use of our resources considering your track record up and to this point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't plan on creating any new accounts any time soon so I guess that would be alright. I'd rather just walk away clean, but if you feel that specific sanction needs to stay, there's not much I can do about it. I'm willing to take your offer now as long as I can request full removal later. eurodyne (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Willing to go ahead with that. You can take this as official confirmation that only the first bullet point of the original unblock sanctions now remains in affect. Feel free to come back a little down the road and we'll absolutely consider the last one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is To the UTRS tooldev list.
Message added 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Quite urgent, if you have time. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "physical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←

Keilana (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Username? (Not important, just curious)

This is neither a) any of my business, b) important, or c) urgent, so I won't be offended if your just revert the post -- how did you come up with "DeltaQuad" as an account name? NE Ent 03:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pehaps this could be a plausible origin. Dr. K. 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That it right there ^. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thought it might be -- only came to mind because of recent activity involving an account named after a native of said quadrant. NE Ent 14:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

In this case (the edit to Jimbo's talk page), I agree that Rev-Del works just as well as oversighting. Thanks for being so quick. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful and humble comments on the arbitration committee. It is encouraging to see somebody who is willing to consider that maybe they don't know everything, and to listen to outside voices. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jehochman: (pretty sure this is re. AE2 talkpage comments) If I knew everything, I wouldn't be sitting on ArbCom. I'd be telling them what to do from the sidelines and watch them succeed or fail. But thank you for stopping by. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor CE ?

Re: this. Aspirations = aspersions? I echo the sentiments expressed by others in recent hours above, btw. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, as usual my spelling is worth less than a coffee. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A question about WP:ARCA

I hope you can answer this question, I cant seem to find the answer. Looking at the PD in e-cig it is looking like it may be necessary for me to file at WP:ARCA once the case closes in order to bring evidence. I am a little confused looking at the WP:ARCA page as to its purpose. Specifically is it to request to be allowed to present evidence and in effect reopen the case once it is closed, or is it to present the evidence itself there? AlbinoFerret 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: You can specify your evidence at that location. It will not re-open the case, merely request a review. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The 1000 word limit is a problem, I have extensive evidence, 6000 words and 228 diffs and the NPOV portion alone is about 75 diffs and needs the that many to show a persistent pattern. Can I please have a place to show the entire evidence or at least a good chunk of it? I started a section yesterday night [1] but it is only a small fraction of what I have and may not be the best examples because of the limit. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to grant an extension of some sort, but could you user space the material, and I'll see what I can do to look into the limit? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was simple copy and paste. Here is a link User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/evidence. 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, so a few recommendations to help the numbers:

1. If a diff says something, don't quote it, just link it.
2. Show us 3-4 examples of what your trying to present. We can get the point without an essay being written. If you feel you really need to make your point, double that at the MOST. Choose your strongest points. Particularly, the "NPOV/Negative Advocacy" section is what I refer to.
3. Don't represent evidence, especially after it was in the final decision. Maybe note the FoF at best. "Gaming the system" is what i'm referring to here.
4. If possible present what you would like done. Always makes a clarification/amendment of the case request (Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment) easier.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, The only reason I quoted what an edit was to show it didnt match the source, but I will trim it down. The only reason so much is there, is because it was found. The only thing I think needs more than 3 or 4 is the NPOV, but the limit also effects bringing in other stuff. I will not add gaming the system. I thought it was clear what I want done, but I will clarify that right now. If I can have more words, please let me know the new limit. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes, I am having trouble lowering the NPOV section, all of it looks extremely bad to me. But I did change a few to stronger ones. I need to take a break from WP to take my wife to the doctor, I will come back to it later today. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok DQ, I think I have whittled enough, and found the worst actions, The NOPV stuff is all bad and may take more than a few instances to prove because its a long term problem, its like death from a thousand cuts. But right now I am under 1000 words including the diffs. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if you might be making unnecessarily heavy weather of this, AlbinoFerret? If your objective is a topic ban for QuackGuru, just pop along to WP:AE with a link to the Arbcom decision and diffs of the things he's done since the case closed. 42 edits to Electronic cigarette in three days not counting 15 edits to the talk page, including several pre-emptive changes while talk page discussions are ongoing; issuing inappropriate "warnings" to other editors (by which I mean, me)----there's a clear pattern of controlling behaviour there which shows he's disregarded the Committee's words completely. Even though I predicted exactly this ("A glance at QG's block log ought to tell you he does not listen to admonishments or warnings"), I'm nevertheless amazed by how blatant about it he's being. I personally think it's open-and-shut.

  Also, Arbitration Enforcement will be a vastly quicker route than getting a decision out of the current committee.—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

While there are examples recently added from after the arbcom case, I will not be using them at ARCA due to space limitations. As I understand it, nothing would stop anyone from going to AE now or at some point in the near future with that evidence and what you have gathered S Marshall. One thing AE might not be able to deal with is Cloudjpk, who is an SPA that appears from the evidence presented to be a meatpuppet. If I am wrong about that, please let me know. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I probably should have posted at the end instead of the middle thread. I think that I have followed your suggestions, though I did add a few more to the NPOV. While I would like to add more to prove the long term NPOV problem, if you dont think its necessary I can live with whats there DQ. I would like some more words to respond to any comments if possible because I am at near the limit now. AlbinoFerret 13:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• No need for the extension, QuackGuru was topic banned for 6 months, I have partially withdrawn the ARCA request as pertains to him. There is more than enough room for the other editor. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I figured that was going to happen and was needed as per my comments in the arb case. I apologize for not reviewing it sooner...the dirty snow has been quite heavy here. That being the crap life puts on us, not actual snow as it doesn't seem to be staying like it should this time of year -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The next year and ArbCom

Since my first year is coming to a close with the Arbitration Committee, I would like to take the time with the community to go over how I as an individual Arbitrator can improve to serve the community better. I obviously won't agree with every view point here, but I would like to at least view and/or respond to the comments made by willing parties. This is just for me only, and is not a review of the committee's actions as a whole, but my individual contribution to the Committee. If you would like to see me be proactive in specific matters, please do list them briefly below. I look forward to reading the comments. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see an arb doing this. I think others have done similar things in the past (I had a userspace page for people to make complaints at, but that didn't work that well). Have you considered keeping a log of your workflow over the year, so it is clearer how that could be managed? It would also be something that would help when having a review or discussion like this. It might not feel like it, but people don't really follow in great detail what each individual arb does. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it may not be obvious sometimes who is following what each arb does from time to time. :-) It was a particular comment that I noticed which led me here (and it's not even the userspace comment); DQ's gut instinct may be far more valuable than others realise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carcharoth and Ncmvocalist: User:DeltaQuad/ArbCom Activity for your viewing pleasure :) Standard really fast talking and super small text disclaimer on accuracy is not guaranteed, etc., etc. And thanks Ncmvocalist, it's rare that I do use my gut in ArbCom decisions...but in this case I felt it warranted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad. I think you've been a very good and fair arbitrator. And I miss your excellent work at WP:ANRFC after you've become an arbitrator. :)

My one concern was that you took over the drafting of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision on 29 September 2015, saying that you planned to have it done by 3 October 2015. However, you did not post the proposed decision until 28 October 2015. Neither the Arbitration Committee nor you posted an update about the case's status on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision, and you didn't respond to a clerk's question your talk page.

S Marshall was frustrated about the lack of action. He started a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#Arbcom and retired after nothing happened. (He returned after the decision was posted.)

I think more communication was needed in this case so that the community would have had an expectation of when they would see the proposed decision. It would have prevented editors from wondering whether the Arbitration Committee had forgotten about the case. Unforeseen delays because of real-life issues can happen and are okay, but the lack of communication is not good.

Other than this issue, I think you've done a very good job on the Arbitration Committee, and like Roger Davies and Doug Weller below, I respect and admire your courage in disclosing very personal information to the community.

Cunard (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard: Your absolutely right on that. I really should have been more talkative during that time about how things were going. The sad part is I only picked it up cause I thought no one else would. Whether that was a good assumption or not...i'll leave to the readers discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more communication in the future would be better. It's bad that you were the only one available to draft it even though you were busy. Thank you for taking on this difficult, thankless task. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Merged thread for convince. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a brief note to say how much I respect your integrity and courage in disclosing intensely personal material to the community. I have nothing but admiration for you as none of this can have been easy. I don't always agree with what you say but I do have the highest respect for you as an arbitrator. Thank you for your service. May it long continue,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Second this. That was my response when I saw the change on my watchlist. Doug Weller (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Had it been any earlier this year, I probably wouldn't have done such a thing. But now that I feel I have a track record established that things do not interfere with my ability to BE an arbitrator, it's easier to disclose I must admit. To those who are reading this, I do want to say thank you, I haven't received a single bit of harassment or discrimination onwiki for this. It's a lot different from out from behind a computer screen.

For those who are wondering a bit about my motives as for doing this, a question came up in the ArbCom election questions to the candidates that requested the disclosure of such information. I felt it was unfair to ask 2/3s (that's how much of arbcom we are replacing...scary) of ArbCom the question, but not ask the rest of us. I'm also a little tired of this game that ArbCom is too secretive behind closed doors. Yes, we could put more out in public. Would we be just as effective? About 80% of the time the answer is no. This is a case where I can still be effective with disclosure, so in the interest of openness, my userpage gained some more text. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Well I'm personally delighted that you've made the disclosure, especially when you're in such a high profile role. I have long been appalled by the way trans people have sometimes been treated on Wikipedia and it's an indicator of the project's increasing maturity that your experience has been positive. For what it's worth, I think you're a great role model and I expect your openness and courage will encourage others to do the same.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you explain this

Why it was done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Marlinsfan1988

Thanks Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the user was evading a previous block in place, I can't really say much more than that as the information includes quite sensitive data. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It was just that he/she seems to have been editing in a mundane sort of way for some time before this block happened, with seemingly nothing to suggest any evasion (such as making the sort of controversial edits that would justify making an evasion). There is also this [[2]] and this [[3]] and this [[4]] which I wonder might be connected to this block. Nomoskedasticity has been implying they are connected. If so, it seems a bit suspicious to block for unstated reasons when the individual is involved in an ongoing AfD discussion and has not been mentioned in those sockpuppet investigations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you with certainty that it is not that sockmaster. And I can understand your concern about the AfD votes, but this person isn't allowed to contribute to the encyclopedia at this time. I hope that answers your concerns. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's OK. If there is not a connection then it isn't an issue, and I accept that a blocked editor has no right to be voting in an AfD under another name. Though I don't know why it should be a secret who the blocked editor is. By "implying" I meant that Nomoskedasticity had mentioned the block on the AfD, which, given the ongoing issue of edits by representatives of OMICS, and by socks, and whether they should all be blocked, inevitably carried with it the implication that Marlinsfan1988 was such an editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

saw this

[5] ... nope. Wikipedia should not be here to "teach behavior". I will support you to be a member of Arbcom because you are very good at that ... but I disagree with this. — Ched :  ?  03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• put a hold on the post above. Let me read it again. Maybe I am wrong in my conclusions. — Ched :  ?  04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)