User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2016/October

Reply here due now closed thread

Hi there, I'm posting a hopefully brief comment here since the AN/I thread is now closed. To avoid much repetition I only want to address this part of your comment; he made the point that he was outing the user, and that rule falls under WP:HARASS. My counter-argument is simply that Kelly did not out an editor as the information used to draw the conclusion was put by the editor in question on Wikipedia. To out someone means to go off-wiki, find personally identifying information, and then bring that to Wikipedia. COI is irrelevant in the OUTING conversation. Either it's outing or it is not, and in this case, it is not outing. I think that your counter-argument to him calling it outing/harassment is for now, invalid. Well it would be if there was any possibility that it is outing, as it stands, there is no possibility that it is outing. If MBO is Ethan then that is not outing as Ethan has placed their identity on Wikipedia and their alter-ego should be linked to Ethan except where it defeats the purpose of the alternate account - I have only ever since one instance where this was necessitated in a long-term abuse issue (barring joke accounts, bot accounts, or other trivial issues). If MBO is not Ethan then that is also not outing as no personally identifying information of MBO has been put on wiki. I am aware that Wiki policy for OUT dictates that this is still treated as outing, however, I find it hardly applicable where the question has been forwarded about SPI and no-off wiki evidence is being used - it is, at most, trivial. Like I said in the thread, I am not concerned with whether MBO is Ethan, but, that an admin has threatened severe punishment without due cause - let alone due process. If this had been raised in due process that would be one thing, but, the merits of the accusation weren't even looked at or mentioned by the admin, yet, they feel confident enough to jump to conclusions regarding it. Kelly should never have brought it to AN/I, so far, that has been their only mistake. Taking it to SPI was the correct action, it should have stayed there. AN/I is useless for these sorts of issues, I caution against going to AN/I for anything but black-and-white problems. (Sorry about the lack of brevity). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mr rnddude, I appreciate your message, no worries about length :) I understand that WP:OUTING refers solelyprimarily to off-wiki information, but the policy is still subject to some level of community discussion; although I'm not saying that his point of on-wiki information outing has reached consensus-levels of inclusion in the policy, but I feel that if 1) The user's use of multiple accounts doesn't break WP:SOCK and WP:VALIDALT, 2) Therefore, if it's true per his opinion that the Kelly reposting such information on the user's permissible use of multiple accounts has an adverse effect on him editing on Wikipedia (due to the user's involvement in controversial articles/topics and 3) If MBO and Ethan are not the same user and COI is ruled out, I think that though Iridescent's views doesn't reflect policy/consensus, his comments should have been taken a bit more seriously, and that is pretty much my point. Nevertheless, the discussion has closed after going through discussion. I'm happy to accept the outcome of the discussion, and I hope that the SPI investigation will settle things for what's really the case with regards to the MBO/Ethan or the purported user controlling both accounts. With best regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 01:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Help me

I have been banned from wikipedia-en* IRC channels. I didn't remember abusing the channels. What is going on? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to get on #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect to appeal your case or inquire about your situation. See Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help#Dealing with common queries. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 13:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hexafluoride: I can't even do that. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to contact someone on the list at Meta:IRC/wikipedia/Operators, who should be able to help you. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of users who are willing to help with IRC. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hexafluoride: @AntiCompositeNumber: I have tried reconnecting, and I can now connect, without going through any procedure. I'll be making some enquiries on #wikipedia-en-help to find out what happened. Thank you both for your kind attention. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Tuxis Pond

You have marked my page for deletion twice. I see no reason that my article should be deleted, and would greatly appreciate it if you told me how to improve my article. I realize that the subject is quite obscure, but it is nonetheless an important part of the local geography, ecology, and especially folklore. I would be thankful if you removed the tag. Removing this article would conflict with my article on Tuxis Island, as well. Sea Captain Cormac 02:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cormac Nocton: Please take part in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuxis Pond where you will be able to explain why you think the article shouldn't be deleted. This is a deletion discussion, there is no way your article can be deleted immediately unless it falls within the criteria of deletion, or is voted for deletion by the community through consensus. If you think the article is not good for inclusion into Wikipedia, maybe you should recreate it as a draft. As it is to me it satisfies the deletion by A7. I will not tag Tuxis Island as I think it makes sense for inclusion in Wikipedia as a notable location. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Message to Midnightblueowl: Regarding your SPI

Hi Midnightblueowl. Sorry for messaging you here, as I didn't want to talk about the SPI on your talkpage. I was extremely concerned that another another editor claimed your were a sock, which was why I took part in the ANI discussion. I have been following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midnightblueowl closely, but the last thing I know is that the SPI has been closed and deleted abruptly, with no further progress. Could you please update me on what has happened, including the SPI, and also your correspondence with arbcom? If you don't mind. If you prefer not to tell me anything, that is also okay. Thank you, and with best regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Optakeover. To cut a long story short, I explained why this situation had come about to Arbcom, and highlighted that there were privacy issues at play. They took a week or two to deliberate on it, and then they decided that there was basically no case to answer so the SPI was deleted. In all, it was just one big, frustrating waste of time for me, but such is life! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for your update. I'm very happy to hear that that SPI had no merit. It would be a shame to see the likes of you leave Wikipedia :) Thanks, and best regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. How could I get an administrator to delete the history please? There is an offensive edit summary which may be homophobic (even though I am healthy, there is a long cultural history makes it offensive to me).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:Hang on, let me try to get some help. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:Can you please show me which edit you are talking about? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This one (the one you reverted) and the edit summary.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:Pardon my ignorance (if any) but I don't see how it is overtly homophobic. Perhaps you could explain how it is? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary says, "Aids". I am healthy but it is extremely offensive due to a long cultural history.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Zigzig20s, you may send a request to the oversight team to oversight the edit at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Please keep me informed. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The part you removed

How the heck did you delete that about 2 minutes after I added that? Wikipediaman17826 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RichBoi Streeter ( rapper )

RichBoi Streeter ( rapper ) is also a SPI, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dtreeter15. Wgolf (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Thank you for this information. Can you please help me to report him if you are positive on this? Thanks. User name is Richboistreeter. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just checked. Seems like you have done it already. Thanks for your help and notice. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kevin LePage incident

I did a quick check on this. LePage was involved in a big accident in the race. So the user who posted the article did not invent the fact that an incident of some sort occurred. Whether this is encyclopedic and worthy of an article apart from the race it occurred in is something else. However, you might want to consider whether some other reason exists for a speedy deletion. Certainly it would be a pain to allow this article to remain only to have to put it through AfD which is probably what would happen. Just a thought for your consideration. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Donner60. I was not the initial tagger of that article. Regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted in any event. I just had a thought: Did I tag it? If so, I don't seem to have my thoughts in order right now. If I did tag it and if I did not do it because a tag had been removed, I should rightfully be embarrassed for my message to you - and for not investigating it more thoroughly before, rather than after, the sequence of events that took place. As I said, I don't think the article was encyclopedic, so the result still seems right, but I do think I should go about these things in the right way. Usually I am not so confused but I supposed everyone has their moments. On the other hand, you have been both diplomatic and courteous in your response. Thanks for letting me know. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Donner60: Thanks for your compliment :) The tagger, according to the user's talk page, was Everymorning (pinged Everymorning, if you don't mind taking a look at this), so I doubt it was you. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Donner60: Do you think we should ping the deleting admin for a review? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just alerted Materialscientist that I was mistaken in tagging another proposed article by this user "Gilbar C Hedrick" as vandalism and that a school was not named after him, which is all the article stated. I did a quick check and it confirmed my suspicion that the user was a serial vandal because the school was named for someone else. That was wrong. I decided to check further after I got mixed up with this article and found that there are at least three Hedrick Middle Schools and an elementary school with that name and one is named for a Gilbar C Hedrick. Whether this alone would support an article or whether the article could be expanded are other questions. But the article was not vandalism, which I considered changing to the more specific: hoax, but which was still wrong. I give this prelude in order to show the whole story: the user had an article deleted for vandalism when it wasn't vandalism, compounded by my error in stating on the talk page that the one fact stated in the article that a school was named for him when it wasn't. If the deletion of this KevinLePage incident article too casts the user in a bad light, and again, he had some basis for the article, even if it was an unnecessary article, that should be brought to the attention of the administrator so consideration can be given as to whether something else should be done. At least the user should not be considered a vandal based on this. I can't pull up a page showing the deletion, which is odd, but it means I do not know if the administrator was Materialscientist or someone else. Of course, having made my confession about Gilbar C Hedrick and not being a moving party with respect to this article, I would prefer that someone else bring the matter to his attention, although I would do it if need be because it seems the right thing to do. Sorry for the long answer but I thought the further background was pertinent. Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied on Materialscientist's talk page. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I stepped away for a minute and thought that perhaps I should report it because I came across it while I was checking on my Gilbar C Hedrick error. That was an easy enough connection without having to leave an implication that I had incorrectly tagged the other article as well. I am not sure why I decided to recheck that but I just had a feeling that maybe I had missed something. You handled it quickly and efficiently. Thanks for your diligence and prompt action. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't check closely enough before tagging the article, and assumed instead (incorrectly) that it was an unremarkable event that had never attracted media attention. I now see that there was in fact some news coverage of the incident, so you can restore the article now if you want. Everymorning (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

KCLE is a silent station

Hello. KCLE has been silent for over a month. The streaming address has an error. I do not know how long the Internet stream has been down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.129.132.38 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

question for deletion

Hi Thanks for reviewing my article with subject of (Pouya Saraei)... but it`s a question for me that why you voted for nomination of deletion? what was my fault? my article was about a famous persian instrumentalist that have persian wikipedia(https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A7_%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C) and you can ckeck it... for example he is the first instrumentalist that played in the first persian traditional track that was about santour with oerchestra in modern music genre... it was published by Navona Records... you can check it or he has albums in iTunes and Amazon.com what can i do that my article become acceptable? thanks you for helping... best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arassaeedian (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Arassaeedian, I will be messaging the admin who deleted the page. Please hold on. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)