The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Thanks

Thank you for taking decisive action. RashersTierney (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 08:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

US-62 and OK-74

I haven't forgot, I just have a limited amount of time on the wiki and I'm trying to spend it on stuff for the Cup. I'll get around to it. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

California State Route 52 et al

Rschen, I've noticed you've changed wording about the National Highway System on several articles, including featured article California State Route 52. Previously, "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". Your change: "a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". This characterization is not supported by the included citation and per previous discussions, IMO this is original research. I don't want this wording to be enforced at articles I edit. I'd appreciate your reply. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep bothering us on this? Would you rather that I plagiarized instead, since that was what that was doing before I changed it? --Rschen7754 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, who is "us" - the "owners" of the U.S. Roads Project? Use of the word "important" is hardly plagiarizing, and I repeat, the use of "essential", with its distinct meaning, is likely original research. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not changing it. --Rschen7754 20:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The sockpuppet thing that briefly popped up was NOT from me. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, that's a troll from somewhere else. --Rschen7754 20:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip

In my contribution history you'll find Jonathan Yip had returned. This time he's doing several "good" edits, sneaking in a bad one. HkCaGu (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

These probably should be referred to SPI, so that we can document his abuse and possibly do any CUs if necessary. --Rschen7754 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Good call

Glad you spotted that nasty IP and blocked him/her. I was going to contact an admin to check it out, as I had been tracking the IPs vandalism on a few pages and reverting. Irondome (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rschen7754 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Nimbipisa

No wonder he was so pleased. I nailed him as a puppet but connected him to the wrong master. Lately, it feels like the world is full of nothing but socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That one is particularly disturbing... we've blocked almost 100 socks of his and he's still going. :( --Rschen7754 00:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Ajarcelli another Clopssite account?

Hi, I noticed some strange edits at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show. The first user, Clopssite was blocked by you after two edits for multiple account abuse. Saw a similar test edit on the same page from user Ajarcelli and I thought I'd give you a heads-up in case it's the same person/bot. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 03:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mehrah13 . Blatant block evasion by a user you blocked. I am unfamiliar with the circumstances of the block however. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Connecting IPs to accounts

Hi,
I would like to point you towards this AUSC announcement from two years ago: WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts.
I for one do no longer go out of my way to avoid making an implicit connection public if a problem user deliberately edits anonymously. When he edits anonymously and continues the disruptive behavior of a named account, he implicitly accepted that the connection is seen publicly.
Standards vary of course, but I don't think you should decline a CU request merely because all supposed socks are IPs.
Cheers, Amalthea 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but overall I have rarely seen the vast majority of SPI CUs ever do such a check at SPI, and I will not be endorsing such a check/will continue to decline such a check if I know that the CUs that frequent SPI the most will not perform such a check. I am aware that the privacy policy allows for the connection to be made in extreme cases of abuse, but only when there is no other option. In the overwhelming majority of such cases, we can use behavior to determine if the two are the same; we don't need a CU to check and see if they are so. Of course, you are welcome to run a CU on any of these requests, but I am very reluctant to "endorse" such a check as I do not want to be connected with a check that may arguably violate the privacy policy and/or be subsequently declined by 75%+ of CUs. --Rschen7754 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, just to be sure we're on the same page: an apology is absolutely unnecessary! I see that my words have been received as personal criticism, but that was not at all my intent! I have to apologize for that. I also hope my feedback hasn't in any way made you reluctant to working on SPI cases -- if so I would have done us a great disservice.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no it's not exactly that; I just feel that we miscommunicated originally and I got a bit too combative when it turns out that I didn't fully understand what you were saying. It's not been a great last few days, either IRL or onwiki (I am also a sysop on Wikidata and with the recent account sharing thing, I got a double dose), and that played into things as well. --Rschen7754 10:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Piped redirects

I understand that linking to resdirects isn't a problem. What you did in California State Route 75, though, is not just link to redirects—they were piped links to redirects, such as [[San Ysidro, California|San Ysidro]], which pipes to San Ysidro, California, which in turn redirects to San Ysidro, San Diego. This is different from the cases in WP:NOTBROKEN, where, for example, the plain link [[Franklin Roosevelt]] redirects to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]].

I'm not going to make an issue of it, but it does seem strange and pointless to me to revert all that work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It was edits just to make edits, and I generally revert those, especially at a FAC. Also, you didn't check your work and broke a link in the process. --Rschen7754 01:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
They weren't "edits just to make edits"—the vast majority of my edits are generation of content. Way to put a fellow editor's contribution in a negative light. You enjoy your day, too. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein, there were redirects bypassed on Interstate 96 that cause a potential future issue. If the various business loop articles are split back apart from the lists, any redirects bypassed today have to be repaired in the future to point back to the original links. Sometimes, there are reasons why the redirects are used, and it's not truly necessary to bypass them. Imzadi 1979  02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A significant number of the changes I made were to redirects of pages that had been renamed, e.g. [[Interstate 5 (California)|Interstate 5]] to [[Interstate 5 in California|Interstate 5]]. Is there any reason for retaining them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Those types of redirects I will only bypass when performing other edits of substance. Otherwise, it's an edit for the sake of making an edit that doesn't actually improve the article; a reader clicking the link will still get to the desired location with or without the change. In the case of [[Interstate 5 (California)|Interstate 5]], that is a great application of the pipe trick when writing the article in the first instance. At a later date, with an edit that makes some other changes of substance, then it would be fine to bypass that redirect, but if that's all the edit does, it clogs editors' watchlists with edits that may or may not need to be double-checked for accuracy. (rschen knows my editing skills and abilities, so he's unlikely to monitor a change I make to an article he has up for review, but if he doesn't know the editor involved, he's probably going to check to make sure the edit didn't blow up the table formatting in the exit list, for example.) Imzadi 1979  05:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A reasonable explanation; I'll avoid that kind of editing behaviour in the future. Gotta say, though, that if the goal is to keep watchlists unclogged, reverting such edits doesn't accomplish that. If such edits ared "edits just to make edits", then such reverts could only be called "reverts just to make reverts". Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Share the Cookies

  Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Rschen7754/Archive 20, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 01:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please check sockpuppet mosamu.

here i request you to check the relations between an not new and child star grown up.please it is important.

istion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.

please i request you to see once again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually do not hold the CheckUser tool, so you will need to wait for one to look at the case. --Rschen7754 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again ...

for the heads-up. I was curious, so I did find the "how, what, and why" here: Wikipedia talk:Unified login/FinalisationChed :  ?  22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by Bs5522

Hi, you recently blocked Sb2335 as a sock of Bs5522, per this SPI. They have reappeared at Arora as Bb35bb - this edit is a duck quacking through a megaphone job. Can you do the honours or should I open another SPI? - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Rschen7754 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

can you please check that request

can you please check this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.59.198 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 06:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 07:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Court at 744-756½ S. Marengo Ave.

I'm writing articles on the Pasadena bungalow courts, and I think your pictures of the Court at 744-756½ S. Marengo Ave. (such as this one) may be of the wrong court. They don't match the pictures from the NRHP nomination, and the nomination itself says the court is Art Deco, which the houses pictured aren't. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely possible... it was done on WLM day and I probably got the pictures mixed up. :/ I can look and see if I have some pictures of them though. --Rschen7754 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I recently reported some socks, mistakenly identifying them as socks of Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You then retagged them as socks of Oakey Zass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the accounts I reported. Following further recent activity, I think that these are actually all puppets of indefinitely blocked serial vandal The abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could you take a look, and if appropriate retag these? RolandR (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to prove this? --Rschen7754 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I was about to post diffs, but NawlinWiki has already made this correction. RolandR (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just want to share something with you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MezzoMezzo/Archive

That was a request which i made some days ago which is now closed.in this edit i presented some strong behavioural evidences about two users.but this edit went against me and they closed my account just by a possible tag.

well this is a different matter i want to tell you that.in that request i wrote hundreds of time that look at evidences.my evidences are strong.but they didnt even made effort to see above part of page.mr admin regardless the term who i am my request was not wrong.I request you to once see upper part of page just read my evidences calmly.confirm it by opening pages and then decide was my request wrong.They completly neglected that.just think once with nutral point of view.I cant open that case now coz they will again prove me sock and this case will not be seen again.i kindly request you to once see and reopen that case as you can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.66.219 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The way to have an appeal heard is to post on your talk page, not by editing logged out. I have blocked your IP for a week. --Rschen7754 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not requesting unblock.I am requesting to open the Investigation which i basically made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.191.250 (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

  Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page (and also for revdeleting it on my user page and talk page)! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Block of 5.12.68.204

5.12.68.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could you give any more detail into why you've blocked them? Seems to me that you've blocked them simply for preferring to edit anonymously. As a SPI volunteer, you should know that you should prove evidence, and this seems like a bad-faith block here. Sceptre (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already posted the link, and regardless, they were trolling and should have been blocked anyway. --Rschen7754 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. 4WhatMakesSense's edits are in completely different topic areas than 5. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You agree that they were trolling though, right? --Rschen7754 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I doubt it's worth a week-long block. 24 hours at most. Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. They were making frivolous unblock requests, asking for admins to be desysopped (including Black Kite, who had a connection to the account I named above), etc. --Rschen7754 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Establishment cats

Interstate 2

Hate to say it, but I was looking at this CSD nom, and came to the conclusion that while I don't know if there will ever BE an I-2 (and doubt the road is notable at this point), that page wasn't a hoax. (See [1] It is bureaucratic nonsense, but again, not a G3) Courcelles 04:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The G3 is more or less on the grounds that the application was declined, while the article says that the road will exist and was conditionally approved. I would be happy to undelete the history though, if that is a concern (the article was subsequently created as a redirect). --Rschen7754 04:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If I'm reading page 1 of that PDF right, "SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)" that's not actually correct... but the point is that G3 isn't for "proposed" things; even proposals that get shot down, it is for total hoaxes when the hoax amounts to pure vandalism, and that wasn't the case here. Courcelles 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Last time I checked, G3 was hoax or misinformation. Also, I deserve some of the blame for this thing that warrants no blame because I was the one who CSD'd it. I should have just reverted it to the redirect it already was. TCN7JM 04:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've undone the deletion, but will leave the redirect in place - if it gets reverted, then I suppose it will get sent to AFD. --Rschen7754 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That works (this is the first time I've opened the "edit" tab to decline a speedy only to find no page there! (And whatever number the darn thing gets, may it not be nearly as confusing as I-97, which I still miss going south through Baltimore about half the time heading to Annapolis!) Courcelles 04:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

SensualIntracourse (talk · contribs) socks

Hello, Rschen7754! Can we run a quick sleeper check on the latest Bundy socks? I could file a SPI otherwise: and it may need to be done anyway. These types truly make WP suck. Cheers... Doc talk 08:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you will have to file a SPI, as I'm not a CU. :( --Rschen7754 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - it won't be my first! You should be a CU, IMHO. Thanks for your help with this person! Doc talk 09:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the move. ;) Doc talk 09:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message deliveryContributeTranslateGet helpGive feedbackUnsubscribe • 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above review has been inactive for 30 days, and this is the required notification of that effect, per WP:HWY/ACR. Interested editors are encouraged to enter "Keep" or "Remove" declarations, or continue working on the article to ensure that it will remain at A-Class standards. If no attempts are made to work on the article, and a net 3 Remove declarations have not been entered, the article will remain at A-Class. --Rschen7754 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Rschen7754, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject U.S. Roads talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Harsh comment

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Talkback notice

Why have you left a talkback notice on my page? SpinningSpark 23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because your request for a second opinion has been answered. --Rschen7754 23:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not request a second opinion, I withdrew as reviewer. What I did request is that talkback notices are not placed on my page - in an edit notice, same as on your page, but in larger letters and without the dayglow orange background that hurts my eyes. SpinningSpark 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
When a second opinion is requested, it is still the responsibility of the first reviewer to decide whether or not to pass the article. And I didn't see your editnotice since I used Twinkle. --Rschen7754 23:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As I say, I did not request a second opinion, I declared on the review page that I wished to withdraw as reviewer and then notified this situation on the project talk page in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you wish, I can explain in detail my reasons for withdrawing but it will not change the fact that the article needs a new reviewer. SpinningSpark 15:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You still retain responsibility for passing or failing the article, however. Reading the instructions you linked above, it is not possible to withdraw as a reviewer. --Rschen7754 18:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So what is If you are in a situation where you absolutely can't continue to review the article, please leave a note on the nomination talk page supposed to mean? Essentially, I have failed the article, but I don't want to be unfair to the nominator. If you really want to insist on this then do it on a public page at the GA project where it will be transparent what's going on. SpinningSpark 22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not true in this case. If you want to fail the article, then go ahead and fail it, but don't string the nominator out. (I've always read that as in the event of extended inactivity, which is not the case here). --Rschen7754 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Failing it just to put it back in the queue for a new reviewer wouldn't be fair to the nom. Either the review could've been stopped and moved to a new subpage or the second opinion could make the decision. To make it easy I did the latter. Wizardman 03:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. --Rschen7754 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav

Thanks for [17]. Because all three user pages are redlinks (which I knew while creating the report), and because the page doesn't display "User:User:" links but seemingly correct "User:" links, I wasn't aware that what I saw wasn't what I got (if one of them should have been blue instead of red, it would have been more obvious). Not the most intuitive interface. Fram (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Rschen7754 09:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TheSyndromeOfaDown

TheSyndromeOfaDown is a suspected sockpuppet of a user you have banned (See his talk), and has seemed to from thin air, weighed in on a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions, with some particularly strong opinions. The specific post is a little above the horizontal rule you will find if you scroll down. I though this may be of interest to any currently running investigations. -- Nbound (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He may be a sock of someone, but I highly doubt it's Jonathan Yip. --Rschen7754 21:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Per his request on his unblock request, is it possible to run a Checkuser to see. I would've agreed with Nbound, until I saw this edit. This was exactly the same information JY added before his block and ban. He seems like a JY sock. Though you run these SPI's a lot. Could you request or do Checkuser for this user? Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that edit is troublesome, and the tone sounds plausible, but there are socks that go around faking the behavior of other socks. I don't hold CU so I can't run one unfortunately. --Rschen7754 10:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 
Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip.
Message added 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, see his talk page for more info. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!