Misplaced Pages

User talk:Reaper Eternal

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GBFEE (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 12 July 2022 (→Reviewing my case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:28, 12 July 2022 by GBFEE (talk | contribs) (→Reviewing my case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake!

Revertion of my speedy deletion nomination

there is a draft article called "When will we run out of" and it is a weird article. It talks about running out of wheat or something. So I tried to nominate is for SD because it is nonsense and you reverted it because it is a draft. I understand that, but what should we do with the article now? It will get declined but I mostly am asking this because if this happens to me again, I don't know what to do in a situation like this haha. Bigeshjen (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Bigeshjen

G1 doesn't apply to Drafts? Are you sure? -- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
G1 doesn't apply to drafts in progress, or drafts actively being edited would constantly be deleted. The draft namespace is intended to give editors space to develop their articles, but, obviously, it is also not a sandbox for editing tests or gibberish (G2 or G1 applies here). However, users unfamiliar with wikitext will often include broken formatting in their articles (that they later remove) which can appear like editing tests or gibberish.
In this case, the article had next to no content other than the following statement: "The world is on course to run out of wheat by August 2022 due to the Ukrainian war." This is a reference to this news article. While this probably does not merit its own Misplaced Pages article, the content is valid and could potentially be included in an article on the Ukraine-Russia war. It is not gibberish, and it is certainly not vandalism (courtesy pings to Anthony Bradbury and LPS and MLP Fan). The only reason this article might look like gibberish was the editor had a random table in the article, probably accidentally due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge of wikitext.
I'm going to be honest here: You guys were rather bitey, and the CSD deletion for "vandalism" was flat-out wrong.
In the future, Bigeshjen, you might want to wait a bit before tagging and/or approach the author and ask them what they're talking about. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there. I am replying in this conversation because I was pinged. Thank you for the clarification of G1's application; I did not find anything about it being inapplicable to drafts in progress in WP:G1. The draft I tagged for deletion, along with a few other drafts I tagged under G3, got deleted by Anthony Bradbury.
Next, I would like to explain why I did this. I was patrolling recent changes when I came across edits to Draft:A Towel By Another Name. Recognizing that the draft consisted of pure vandalism, I tagged it for deletion. Then, I went to Special:NewPages to look for other inappropriate drafts. I found a lot of drafts that had problems (more when I was going through new pages to find the drafts I encountered), such as the subject's inherent lack of notability or providing no context about the subject. I wasn't sure about what to do with those because the speedy deletion criteria they satisfy only applies to articles, so I did not tag them with G1, G2, etc. However, I filed an MfD for Draft:A YOUNG SINGER/RAPPING/HIP HOP ARTIST reece.
In my opinion, I think those drafts I encountered, including the one Bigeshjen originally tagged, are not going to be edited after a few edits. As an editor who specializes in anti-vandalism, I naturally want to get rid of inappropriate pages. I know I could wait for G13 to apply, but I think I do not want to wait for six months for the problematic drafts to be deleted.
After reading your reply, I think that you were right that it was wrong to tag the subject draft for deletion under G3, even if it did not make much sense to me. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 14:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
..and completely unrelated, but holy shizz Reaper, you must have used up an entire years' worth of CU pixie dust at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Custodi2! I need a nap just thinking about it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking it was a paid editing farm. That wasted a couple hours of my evening.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Way to take one for the team! Regarding the G1 bit, I would have declined as well because it wasn't patent nonsense, but your comment that G1 didn't apply to drafts threw me for a loop. Thought I'd interpreted it wrong all this time and may have deleted some drafts out of process at some point. Anyhoo, back to the grind.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 16:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Oyoin/Sample page‎

I'm usually pretty lax with user sandboxes, but a sandbox that is just to change part of the sample text to "CUNT"? I thought G3 would apply to that, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on (it is a user page at the end of the day). Singularity42 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)e

I've removed the profanity. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Now they are trolling me and/or personally attacking me: . Joy. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess he just wants to be a troll. Well, trolls aren't welcome here, so I have blocked him indefinitely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing my case

Hi, Reaper Eternal. I didn't know where to post this, as the SPI has been closed. I also usually don't post at this time, but I was busy earlier and, due to the nature of the latest comment at the SPI page, I thought I should post soon instead of waiting. You and RoySmith are the two CUs who seem to have considered the CU and behavioural evidence in the most recent Daner's Creek SPI investigations. A concern that Johnuniq is involved and leans toward me not being a sock has been entered. You may have seen that I entered a concern that evidence has been shared with two admins who lean in the other direction. Tamzin was specifically pinged to an ANI thread about me because of this belief. So I wouldn't think it compromises things if Johnuniq were also allowed to review the evidence. He has also asked about reviewing the evidence before blocking.

That said, as you and RoySmith seem to be the most neutral reviewing the case, would it not be reasonable to put in this request that Tamzin pass the new behavioural evidence over to you and RoySmith so that you can also review it, if you're willing? I've been through a thorough CU analysis, it seems, and a thorough behavioural analysis. And now the user who pinged Tamzin has thrown in more information to review after the results were not the ones they wanted. RoySmith's comment here reflects my view of the SPI, that there's more and more pressing so that the outcome ends with me blocked. At this point, I'd probably request an unblock if blocked. But I'd rather the evidence be reviewed by neutral participants before, not after. The burden of evidence to prove I'm not a sock seems unusually higher than it is for other sock cases, and "no, not a sock" appears to be the unacceptable answer. I feel like I'm stepping on the shells of eggs and can't say anything about this case without getting blocked, and that even asking this will be considered disruptive.

If you and RoySmith would prefer to ignore this post because of the heat the SPI has attracted, I'll understand. GBFEE (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will note: Once I'm done with my analysis, whatever I find, the results will be available to any admin or SPI clerk on request. Currently that analysis is being delayed due to some technical issues. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 05:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
One concern I have is others not having the chance to review before you make the decision to block or not, if you choose that. Leaving the choice in the hands of one admin after CU and behavioural evidence have already come back negative or lacking hard evidence seems to be a very unusual process. Because of your previous statements on the topic, it's concerning to me for a similar reason it would be concerning to others if the decision were unilaterally Johnuniq's and he said there was no evidence based on his analysis. GBFEE (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I would not block you without consulting with other admins. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 07:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I only ask that the pool of reviewing admins consist of more than those who take a hard stance that I'm a sock. That's why I've asked for Reaper Eternal and RoySmith to also review. Ultimately, how much more hands-on they want to be with the case is their decision. GBFEE (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I have not expressed an opinion about who is or who isn't a sock. That's because I don't know and have not had the time or energy to fully investigate. Those at the SPI who question my INVOLVED status also seem to think I have a view, but that's not correct. I have a long familiarity with Flyer's editing and have been dismayed that recent aspersions have been unchallenged. For an important case like this, it's not satisfactory to block anyone for "disruption" without precise examples of the problem (or a link to where the examples are shown). Also, any sock tells that can be revealed in public should be. I understand that it is often undesirable to give a full public explanation concerning why someone has been blocked as a sock but I hope that those discussing non-public evidence consider that perceived similarities can have innocent explanations, as I mentioned at the SPI. I would be happy to review evidence, if admins want that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I don't think you were being non-neutral. I think you were being objective. But since there's opinions that take a different view of your participation, I used that as a comparison above. Thank you for offering your assessments. GBFEE (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)