Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 26 February 2007

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

BetacommandBot Can Now Increase Speed!!!

After discussion in Village Pump here is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Misplaced Pages:Bot Policy:

Please instruct your bot to tag all articles in the Category:Company_stubs and the within sub categories with the template: {{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=stub|importance=}} @ maximum Speed. Would much appreciate. Thanks. Don't you feel the need for speed? :) --Parker007 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Beta, given the username issue, I'm going to deal with this request for you. (You've done some hard bot requests for me.) alphachimp 00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto reporting Bad username

Might I reccomend a linrary of hostile words, such as profanity and block on site words that are incliuded. These coukld be reported to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

the thing is it also reports those to me in IRC I cant host two of the tools and I want one that has everything to report in IRC. you guys want the reasoning behind my blocks so here it is. you need to make a decision on what you want then. Betacommand 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

a.) I have not personally complained about your blocks. b.) there is a difference between blatant block on sight names and ones that are questionable. I guess what i was suggesting is ones that need blocked on sight, i.e., has fuck, shit, or othe rprofainity in it, should probably be blocked on site and not need a WP:RFCN. It was just a friendly suggestion though! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Im getting tired of being bitched at for no reason. thus I am reporting VERY block to make sure the bitching stops, and to have a solid case. and so that a unfounded RFC is not filed. Betacommand 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand about getting frustrated. It is amazing how quick people will turn here. However, the situation isent black and white. There are clear cut names that should go streaight to WP:AIV, in my humble opinion! Personally, I feel that the questionable ones, the ones that should go to WP:RFCN, wont be able to be picked up automatically very well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't escalate matters unnecessarily. I have removed your block - would we block users doing clear vandalism without a warning? An indef block on an admin in good standing without first discussing the manner isn't on. Thanks/wangi 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tired of being bitched at" is not an acceptable reason to make a WP:POINT violation. I asked you nicely not to have the bot report to the WP:RFCN userpage, because it is clogging it up with unneccssary reports. I understand you are upset, but doing this for revenge is not acceptable. Because I couldn't get a response, I have blocked you for running that bot in violation of WP:POINT. pschemp | talk 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not a POINT violation. I turned off the reporting when you asked. I discovered a typo in the code and fixed and restarted the tool but i inadvertently forgot to turn reporting back off. Betacommand 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What!? You've just blocked an admin indefinately? RyanPostlethwaite 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Um yes, as indef means "no time period specified" not "forever". He's blocked until he agrees to stop running that bot reporting. pschemp | talk 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wangi unblocked it. Is this a bot Beta, or a script? If it is a bot, is it approved? I personally don't like the idea of another Curps. Prodego 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict^4) Please don't escalate matters unnecessarily. I have removed your block - would we block users doing clear vandalism without a warning? An indef block on an admin in good standing without first discussing the manner isn't on. Thanks/wangi 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I already discussed this him on IRC. It isn't premature. He knew already. And you should discuss removing it with me first too. It works both ways. I find your actions extrememly rude. pschemp | talk 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Premature block, which has now been reversed by someone else. Absent a true emergency, disputes between administrators should be taken to a noticeboard before blocking. That said, Betacommand, the bot-reporting is a bit over-the-top. I think it's readily apparent that no explanation is needed for blocking a vulgar or offensive name, which couldn't reasonably belong to a good-faith contributor, but that when "qwerty5999" is blocked an explanation would be useful. Please take this entire situation to ANI for further discussion if someone hasn't already. Newyorkbrad 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On WP:AN RyanPostlethwaite 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Beta, could you answer my question above please? Prodego 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

it is currently IRC reporting script that i modified to output on wiki too. Betacommand 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are only reporting the names automatically, and then any blocks you make are made manually? Prodego 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct Betacommand 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Welala!!!

Just a heads up that this user has been brought up at WP:RFCN so you might want to comment - I'm staying out of it! All the best RyanPostlethwaite 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand log

Could you move it to User:Betacommand/Log? With the backslash, the page you have it on actually refers to a user named "Betacommand\Log", who doesn't exist. Ral315 » 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Bot

Beta, I have a few minor concerns regarding your block log. shows that you blocked 6 editors in the course of 1 minute. Some of these editors did not appear to be vandalistic and were not given warnings or notices that they were blocked. I guess I am a little concerned about these blocks and wanted to express my concern to you before possibly taking it elsewhere, if my concerns are not addressed. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They where blocked because of a Sockpuppet case, I need to fix the reason in the blocklog. I was using a new js button I thought it would lable them as a sock. Betacommand 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! That makes a little more sense. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all your administrative work helping to fight sock puppeteers. Thank you for your hard work! -- Cielomobile 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tool output

Can you explain how you read the evidence from your sock puppet finding tool? For example, in what shows you that these users are sockpuppets? --AnonEMouse 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obow2003 (2 scanned) means that User:Obow2003 has made a total of two edits. one to Talk:Conservatism in the United States and the other to Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1 all of that users edits were to pages involved with Rjensen's editing behavior. Jozil made a total of six edits, 4 of those were to the same pages as Rjensen. and both socks voted the same way on Talk:Conservatism in the United States. Also looking into the edits and links that are provided shows a similar pattern that all of the accounts are operated by the same user. The tool doesn't find socks it just compares the editing of two editors. how the data is interpreted says whether or not the users are sock puppets or not. just look into the editing behavior of both and you can see the facts. Betacommand 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

re that case they are meat puppets that has been confirmed via e-mail (Jozil wife and Obow03 daughter) Betacommand 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I would invite you to comment on this thread where your activities are mentioned. Dragons flight 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof Approval

I've noticed that there is a backlog of users awaiting access to VandalProof. Do you actually check that page? If you haven't, I suggest that you do and remove names as necessary. The list is getting a little full. >.> Nol888_(Talk) 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be a bit busy for a while Beta, and I won't be moderating actively. I am trying to get some features added that will help moderating (or get it removed) though. You might want to contact some inactive mods. Sorry, Prodego 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you be able to approve/check my application? Nol888_(Talk) 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am also awaiting approval can you pleae look into that Jdchamp31 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not on the user list

1. You said that I was approved but VandalProof says I'm not on the user list. Please verify that I was added correctly. Thanks. Deco 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Hi Beta, you just accepted me on vandal proof, I can get on V131 but not V135 - it says I'm not on the user list - could you look into this for me? RyanPostlethwaite 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   yeah I just goofed they changed that auth method in 1.3.5b without letting me (I was using an older version) Im downloading 1.3.5b as I type this and hope to have this fixed shortly. Betacommand 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   No probs, was just looking forward to abit of vandal fighting! Would it easier for you to readd my name to the list? RyanPostlethwaite 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   no need to re-add Betacommand 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Hello, Also not on the list ;) I'll keep a look out and won't re-add myself :) just tested V131 and V134 and can't get on those either. All say i'm not on the list. Intinn 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies! I was fully intending to come and tell you, but then I forgot >_< ... Sorry! Ale_Jrb 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but it still says my names not on the user list for the latest VP, any chance you can have one last look? RyanPostlethwaite 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

there are a few bugs with the new system give it a few days. Betacommand 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider my application

I had been active on Vandalpoint several months ago and made several constructive edits. I have since reapplied as the software upgrade is not allowing updates. My contributions since 2004 when I joined Misplaced Pages have been constructive if not 100% flawless. I would like to return to vandal fighting so that I might contribute towards keeping this website's integrity up to its expected standards. I recognize hestiation you might have however please be assured I wish to add a positive contribution once more as I have in the past. Thank you for your consideration. Netkinetic/(t/c/@) 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf Sockpuppet - back while banned

Dear Betacommand, Benjiwolf is almost certainly back as 83.79.168.184 contributions of 83.79.168.184 .

in this edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.

Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.

There is a good chance that 83.78.134.122 is also Benjiwolf.

Do I need to start a new Socketpuppet case or can you just extend the Benjiwolf ban based on this evidence? Ttguy 10:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement articles

A number of law enforcement articles have recently been tagged by BetacommandBot as part of WikiProject Law. May I suggest that law enforcement articles and law articles should be kept separate. I don't really think articles such as Deputy Superintendent and other police ranks are within the purview of the law project. -- Necrothesp 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi, thanks for adding me to the userlist for VP. You sent me a second message later on to tell me that you'd fixed the bug that stopped version 1.3.5 from acknowledging I was approved; but I still get the 'You are not on the user list' error message. I can log in to the earlier version okay (and have already used it a couple of times), but still not into the latest version. --Steve Farrell 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

test

OP test

OP test2

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento Are you sure about this? I never agreed with Momento, but I was certain that the accusation of sockpuppetry was unfounded. I do not trust myself anymore, let alone other Misplaced Pages editors. Andries 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ill post the results of my analysis but over 75% of the socks edits were to the same page's and the rest were on like subjects. Betacommand 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I cant process the results into wikemarkup but please see my sandbox for what I can give at the moment. Betacommand 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You confirmed Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento... Is this based on the evidence provided, or did you run a checkuser? I would be very surprised if user:Momento has engaged in SP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to see your analysis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I received this from User:Momento via email:

As you know Jossi, I am not a sock puppet and never have been.

• Here's VictorO: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

• Here's Momento: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

Note that we are both editing at the same time. Do they think I had two computers side by side and I swap from one to the other? (Via email from User:Momento)

I have advised him to contest the block using the appropriate template in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a CU and because this case is as old as it is ~one month I dont think there are any CU data left on the servers to check this. But look at the data in /Sandbox which shows the data. Because of the data size I am unable to convert from plain text to WikiMarkup. But it clearly shows that they have very very close editing patterns. In regard to the time stamps I can do the same thing on one PC without using a proxy. From the evidence that I can see they are puppets. Betacommand 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I most definitively disagree. Please re-check Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators. I would argue that the evidence presented is not substantive enough to assert sockpupetry and block him. As I am involved in editing that article, I cannot unblock, but I would suggest that you ask another admin to review the evidence presented by user:Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not have checkuser privileges, you can place a request at WP:CU. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgment if you don't believe they are socks, you know the situation better than i do, feel free to unblock if you fell that strongly. Betacommand 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65

You might want to take a look at what's happening here; User:Irpen is reverting your changes to this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--. --Irpen 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning?

• Can you please explain your reasoning behind your decision at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Spruceforest ?? Thank you for your time. Smee 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).