Jump to content

User talk:Athaenara: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
sorting
Line 277: Line 277:
|}
|}
</center>
</center>


== Third Opinion: Edit conflict at "South Ossetia War" ==

Sorry for inconvenience. I am not very interested at permanent edit conflicts therefore i am looking for a third opinion in this case the first time. Thanks for your correction you did before i coud do it. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#US_Embassy_in_Moscow:_Kommersant_did_inaccurately_translate_US_Ambassador.27s_comments]]
[[User:Elysander|Elysander]] ([[User talk:Elysander|talk]]) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:49, 25 August 2008

User:Athaenara/Status

            Archives                             Athaenara's Talk Page                             Gallery            


 Wednesday  21 August 2024  07:35 UTC 
This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on a site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara.

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

The Signpost
14 August 2024
 
VANDALISM THREAT
Guarded __ __ __ __ __

Template:Multicol-end

Email

An account for Wikipedia-related email to me exists. However, I check its inbox infrequently, perhaps once or twice a month. I receive few messages there and send none. If you seek my attention for any Wikipedia-related matter, please post your concerns on this page (e.g. here). — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Requests for Adminship

● See Archive 000 for inactive RfA discussions.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Thankspam

Thankyou

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilliamH

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paul Erik

Athaenara, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank you

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JGHowes

Athaenara, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008

—Preceding undated comment was added at 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

● See Archive 00 for inactive deletion discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

See also: Deletion policy • Deletion review • Why was my page deleted?

Protection of deleted article

→ In re: nonsense/hoax articles and sockpuppets (1st, 2nd, 3rd reports)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard


Article links (list may be incomplete)


Socks: all timestamps 2008 (UTC)


Hi, earlier today you deleted the hoax/vandalism article Martinez And Caldwell, which I had nominated for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, it's been recreated and redeleted twice since then. I was wondering if you could protect the file to prevent it from being created again. Thanks.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first (and possibly best :-) advice is to list it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (I rarely protect pages myself). — Athaenara ✉ 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked [one] user who was doing it. — Athaenara ✉ 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reported it as you suggested, but not before the vandal got a new identity and recreated the article again.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were at least four instances with several name variations which I tagged for speedy deletion over the last few days. I had watchlisted all of the possible permutations I could think of. I knew that the article was being created with a bunch of different names, but I didn't realize there were so many user names involved. The vandal certainly seems proud of the page. It is a good looking hoax. Too bad that creative energy isn't being applied to something constructive.
BTW, thanks again for referring me to Requests for page protection. I thought that was just for protection of existing pages and didn't realize it could be used for protecting deleted pages from being recreated.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! (WashingMachine11 hit a sister project: see Wikiquote Administrators' noticeboard#Martinez & Caldwell nonsense hoaxes.) — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the above table of the logs. I reported and got Police Cops (television series) protected. I'm impressed that you preemptively protected Caldwell y Martinez. I wonder where the vandal will strike next. Or maybe this is finally the end of it. In any case, I'm glad I chose you to report this to, since you've made it into such an interesting project.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (NOTЄ ЭTOИ)  10:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind a bit (and thanks for saying I made it interesting!). RHaworth updated the lists with the "and/or" variant above. — Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard. As first on the scene, user Jean Girard should be considered the "puppetmaster" until such time as the real one, who is probably a registered user with a more extensive edit history, is turned up. — Athaenara ✉ 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the latest page Martinez and the Fellow who is Formally Known as Caldwell and user Snappy13. As of the time I'm writing this, the file hasn't been deleted yet. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM (NOTЄ ЭTOИ) 02:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today's versions (at least the ones I know about): Martinez & Caldwell & Others (created/deleted twice and then protected) and Caldwell & Martinez & Others which I've marked for speedy delete and protection. It looks like the user StockMarket12 (talk | contribs) removed a tag, a behavior which I haven't seen before.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it that you're continuing to keep me informed about this. I added the new sock (there are at least 15 now) and the two additional articles (those are up to at least 10) to the sockpuppet report, but I don't know how effective that will be as it has been archived (see below). Sorry that the sockpuppet report process is so unfamiliar to me—I'm just doing the best I can as I go on. — Athaenara ✉ 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caldwell & Martinez & Others is back, created by Lieutenant Jim Dangle (talk · contribs). This time it was up for about two and a half hours before I discovered and tagged it.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  00:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard (3rd) (not sure I did it right) and asked for advice on User talk:Jehochman#Hoaxes and socks. — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now M and C by Wiegel42 (talk · contribs). Please let me know if you want me to discontinue reporting these to you. Of course, thanks to your efforts, maybe the vandal will be stopped soon (or he'll finally tire of this dreary little game he's playing).  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  03:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious now that Enigmaman's archiving of the first sockpuppet report was premature (separate pages for the most recent two of the fifteen socks merely fragment an otherwise clear picture rather than aid the process) and Scarian's bitter blast of animosity (diff) in support of it was out of order.
Alison's one month block of three IPs (69.137.62.64, 69.255.154.165, and 172.134.26.80) may have short-circuited further registration of throwaway sock accounts, but it's too soon to know whether the whole hoax campaign has been slowed down or even stopped. Mandarax, you have been very helpful. Please don't hesitate to post any further information here. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It wasn't premature. The current issue was resolved. When someone files an SSP report and the decision is made to block the master and the listed socks, the case is resolved. If more socks surface, you can always submit another case. Alternatively, you can ask checkuser for additional help with a possible rangeblock to prevent even more socks from appearing. The SSP case you submitted was treated in the same way the other SSP cases were. There is no requirement for cases to remain open for 10 days or any arbitrary amount of time. Enigma message 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I would appreciate it if you'd stop painting me as someone who abusively archives things out of process. I don't know if you noticed, but the 2nd and 3rd reports on Jean Girard have also been closed and archived. This is the way SSP operates. You are obviously unfamiliar with it. If you disagree, perhaps bring it up at WT:SSP and make a proposal for a change in how things are done around there. I was following the guidelines and recognized procedure for dealing with sockpuppet reports. Enigma message 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how persistent the vandal is, I was surprised that the block was successful in stopping this for so long. Martinez e Caldwell is the current title, by Deaf Johnny (talk · contribs). (I certainly could have missed some others, too. I've been checking the deletion logs, but not really perusing them too carefully.)  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article links and userlinks lists above after adding your new information to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard (Nishkid very kindly corrected the format there). — Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Segue:  Mandarax, you impress me as conscientious and very aware of administrator-like concerns. Have you ever considered adminship? — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind words, Athaenara. Yes, I have considered that I would be able to serve Wikipedia more efficiently as an admin. I am very proud of my 4500 edits and I am confident that RfA !voters would find little to nothing in my contributions to object to. But I'm afraid my lack of contributions in some areas would be a deal-killer. I've got tons of anti-vandalism work and lots of edits which wikify, cleanup, or otherwise improve existing articles, but I've only written about four short articles. And I've contributed little to nothing in areas where admins may be expected to participate such as WP:XFD or various projects, and almost nothing outside of main article space (besides user warnings).  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wondered how you felt about it. If ever you are nominated (I'll see it in the Tangotango report transcluded above) I will be glad to support it. — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! It's nice to know that I'll have at least one supporter!  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  09:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SSP

→ In re: early closure of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard by Enigmaman.

What's the problem? It was resolved. Best decision you could've hoped for. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman closed many (dozens?) of such reports today. It was too early for this one, which was opened less than 24 hours ago. Ten days are allowed for a checkuser request and no attention has yet been given to the two anonymous IPs involved. — Athaenara ✉ 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna be honest, you've pissed me off a fair bit and I'm pretty angry right now. Do you not understand that this is SSP and not WP:RfCU? You don't need an SSP for a CU. You can go straight ahead to a CU without an SSP. RfCU's do NOT require an SSP. And the IPs will be taken out the by the autoblock anyway, so what's the point? Autoblocks last 24 hours which is as much as I would've blocked the IPs anyway. Which makes the whole point of re-opening the SSP completely and utterly redundant. We worked for over an hour clearing that backlog and you've just thrown away our hard work just because you're not satisfied about a totally fine closure. We did everything that was to be expected and we followed it to the letter. I won't hide my disgust. You didn't need to open that SSP again. Maybe you didn't know that. Just to double check I had another admin check it out and he told me: "just let it sit there...it will make her happy...then after the 10 days archive it again". Enigmaman and I are incredibly offended at your lack of respect. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I'm not angry. I do not know why you and/or Enigmaman have been "incredibly offended" and claimed a "lack of respect." I frankly see your post as an over-reaction—it's way over the top. — Athaenara ✉ 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athaenara, I can see where Scarian is coming from here seeing as he just spent a lot of time and hard work clearly a rather large backlog at SSP and then you com right through and undo his hard work, I would recommend contacting the user/admin that closed the case next time instead of undoing their actions. Also, you may be a bit confused by how the whole process works. SSP is not required too file a RFCU and is not a forum to request any type of CheckUser assistance (that needs to be done at WP:RFCU). Also there is not "10 day limit" like you seem to think there is, and to be honest I really am not sure where you got that from. In hopes of not starting a edit war I am going to leave the case open to allow another admin to review the case, but after looking over it myself it appears like it was handled rather well. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be edit warring over this. — Athaenara ✉ 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety, I apologize for any confusion I caused, and I thank you for being so reasonable about it in contrast to Scarian's anger and "disgust" above. (I feel a need to point out that this was about the fact that I removed the {{SSPa}} page archiving template one time from a single report and re-added that report one time to the active SSP page.)
In re "there is not "10 day limit" ... not sure where you got that from": I saw it once two days ago when I was trying to figure out how to file a suspected sockpuppets report. I hunted for it since your post here and finally found it again in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect: "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, the report will be closed by an administrator." — Athaenara ✉ 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for following up on that, Enigmaman. — Athaenara ✉ 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACV-300

→ In re: user Oguzhantr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 88.228.222.33.

Hello Athaenara,

As you are the Admin who deleted the copyright violating article FNSS Armored infantry fighting vehicle I ask you for advise. The deleted article was not only a copyvio, it was also redundant, as the already existing ACV-300 is about the exact same vehicle. The user who "created" the deleted article, User:Oguzhantr, has edited ACV-300 so that it is identical to the deleted one (and therefore contains versions that are copyvios). Even though I reverted that once, he changed it back already. My question is basically, what to do now? Can those copyvio-versions be deleted without deleting the whole article? Is it vandalism when he'll continue to revert my edits? The user seems, to put it mildly, "unaware" of copyright restrictions that exist here on Wikipedia, if you take a look at his talk page, and ignored the numerous warnings that he has received from numerous users throughout the time he's been working here. How can I now prevent him from doing more such stuff? --DavidDCM (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little update. Admin Ian13 has just blocked User:Oguzhantr for a week. But now an IP-adress user keeps on doing bad things to the ACV-300 article... :( (Who that might be?) --DavidDCM (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oguzhantr seems to be a user who is indifferent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, violates them regularly, and has never engaged in discussion on any Wikipedia talk pages.
If he (or she) uses anonymous IP addresses to evade the block (a diffs comparison reveals that 88* was used for that), they will be blocked as well. — Athaenara ✉ 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Judaism

Thanks very much for deleting the page. BTW, the user/hoaxster had blanked the page after some discussion and several warnings, but the Speedy Deletion tag was placed by yours truly, HG | Talk 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right (in re the tagging) but your calm explanations brought the user around to seeking deletion himself (or herself), so that's what I recorded in the deletion log. — Athaenara ✉ 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

● See Archive 0 for inactive Did you know? discussions.                                  

Signature talk

● See Archive 0 for inactive signature discussions. See also: A Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery and Beyond.

Miscellany

● See Archive 1 for inactive miscellaneous discussions.

Notability of Royal R. Ingersoll II

Hello Athaenara! I did a little research and it turns out that no ships were named after Lt. Ingersol, only after his father and grandfather (see USS Ingersoll (DD-652) and USS Ingersoll (DD-990)). Would you now agree that the article Royal R. Ingersoll II does not indicate its notability and hence is a candidate for speedy deletion? Adrianwn (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored the {{Db-person}} template you had added. — Athaenara ✉ 11:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons policy

● See Archive 2 for inactive BLP discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Third opinion project

● See Archive 3 for inactive WP:3O discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Conflict of interest guideline

● See archives 4, 5, 6 for inactive COI & COI/N discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Spam Event Horizon

Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon is an interesting and helpful essay. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gdewilde

Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch person attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime (t) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation looks rather fraught; I suggest that you post your request on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for attention from a larger pool of admins. — Athaenara ✉ 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Yilloslime (t) 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(resolved) — Athaenara ✉ 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SF Meetup #7

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 7
  Date: September 6th, 2008
  Time: 3 PM
  Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
  prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]


Third Opinion: Edit conflict at "South Ossetia War"

Sorry for inconvenience. I am not very interested at permanent edit conflicts therefore i am looking for a third opinion in this case the first time. Thanks for your correction you did before i coud do it. [[1]] Elysander (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&oldid=234185715"