Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:58, 18 January 2006

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, vfd comments

Zen-Master

You wrote: "He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him".

I partly agree and partly disagree with the first sentence. I am sure that he has an understanding of why he was put on probation. Maybe he understands it as a bad-faith action by the CABAL, or as the result of the arbitrators not understanding how important his reverts and comments are. As to the second sentence, he won't learn anything from probation, but it is not necessarily wasted. If he engages in uncivil conduct, can admins block him? If so, the probation is a useful way to free the arbitrators from having to consider the case yet again. Robert McClenon 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-read the RfAr. You are correct. The remedy is not fashioned in the same way as personal attack parole, and ZenMaster was not placed on personal attack parole. I agree with you that the remedy has teeth, but really needs a good carnassial shear that can draw enough blood to stop the disruption. Robert McClenon 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of any personal attacks or "disruption"? Pointing out censorship doesn't qualify. Though, I am interested in understanding your thinking, if you take issue with any of my edits my talk page is always open for discussion. zen master T 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master asks a valid question, which is what he is doing that I consider disruptive. The answer is asking a lot of negative questions about why Misplaced Pages processes are so imperfect without any constructive effort to improve them. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to produce a product, an on-line encyclopedia. This makes it an electronic workplace. I work for a large company that produces information technology systems, which are products. If I were to say that the company's business processes were flawed, I would be asked to suggest how the business processes should be improved, and I would do that. I would hope that my comments would then be seriously considered, whether or not they were acted on. I don't see Zen-master doing that. He appears to be saying "Misplaced Pages processes suck." Maybe they do, but if so, either work on the product instead, or address how to make the processes stop sucking. Robert McClenon 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Using negative labels such as "disruptive" has often been used to thwart a serious consideration and investigation of criticism. Before a new course of action can be determined in many cases it's good to prove the existence of a problem. I just suggested on the Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for arbitration page that everyone should be encouraged to archive subsections rather than delete to history. It seems Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration commitee, has gotten into the (bad) habit of deleting to history rather than archiving which is how I noticed the page wasn't being properly archived. It's separately interesting Fred deleted to history something that was "maybe not answered". zen master T 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please see WP:AN. Radiant_>|< 22:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, they're all at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Also, checking the block log may enlighten you; he's had a couple for 3RR and NPA violations. HTH! Radiant_>|< 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry protection

Hi Woohookitty. I'd just like to explain my removal of the {{protected}} tag on John Kerry yesterday. I saw the tag while checking a recent edit, and noticed the page was not protected at the time. Without checking the edit history to see who added the tag, I assumed it had been added by a new user who thought he/she could "protect" the page simply by adding the tag. If I'd known you had added the tag, and that you intended to protect the page, I wouldn't have removed the tag. I hope my edit didn't cause any problems for you. Thanks for taking action to stop the edit war. Szyslak ( ) 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Buddy

--I (Woohookitty) really should check in on this place more often 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Supercunt" vandal

I'm completely flummoxed. This guy has got to be on an AOL proxy. I keep blocking him and he keeps on coming back. Any idea how to block the IP range? - Lucky 6.9 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. Thanks. Trouble is, I can't access the IP since he's coming in via sockpuppet accounts. I left word on the admin noticeboard. You da bestest and you should know that we are thinking of replacing our dearly departed dog with a couple of kittens. Might just name one "Woohoo!" - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't use IRC, but Kelly is one great user over here and I'll leave word with her if this clown doesn't go away. Regarding cat names: One will likely be named "Biscuit" since my wife always wanted a cat named Biscuit. I chose "Waffle" for the other just because I love that idiotic cartoon character by the same name on the Catscratch TV series. Kinda goes good with Biscuit, too. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! My dog, God bless her, was named...Lucky. Never admitted that my user name was partially inspired by a pooch! - Lucky 6.9 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perl script to separate red and blue links for WP:MEA

I am currently looking for help (a perl script) to parse and separate red and blue links for various lists at Missing encyclopedic articles. I have made a request at Misplaced Pages:Computer_help_desk#New_cases, but it has languished for over a week. There was a script that does some of what we need it to do developed by Avar, but it only works on a few of the many lists we are currently working on. Specifically I'm looking for something that would separate and sort a list like this:

1. Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]

   Nested comment about link

   Second nested comment

• Wrongly nested comment

1. Link2 Notice space has been removed
2. Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link

1. Link4 Renumbering because of space
2. Link 5
3. Link 6

into a list like this

Red links

1. Link2 Notice space has been removed
2. Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link
3. Link4 Renumbering because of space

Blue links

1. Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]

   Nested comment about link

   Second nested comment

   Wrongly Fixed nested comment

2. Link 5
3. Link 6

This is a worst case example. The current script works well, but it evaluates link by link, not line by line and so about the link would be removed.

See separting reds and blues for more comments.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk on my page... well may mention your name.

The talk on my user page mentions your name. But don't worry I don't think we have any issues, right? I'm not planning anything against you. I just wanted to check out your adminship votes. Actually I wanted to see Neutrality's votes... --CyclePat 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Don't know if it is appropriate, but thank you. This (vis Reed College) was my first time having to do this, and I was surprised at how fast the action was. Thank you for what is obviously lots of work on WP. And no, I'm not trying to curry favor :-) -- Gnetwerker 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice on unprotection

I protected Louisiana_Baptist_University a while back and have discussed, and semi-strong armed a compromise of sorts on the article. Jason Gastrich kept his Notable Alumni list, and the .edu discussion was remained deleted (as I see it as inconsequential)... but on the flip side I kept the "Diploma mill (allegations)" (i added that) and "Dissertations" (with some tweaks by me) sections put in by WarriorScribe along with others which cause the edit warring in the first place. I have "resolved" the issue(s) which lead to the initial protection, but I'm confident edit warring will resume (albeit hopefully on sentences and tone, rather than entire sections) once I unprotect it. I'm under the impression now that I'm involved and have edited the article, I can no longer protect it. If so, apart from banning people in enforcement of the 3RR and requesting protection from another Admin... what can I do to maintain the integrity of the article and try to keep some constructive momentum? - RoyBoy 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Hi, Woohookitty. I’m hoping you can help me. Recently, a request was made to protect the Reed College page by Gnetwerker, a request that I support. I have some additional concerns, however, and don’t know if you would be the person to bring them to. It is my belief that Gnetwerker is a member of the Board of Trustees of Reed College; without a doubt, he has a close relationship to the institution. I believe I know his actual name, but I do not wish to put it anywhere on Misplaced Pages -- he is entitled to his anonymity as long as he doesn’t abuse it.

I have asked him multiple times to confirm or deny that he is a trustee, and each time he has refused. My reading of the WP autobiography section leads me to believe that he ought not to be editing the Reed page, that it is akin to editing a page about yourself. I would be inclined to ask that anyone in a position such as Gnetwerker’s refrain from editing a page about a subject they have a deep personal stake in, but it is particularly troubling to me due to the nature of Gnetwerker’s edits and editing style. Gnetwerker denounced me as a “vandal” and as someone who was adding “nonsense” to WP. If you’ll check what I’ve been adding, it either is or isn’t true/notable/verifiable but it is absolutely not vandalism. I suppose I have a relatively thick skin, but it concerns me in that I have seen Gnetwerker be hostile to other editors as well, and fear that it may discourage other editors from contributing. I believe that Gnetwerker sees the Reed page as his “turf,” and wants to protect it against people making edits he doesn’t like.

Gnetwerker also seems to want to make edits that are relentlessly positive about Reed, or edits that downplay anything that might be construed as negative about Reed; his edits are almost entirely POV. Again, for me, this is about a conflict of interest. I have asked him twice now to mediate this issue with me. Once he refused outright, the second time he simply refused to respond. What do you think the appropriate thing to do is in this case? Sorry for the lengthy post. IronDuke 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)