User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2010/February

Sorry to bug you...

Hi, I hope this isn't too pushy of me, but I was wondering if you could give a little bit of attention to the troubles that are brewing at the The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time article. You'll recall that I had alerted you to the use of a possible sockpuppet account in early January 2010. Well things grew quiet for a while after my post and then 2 days ago this user has returned with a vengeance. He is having difficulties editing collaboratively and his edits have been described as edit warring by third parties. As he and I are still in disagreement about content at the Shigeru Miyamoto article, I would be extremely grateful for an independent review. If you are too busy please let me know so that I can ask another administrator. I am concerned that this is possibly a sockpuppet of the former puppetmaster User:Dr90s, and the only reason I am approaching you about this is because you had agreed in June 2009 to be the designated admin for Dr90s.

Just recently (Jan 2010) I had asked if there was a way for you to check if this editor is editing from Japan considering that this was Dr90s' location (as evidenced by the ISP for his 2 IP addresses). Getting no reply, I took the initiative to learn for myself that this new user has an account with ja.wiki (here) and with ja.wiktionary (here). This user has no other accounts with other language versions so I suspect this user is at least a Japanese speaker. The kinds of edits this user is making at the Ocarina of Time article regarding game-rank and reception (e.g. in this edit) is very similar to edits made by Dr90s, and edits like this demonstrate an interest in Eiji Aonuma, another of Dr90s' pet interests. Then there's the insistence on removing material from the article on Mr. Miyamoto. With under 50 edits under his belt, this user is citing wikipolicy in every other edit. Am I blowing things out of proportion or should I be filing a sock report? Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a bit too well-established to block per WP:DUCK, but I agree it's certainly fishy. I'd file a sock report ASAP. Tan | 39 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tan. I filed the report and the user is blocked. I appreciate your third-party perspective because this guy is so persistent that I start to get suspicious of everybody that makes any edits even remotely like Dr90s. I try to restrain myself until I am sure, but uncertainties gnaw at me. I think I may be about due for a good long wikibreak. IRL is kind of kicking my ass at the moment anyway. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I reported [204.191.136.214] last night for continuing to add false information to the Sheila Carter article even after receiving warnings for it. This IP keeps adding this same unconfirmed info again and again in different, POV laden forms ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). What should I do? Rocksey (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They did link to a source at some point - soapcentral.com. In your opinion, this isn't a good source? Seems that if they wanted to say something in the article about the rumors existing, they could. Maybe not; my point is that this IP is trying to source and I don't think they are being purposefully deceitful. Tan | 39 19:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Soap Central is a fansite. Like that link shows, they "publish" unconfirmed information and the speculation from posters on message boards. I'm not saying the IP is being deceitful. I'm saying he/she is continually adding unconfirmed information without using a reliable source. What should I do about it? I don't want to get into an edit war and I don't want this bad article to get any worse. Rocksey (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. From their terms of use: "SOC is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. Accordingly, SOC has no more editorial control over such content than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand." I will see what I can do. Tan | 39 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad advice for IPs

Sorry Tan. That wasn't how I meant it. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Greetings! I just wanted to give a public THANK YOU for your quick action on re-banning 66.172.165.2‎ for another year. Appreciate the work you are doing to help keep the trash out. Thanks again! Srobak (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you prompt action on blocking that anon IP leaving abuse on my page. I have been communicating with the Admin Nancy, and it maybe that this fellow is someone who has been blocked for sockpuppeting before, hence his hostility. Thanks --Sikh-History 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

These comments here roughly mean "you sister F*ck*r B*st*rd etc etc followed by verbal and physical threats" Is there any other action that can be taken? Thanks --Sikh-History 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure; if it happens again, i'll take away their talk page privileges. Tan | 39 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Request for review of block of User:Danieldis47

Hey, taking a quick look at the scenario I would presume looking at the ANI diffs that they were following an oldID link in, editing to comment, saving and thus overwriting the most recent version with an older version - At least thats what I pick up with my AGF hat on. Additionally I would think an indef block for the initial reporting reason to ANI is not needed either, and the user seems repentant and reasonable in their unblock request. Personally I think an unblock and a warning to be careful would be best here. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are confusing to me. It looks like time stamps were changed, various things switched around, etc - i.e., it looked very subversive. I still can't really make heads or tails of those diffs. Tan | 39 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is possible that it was a subvert attempt to change a few things, but nothing springs out at me as being worth the bother... I will trawl through some of the old diffs of ANI a bit. --Taelus (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The timestamp changing was someone else, as a long-term diff from back then to now reveals a few timestamps changing. [8]. Assuming that all his edits were reverted, the timestamp differences in his diffs would have been reversing the changes made by others. At least, thats the gist I get. Its a long confusing messy diff. --Taelus (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, I think Danieldis57 should explain the edit. Tan | 39 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with WP:AIV and all the vandalism

Myself and several other rollbackers have been having a rough time on Huggle this morning. Thanks for the assistance!--Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

Tan, You may recall this ANI thread from last week. I only protected Cheyne Capital Management for a few days, and the IP editor is back. Could you:

• Protect that page for the same 2 week duration you protected the others, and
• Give me your opinion on whether my concern about being seen as "involved" or not is too cowardly? I don't think I am, but haven't re-protected myself to avoid a time-sink discussion along those lines.

Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is just one IP, or two? Should we fully protect it as a bona fide edit war? Tan | 39 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Will answer in a little bit; I just realized that due to the weird behavior of the diff engine, there are no longer any sourcing/BLP issues (like there were last time), and this is an edit war over a section title and one phrase in a sentence. I need to look at this for a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite confident there is only one editor at 89.194.*.*. Not sure if the two IP's that reverted him are one person or two. He was using this same edit summary to revert to BLP violations last week, and since the diff engine wasn't comparing the two versions well, I assumed he was doing it again. I see now that this is not a crisis, but actually a fairly lame edit war. I suggest semi-protecting again (most of the warriors are IP's), just to stop the edit war, but this isn't the big deal I thought it was. If you protect, I don't plan on reverting their edits, I have no preference between the two versions. I've already commented on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that stopping an edit war by semiprotecting is technically against policy. I dunno. Your call; I don't think there's an "involvement" issue. Tan | 39 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it alone for now; I've just made an "editorial" edit, so I'm probably legitimately involved now, even if I wasn't before, but perhaps compromise is possible. As far as stopping an edit war with a semiprotection, the best way, of course, is to block the edit warriors, but the dynamic IP editor could skate right around that. Anyway, sorry to bother; the situation isn't what I thought it was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I was not trying to revert. I hit the wrong button. Sorry for the confusion. (I was in process of trying to undo it and you beat me to it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Tan | 39 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To unblock or not

You might find this amusing and possibly fitting: [9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews.net

Hi there. I thought I'd point you towards this [10]. Mostly, in order to get your input, but partially in order that you help ensure my (objectively and impartially worded) questions meet with the respect they deserve from Gibnews. You'll note that in his opening post he set some groundrules stipulating that involved editors should not contribute. Which is rather out of order, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, I have to say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per my reply to your comment on that page, I feel you were a little undergenerous with your assumption of good faith in your suggestions of button pushing! Also, the issue of whether gibnews.net is acceptable for usage as a primary or secondary source is entirely different to whether it is a reliable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ps if you wish to suggest someone "steps out of the room", a quiet word aside is a far subtler and more effective approach than a public admonition, deserved or otherwise... ;-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, you are of course correct. I thought that I could do it without actually saying it - and maintaining tact and respect all around - but when that didn't work, I was blunt. Probably should have emailed you or taken it to your talk page. You have to realize I am essentially on your side with regards to the site and the issues; I just want it dealt with in a different manner. Tan | 39 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. In the meantime I'll resist the urge to post there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the site's credibility on Wikipedia, it has not been an issue locally where its well respected. As pointed out, some content is available on other sites, some is not. Anyone curious could check to see if its the same. The GoG have regularly changed the structure of their site making links obsolete.

The provision about removing content without giving any reason comes from the lawyers in order to protect against any defamatory material being published, as mentioned the law here is strict on this and the website is considered a publication.

The best check and balance is that the contributors read it. One would not last for five years if their stuff got rewritten. No, there is nothing there from people clamouring to be annexed by Spain. I doubt you have much in your media about becoming an overseas territory of North Korea.

If as an uninvolved editor you have any questions, please put them on the WP:RSN page. I'm trying to avoid confrontation. Any suggestions on how to improve the site and dispel the view its somehow a conspiracy, kindly email me. --Gibnews (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Tanthalas39/Archives/2010/February - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology(?)

Hi, I just wanted to comment on this edit and apologize if necessary. I hope my judgement is good enough so we can agree on issues in the future and if it's not I hope to improve to the point where I can earn your respect. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I should have been more clear; the comment was directed at the first editor - and then I added your name simply because I agreed with you. Tan | 39 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That's a relief. Thanks for the clarification! Doc Quintana (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Twice in one day, sorry! [11] DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw, and immediately went to the corner store to buy a lottery ticket. Tan | 39 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

what was that therad all about anyway?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Job

Good job catching and banning all those people messing around with Fried Chicken...they arn't very happy haha --Bailo26 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

Hi, I think you edited through an edit-conflict here [12], accidentally removing another editor's comment. DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'll fix it... Tan | 39 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think we're friends now. ;-) Tan | 39 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

God no, agreeing with each other, spotting little problems, fixing them, thanking each other, no-one could ever think we are friends! DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Um, you did it again! [13]. The edit-conflict screen is really dangerous on a board like AN or ANI, I got a barnstar a while ago for identifying and fixing a lot of similar problems on one of the boards. DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even edit-conflict there; it posted immediately. A glitch with the system, perhaps? At any rate, I'll let you add it back in yourself... Tan | 39 02:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have made much the same point, so I won't bother, but I think you're right about a glitch in the system. As I recall from the case I handled a while ago, I wasn't convinced that the editor in question had got an edit-conflict screen every time. I think we've all known for a couple of years that the software isn't really up to fast-paced discussions. There are periodic rumblings about the imminent arrival of "Liquid Threads", which will apparently solve all such problems at a stroke. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Notice.

Please see [[14]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Tan | 39 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It will solve the problem. Either it's heard or as is likely it will be rejected out of hand. Either way it's a means to a end. It stops the endless threats and then opens the door for true disruption allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader

Accepting the bock reduction, could you then please post a formal notification to Proofreader that once his block expires he's not to continue with his arbcom threats or "documentations," or else risk being blocked again? He seems to still be at it. I realize he's saying he's ready to file, but with his history, who knows if/when that'll actually happen. Thanks in advance. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:45, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It is late here; I will do this tomorrow (or at least, reply to you as to what action I feel is appropriate). Given the block length, this should be adequate. Tan | 39 04:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow's fine, thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:22, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving him the warning. I think it adequately covers my concerns. Hopefully he'll listen. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:55, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the quick action on the vandalism from Dhfiwqgfhfdy‎. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporting at AIV

Heh, nah Huggle was just still set up to report automatically, I think I've changed it now :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Planning to delete references

What do you think of This ? --Gibnews (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion, really. Tan | 39 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I want the truth!

Did you or did you not order the code red on that soldier?! –xeno^talk 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC) p.s. see here, thought you might be interested

YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID yep, I was interested in that - thanks Xeno. Tan | 39 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user

Good afternoon: a user that you previously blocked for one year has resumed vandalism now that the block has expired. Just thought you'd want to know. –BMRR (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef semi

Hey, there. I noticed at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#A call to stop unilateral indefinite protections that you indefinitely semi-protected Madagascar (1994 film) in December 2008. This far after the fact, I don't even know if I'd remember why I protected a page like that, but given your log summary ("Persistent sock vandalism. Please consult me or User:Collectonian before unprotecting"), I thought I should inquire as to whether the protection is still needed, rather than simply being bold about it. Any thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)