Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 19 June 2012

User:DeltaQuad/header

Poop patrol

Hi DeltaQuad, I'm ready for a poop patrol run whenever you are. Also I was wondering whether you could tweak the code to include portal and template space when it runs? Currently it just covers mainspace, but provided the safe page list could accept portal:page name I think this would be a worthwhile extension. Ta, ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the code in a good while, but i'll see if I can adjust that for you. And hopefully I can get sometime, and figure out how to get this going on WMF Labs. Anyway, the bot has been started. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RE:Admin Panel

Regarding the Wikimania panel, I know some people :D

1. Odder is a pl.wiki admin since 2006 and is also going to Wikimania because he already have a scholarship from WMPL.

2. DerHexer is a de.wiki admin since 2006 and Steward since 2007 (I don't know if he is going to Wikimania trough).

3. Alhen is a es.wiki admin and crat since 2005 and is waiting the answer about his scholarship from WMF to know if he is going to Wikimania (I talked with him and he is interested).

4. Lvova is a ru.wiki admin since 2008 and also has a scholarship from WMPL to go to Wikimania (she is also a girl, which is good for me so I will not be the only one present in the panel). ;)

BTW, I'm also a commons admin, and if Steven didn't come trough I can talk about that wiki as well. Béria Lima 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well ahead of your talk page message there! User:DeltaQuad/Wikimania/Admin Panel/Deryck Chan Deryck C. 06:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello!

I've noticed through my patrolling of WP:UAA that it seems to be possible for the bot to 'look out' for serial sockpuppeteers like Bambi. I'm just wondering if it's possible to add to the list of sockpuppeteers that the bot watches out for, and, if it is possible, how this is done?

Great bot by the way!--5 albert square (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I actually need to get around to improving it. Like those accounts are only reported to UAA, and not written to an SPI. And a few other backend things are broken. But yes, anyway. There is the Blacklist in which the bot checks for regex based usernames to see if it matches. If you wanna give it a shot, go for it, and if your not sure on the regex part, or commands, feel free to ask here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! We've decided that we'd like to use the bot on 2 socks, User:Demilealouise and User:Theunknownnun. However, no idea how to start adding the code?--5 albert square (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the whole point of listing it is to catch usernames that are similiar, so I need a base of what the previous usernames are so I can find a pattern to store it in the bot's black list. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

during a recent content dispute here Nangparbat turned up doing the usual, once the account was blocked an ip pops up to revert the ip geolocates to Sweden and appears to be a hosting service, could you check this out please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not currently an open proxy and not a webhost. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, most peculiar that IP appearing for just one edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

notice of thread related to your contributions

Hi - Please see - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Pending_Changes_RFC_closure_delay_for_over_two_weeks - Its closed now, so a bit late to notify but i didn't know the identity of the other closers - thanks - Youreallycan 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually found this thread the day before, already closed. I know you would like to know the result, but please do be pacient with us, especially pending my red notice at the top of this page. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I'm around at the moment. Feel free to send me an e-mail. AGK 07:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Found you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help at the Turkish people article

Hi there, IP 31.146.35.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which you blocked a few days ago is back again and has created a new account "User:Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood". They continuously remove cited information and has began edit-warring again.Turco85 (Talk) 22:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Poop patrol

Hi, I'm ready when you are! Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Only one problem right now, I don't have access to toolserver which has the files, due to the red notice at the top of my page. I will have to request that my key be changed too, so this is probally something that will not happen overnight. Sorry, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My sympathies, my own PC has just got back from the shop itself. I'll keep an eye on the relevant page and be patient. ϢereSpielChequers 15:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock evidence?

In responding to unblock requests, I came across the one at User talk:Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood, which you blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme. However, the investigation page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive has no mention of Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood anywhere. This users edits seem constructive enough. I am hesitant to unblock that account, though, until I understand your reasoning for blocking it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out from two sections above this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I just wish to say that I don't have nothing to do with that guy accusing me. I think he took the reverts too seriously to try to involve me like this.-Ilhador- (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page posts

I have removed revisions from two pages where you linked another editor to personally identifying information. I am not 100% sure this is falls under the outing policy, but if you could refrain from reposting the material till I can get back to you (the basic info that the person has a COI is ok) till I get back to you tomorrow, while I confer with functionaries that would be great. Thanks, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you message, I hope that this note finds you well! Normally, I would agree that we shouldn't "out" editors. But when they are employees of the marketing department of a company - as these two were - then exceptions should be made. By editting their own articles, they would appear to be corporately willing at a wider level to brake our own rules. One of these people has since changed her editorship to a newly registerd identity, and continues to this day to edit the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Trident13, just so you know, I brought up a hypothetical situation that's similar to this one for discussion with Arbcom shortly before the situation above was brought up on IRC. I hope to hear back from Arbcom within a few days. It may be that the community should have a public discussion on what the policy should be in this kind of situation. I'm waiting to hear what Arbcom thinks. I agree with you that Misplaced Pages has an interest in maintaining NPOV and preventing COI editing, and we will need to figure out how that should balance with the outing policy. Pine 16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Pine, I hope that this finds you well! I agree that as opposed to solely naval gazing our own "outting" rules, there is a wider opportunity here. The big corporates are all depserate to mange their brand identity, and clearly entries here are part of thier brand management process. One of the articles referred to by DeltaQuad was not only editted by an employee, but created by them as well. Perhaps part of that wider discussion should be to offer to actively liaise with the big corporates, educate them on our rules, and offer them a specific interface which can assist in issues associated with their articles. My suspicion is that most would be willing to pay for such a service - possibly even via sponsorship - hence gaining revenue for Wiki Foundation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, talk page stalker here. I just wanted to point out to you that the personal information of editors who you think are paid is just as protected by our policy as the personal information of every other editor. No one has the right to "out" another editor publicly if that editor hasn't shared the information about themselves on Misplaced Pages. If you believe that you're dealing with an editor whose real-life identity is of paramount importance, your recourse is to contact arbcom privately about what you believe to be the identity of that user. Arbcom case precedent says that users can and will be sanctioned for outing others on Misplaced Pages in contravention of our outing policy, even if they believe the person has a COI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter. This situation is more complicated than Arbcom's current precedent addresses. The "outed" information was already public, so it likely doesn't fall under the definition of "private information" which Arbcom's precedent addressed. What was unclear to DeltaQuad and I is if associating public information with the Misplaced Pages account should qualify as "outing" under the current policy. Furthermore, since Arbcom says "Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline", one thing we can discuss is whether the outing policy should get limited changes to allow for limited investigations of possible COIs in cases where the possible COIs should have been self-disclosed by editors but weren't. I think a community discussion on this may be appropriate. Pine 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There may well be something to have community discussion over here, and I know you're speaking at least partially hypothetically, but if I understand you correctly, you're arguing that if information is public elsewhere on the internet - for example, if someone googling me can find details about where I work or where I live - then that's fair game to post on Misplaced Pages, even if the user hasn't posted it here? If that is what you're arguing, that's untrue - our policy is that such information is considered private unless the user posts or links to that information on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter whether my username is such that you can easily find that information; you still aren't supposed to post it. I suppose you could push to have policy changed to make "outings" like that acceptable, but currently they're not. Obviously there is some gray area, but I would encourage people to be extremely cautious in this area. WP:OUTING is a strong policy, strongly enforced, and you want to be absolutely sure that you get the community to change the policy before you start pushing the boundaries of it, especially since going against this policy, in particular, can affect people's real lives if you do it wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC) (Pardon me while I say "is such that" a few more times for good measure, and then remind myself to find a new linguistic tic to abuse) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter for taking this up while my tablet was being a pain in the ass. Quick note, the information has since been oversighted. I now personally have a clearer view on things. Say that User X found user Y's girlfriends from facebook (and the wall was "public"), if you were user Y, would you want that posted onwiki. We all want some privacy in our life, but just because it's public, doesn't mean it should be linked. I think we can leave Trident13 with a note for next time not to do it, as I didn't fully understand myself. So to make this clear, we can say that the user has a COI, but to link their profile is another story. I mentioned having a discussion on the policy, because I thought it read as easy as looking through mud and left a grey area for discretion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. So where does our policy actually say "that such information is considered private unless the user posts or links to that information on Misplaced Pages"? Maybe the policy should say that, but it doesn't right now. Regarding the Facebook example used above, if the information is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, then yes there's no reason for us to have it here. I agree that there isn't a reason for a COI editor's private Facebook photos and personal phone number to be published on-wiki. However, it seems to me that evidence that's specifically demonstrates a potential COI would be appropriate for the community to know, particularly if the editor should have self-disclosed that information in the first place. Also, without such investigations taking place, it seems to me like the incidents described in US Congressional staff edits to Misplaced Pages and this article wouldn't have come to public attention. Perhaps, as we were discussing, we need to find a way to tweak the policy a little. People have a right to privacy in their personal lives, but the community also needs to know about COIs including COIs that aren't self-disclosed, and I would think that we can find a way to balance those values. Pine 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, it's right there in the first sentence of WP:OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." (emphasis mine) I suppose we could debate whether it's only posting the content of the link, or posting the link itself, that's considered outing, but in my experience as an oversighter we treat links to personal information the same way we treat the personal information itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I guess both DeltaQuad and I lost that in our reading of pages of policies yesterday. Reading further down in the policy, "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy." In some circumstances, I would disagree, such as the examples I mentioned US Congressional staff edits to Misplaced Pages and this article, where COIs should have been self-disclosed or the editing shouldn't have been done in the first place. It seems to me that we need to figure out how to thread the needle between a public "right to know" about COI editing, with the right of individuals to keep their private information off-wiki. I would appreciate your suggestions about how to do this, Fluffernutter. Pine 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the needle-threading as it stands now (and here we get into the department of "I'm not on arbcom and hesitate to speak for how they would apply policy, so take this with a grain of salt") is that it's often ok, in cases of blatant COI, to say "I think this user has a COI on this article" or "I think this editor is editing to further the interests of ." When it becomes not ok is when you're saying "This editor is Joe Schmoe, who works at Blah Company" or "I'm pretty sure this is Joe Schmoe, look at this facebook profile I found to prove it". That someone might have a COI is not private - but the actual specifics of who they are, etc, which makes them HAVE that COI are often considered private. If you had evidence of that sort, you'd forward it to Arbcom, not post it on a talk page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see how the method that you propose can be acceptable under current policy, but if that's how things should be done in all circumstances, then why were we investigating and publicizing detailed account information like this and why do we have this article in public? Also, slight change of subject, I figured out how I and probably DeltaQuad read the sentence that you mentioned previously in a different way yesterday. I read it as saying, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment (on Misplaced Pages), unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." Your version is, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information or links to such information on Misplaced Pages." I think that your version is more likely to be what was intended, and at some point I hope that one of us will make a formal proposal to clean up that sentence. Pine 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Swamilive

Now that one is blocked, he's already moved to this one. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Already done (when I first saw it) by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll watch your user talk. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for fun

• Pine 16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Shrunk to 100px just for size sake, but I like it and will probably move it to my user page soon. :) Thanks, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your block

Hi,

could you please undo your block of User:Igny here, so that he can participate in the AE request concerning him. The original 3RR report was closed with "protected" after that board was informed of the AE request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)