Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:40, 30 January 2006

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9

Page Protection Bot

Dmcdevit, some weeks ago you asked me about the possiblity of designing a bot to A) check whether pages on WP:PP were still protected and B) generate a list of protected pages that weren't listed on WP:PP. I spent some time thinking about this and what could be done, and even tried out a few things. In the long run though, I've decided this is not something which is practical to do on the live server both because of the access requirements for testing whether a page is protected and the consumption of unnecessary bandwidth in the process.

However, I do believe it would be possible to meet your needs with scripts running on the toolserver. This is something which goes beyond the bot work that I have done so far, and I think you would probably have better results asking someone else about it. I suggest talking with Interiot about solving your needs, especially part A). In the long run it would be nice to have a "Special:Protectedpages" or the like on wiki to provide information on page protection (especially as the varieties increase). An open request to do this exists on bugzilla, bugzilla:2171, and you can offer comments there if you like, though I have no idea how long it is likely to be before this sees some results. In the mean time, try having a chat with Interiot, he may be able to address many of your needs.

Dragons flight 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Philly related pages & Boothy

Could you give me an opinion How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back.

• Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
• Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
• Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854

evrik 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Boothy

I think he just did another 3rr on the philly pages. I stopped. ;-) evrik 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again another gorss misrepresentation on the subject, not only does he continue to remove the category listings, while a "discussion" in which he started by adding a merger tag (which is not to be used on categories) to two fo the categories in question, but he is still violating WP:MM by not allowing "sufficient time to elapsed to generate consensus or silence, you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so.", also considering that their has been no silence, and no consensus for his proposal, let alone that he has alloed sufficent time, last i looked i do not belive that 7 mins equals a sufficent time , . He also has stated that i have broke the 3rr which is not the case, and stated that he stoped which is not the case either, , , , . Oh well, as if i am supprised. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking blocks

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to unblock both Boothy443 and Evrik early - I think both editors have violated 3RR, but in this case, the blocks from my perspective do not seem to adequately address the core problems that are present in the editing dispute, and will only serve to defer the edit war into the future. I will not unblock right now becase I need to leave, but it will be my inclination to unblock when I return to the Wiki. Please let me know your thoughts on this, especially if there are other pressing concerns to warrant the present block to continue to full term which I may not be aware of. I hope to hear back from you soon! :-) --HappyCamper 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you were involved with this previously. Well, in this case, I will unprotect all 3 pages right now then, although my inclincation to unblock them early still exists...Let me put some thought into this - for now, let's leave the blocks as is. --HappyCamper 06:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would love to continue this conversation regarding philosophies of handling such things, but I am on a plane and will be away for some time. I would unblock right now, but I do not like the idea of not being around to be responsible for such things. I will leave it up to you to follow through with what happens once the block expires. Generally, I take the opposite perspective, especially when it is on pages which are edited infrequently. The idea I have is to leave the page protected for a while, write copiously on the talk page, and then unprotect it after a little while longer. Usually only a few hours, but I choose the time only after parsing through the entire edit history and generating some statistics on user editing frequencies and such. The idea is to create an environment so that both parties develop the trust and security knowing that the reversions will stop. Well, I guess everyone has their own methods which they are comfortable with. I did not consider so much your perspective before, so your comments were rather refreshing. See you around! --HappyCamper 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian sockpuppets

Hi, Dmcdevit. Can you please verify whether GBZ is another Gibraltarian sockpuppet? It goes on removing information from History of Gibraltar... Regards --Ecemaml 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, blocked him, and asked for another sockcheck. Thanks for the heads-up. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have an idea. You know how we have all of the AOL talk pages labeled with "This is an AOL user...". Could we do that with Gibraltarian? We know the ranges he uses. We could say it's "possible" it's him. Otherwise, it looks like he posted for about 40 minutes today as RC Patrollers thought he was just another vandal, so he was warned multiple times. --Woohookitty 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, {{AOL}} is manually placed by RC patrollers. It would seem impractical to have them do that for Gibraltarian's range, for one person, all those IPs, and it would be out of date after him, and I don't see him using the same IP twice anyway(?). Probably not worth the effort, though there ought to be something we can do... I'll think on it. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a bot request up for it per suggestion of someone at the Village Pump so that all of the IPs he used could be tagged with a template. The template I want to put on the pages is Template:Gibraltarian. I think I made it explicit enough. If you think it needs to be more so, feel free to change it. --Woohookitty 13:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an page

Could you keep the semi protect up for a day or so longer please? Waleeed is a persistant vandal who has been at this for weeks. Could you also check Saalama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of Waleeed that has not been blocked. Thanks Jwissick 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears the CheckUser didn't pan out on that one, we'll have to keep an eye on it. As for the protection, I decided since I just blocked a bunch of people we ought to test out unprotection. If he does come back with anons or other socks, we'll block those, too. If we can't it'll be unprotected, but not until then. Ask on WP:RFPP if it needs protection and I'm not around. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Waleeed because, perhaps unknown to you, he had promised to stop just a couple of hours before your block (in User talk:FayssalF, who is also an admin and apparently was in discussion with him) ]. I can't find FayssalF's contributions more recent than 11 January, so I'm assuming that his discussion with Waleeed may have been by e-mail rather than on a talk page, but in any case perhaps touching base with FayssalF could be useful to see where things stand. In any case, I don't particularly wish to second-guess you on this, so please use your own judgment. -- Curps 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

templates

I forgot about Template:Ice hockey. I marked it for unprotected because its used only on talk pages, and is for a WikiProject (and they may want to edit it someday). -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(2nd part of question) We don't have a firm definition of high-use (number-wise). WP:HRT was put together and there was a sudden mad dash to protect a lot of templates, which is how a wikiproject template like ice hockey got protected. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... certainly some templates should be protected, but the threshold varies based on how much editing really ever needs to be done and where they are used. I can't imagine any talk page template needing protection, nor any article template used on fewer than, say, 3000 pages. I've already put up several of the deprecated "conditional" templates for deletion. Thanks for your help. -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As advised

I would like to draw your attention to articles like List of places named after Queen Victoria, Lists of country-related topics, List of largest airlines, Category:Cinema of China, Category:Cinema of Taiwan, Category:Cinema of Hong Kong, National dish, etc, where revert wars continue to wage. You may also wish to take note of STC's post in , where he showed evidence of Instantnood purposefully reigniting old edits, as I have mentioned before. Yes, administrators are also human, and yes, not all are interested or are compelled to sieve through the tonnes of quibbles we generate everyday. But I do hope a call for help like this can be looked into, in anticipation of worse problems ahead. Thank you!--Huaiwei 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It is so annoying not to be able to monitor my watchlist due to the autoblocker and AOL. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked yet again -- same autoblock as number 2 from the last incident. I requested a release from Android79, but if you happen to see this........ Thank you. WBardwin 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your IP address is 207.200.116.136. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Android79. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DrJoe". The reason given for DrJoe's block is: "sockpuppet of User:Beckjord".

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your support in my RfA. I greatly appreciated your comments about my judgment and attitude, and I hope to prove you right. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember 12:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations (or condolences?) on your election/appointment

As you were the person who first welcomed me here (even though I'd been here a while) you were one of my favorite support votes. Congrats and here's wishing you the best of luck and success in assuming your new tasks on behalf of all of us. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite a good result at the end of the day! Anything I can ever do to assist you, if I am able, just ask! Congratulations, Dmc! Hamster Sandwich 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Dmcdevit! You'll be great for the job. --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck in your new post : ) --MPerel 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

note

Just in case as an Arizonan you know anything of Spider Ranch, whether it's locally notable or not. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spider Ranch. Herostratus 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Soda vandal

I wonder if you would be so kind as to consider blocking 67.171.70.101 (talk · contribs) and AJ Haskell (talk · contribs), two seemingly obvious Andrew Lin (indefinitely blocked user) sockpuppets. Since you did the blocking of Andrew and his puppets for his persistent soda vandalism previously, I'm sure you remember this Rfc. I became suspicious that he is editing again after he receiving some instant messages from him, strangely enough (I do not know him, don't worry ;)). The latter of the above usernames has made anti-soda edits within the last two weeks, the former even more recently. - Jersyko talk 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring

Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject (summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. Radiant_>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL Block

Working tonight? Please release this block if possible. == AOL and IP blocks ==

Your IP address is 205.188.117.7. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by User:Hall Monitor. The reason given is: blatant vandalism

I've noticed increased activity in the plague articles. If I free up some time, I'll try and get back there and do some good copy edits. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

Came across this - Jughead's Revenge. Looks like a deletion candidate to me, oh, mighty admin. Thanks for your note on my talk page. WBardwin 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, speedied, it was just an external link. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on your arbcom appointment. Much deserved! Yay dmcdevit! --Woohookitty 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I might not be doing it for much longer, but thank you. --Woohookitty 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my rfa

Hi Dmcdevit. Thank you for taking the time to explain your oppose vote; rather than turn the `vote` into a big discussion, I'll reply here. I used the word `vote` deliberately, because it ties in with your point. You have something (an afd, an rfa, the arbcom elections, etc), people vote (support, oppose, keep, delete, etc), votes are counted. AfD is a vote. It's not a majority vote, and when

all the votes are in, it's the responsibility of the closing administrator to determine which of the votes are valid, and then whether the votes have allowed a consensus according to Misplaced Pages policy. I do think I could judge consensus well enough. I'm sure there used to be a question about this, which might have helped... Anyway. No hard feelings, it's your vote. Good luck with the arb com. Proto t c 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Busy bees

Sorry I only just got around to answering your message on my talk page, but I just added it to my watchlist and will spend a bit of time with it this afternoon. Have fun storming the castle! · Katefan0/mrp 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Irismeister's user page

You don't understand :-) You are the vandals! You keep deleting user pages... Just let the irismeister's user page show completely, as he meant it to be, not white as you would like it to be. He is, afterall, a user in the so-called "anyone can edit" encyclopedia of yours, and you should live up to your own standards if your honor were an issue. Besides, even your own policies should prevent vandalizing user pages, even if vandalism comes, as it does, from your own registered editors and "administrators". Finally, you complicate your legal problems unnecessarily while you help us. Indeed, you are feeding the ongoing people vs. Misplaced Pages libel and disinformation class and individual legal actions by providing evidence :-). Keep up to good work! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

RfA again

Hi again, Dmcdevit (D? Dmc?). I have tried to elaborate on consensus and what my approach to AfD would be in a comment on my RfA. Please take the time to consider this, and I hope you might consider amending your vote to neutral. If there is anything else you would like to know to gain a clearer impression, please don't hesitate to leave a message for me on my talk page. Proto t c 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I'm not making my point clearly. I think the confusion here is one of semantics, and not any underlying misconception. Let me use an example I just got asked by User:James_James. His question was:

think I'm more concerned about the notion of votecounting. Let's take the case you noted: 18 vote to delete and 2 vote to keep. How will you close if the 18 have said "delete nn" and the 2 have given some, perhaps borderline case for notability? Or would you consider the strong majority to be an unbreachable consensus?.

And my response was:

Aha, you've just cleared up where I was going wrong. If the two keep votes were researched, cited, and justified, and the 18 delete votes were not, then I would certainly be reluctant to delete. This might be the case if there's been a swathe of delet votes, and then someone found some good reasons to keep the article. Or if the article had been shitty, but had then been edited to make it more encyclopaedic or to provide evidence of notability or any of the other reasons an article should be kept. The quality and information contained in the votes of contributors must be takien into acount when assessing consensus, and if I was ever in doubt, then I would either ask a more experienced eye to take over, or at least ask for assistance.

I honestly do feel I am capable of judging consensus; if you would like to throw any examples my way, then by all means please do. Thank you for providing your reasons and thoughts, though, as they are very much appreciated. Proto t c 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks -- appreciate the lookout on these blocks. Understand congrats are in order for your new job. A difficult function, hope you have a good time with it. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

. Looks like he caught himself. If he does it again, I will block him. --Woohookitty 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost interview

Hello, Dominic. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Misplaced Pages Signpost.

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
11. If there's one thing you could say to the Misplaced Pages community, what would you say, and why?
12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski Arbitration Case

I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.

Second, I think your suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.

Personally, I think the integrity of Misplaced Pages has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.

These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dmcdevit: I also wish that the arbcom would take a closer look to see that the editing agression was from both Johnski on the side of making the article fair and balanced and from Gene_Poole on making it to only reflect mostly one side of the story. It is amusing to see that just as Johnski moved so far towards Gene_Poole's position, that due to Davidpdx's reverts and complaints, Johnski was blocked indefinately. Best, KAJ207.47.122.10 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo!

That's one neat tool. :) I let Splash and katefan0 know. --Woohookitty 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I'm discovering a massive amount of SP articles that lacked the tag. One for 28 days! --Woohookitty 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)