Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 23 August 2007 (→Your block of Matt57: resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #148

• If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
• If you need for me to be the one to deal with it, please email me. I do not expect any situations where I should be personally needed.

Bugzilla 1062

Further to your offer on the Village Pump, it is bugzilla:1062. I don't want to add a new bug, just comment on that one. In this case, I want to point out that the feature being voted on could disrupt the linkage between pages that redirects help to maintain. My point against a feature that allows users to suppress redirect creation when moving pages can be summed up as follows: "unless the software checks for links to the page and alerts people 'THERE ARE 500 INCOMING LINKS THAT NEED TO BE REDIRECTED, SUGGEST YOU DO NOT SUPPRESS THE CREATION OF A REDIRECT', then inexperienced, tired, careless, users and admins will use the feature when it shouldn't be used". You could just add the bit in double quote marks, and say you are posting on behalf of w:User:Carcharoth. I can see it is an old bug, but I also know that things like that can sometimes get implemented really quickly if some developer takes an interest, and I think it needs more thought. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comment noted. (Shortform doesn't link directly to comments.) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, remind me later: I was interested in putting a "generate password" javascript somewhere. It'd be nice to assist people who do things like use "password" for their account passwords. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, remind you, like this? :-) Thanks for posting the comment. Nice to see that it generated a bit of discussion. I'm reading the thread now. Carcharoth 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: MedCab bot

Sure! Go ahead and give Misza13 the password, I trust him. My version of the bot is offline. I have totally forgotten what the password is :) —Sean Whitton / 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Forgot to add "please? with cherries on top?" Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you tell me what these are and how to transfer . . . —Sean Whitton / 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Misza's talkpage. I don't know the structure of the filesystem on toolserver or WRT pywikipedia well enough to provide those answers, partly because they still have yet to reauth my account there. Apparently the next round of accounts starts on the 28th of this month, but we'll see if it actually happens. Meh. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Question

Thanks for looking at Vandalism by 63.162.143.21. I've copied from WP:ANI in case you didn't see the questions I left there.

Personal information from Amy Fisher removed from page history. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know that it was possible to edit the page history. 'Tis a good thing. Sbowers3 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I've looked over the edits and it appears there are at least three users coming from this IP. One, in fact, has done a number of useful edits. It may be worthwhile to contact DHS and ask them if this is a proxy and encourage them to have their users register accounts, especially given the new tools available in the last few days. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, I also thought there were multiple users. Some clearly was vandalism; some seemed useful - but could have been subtle vandalism. I didn't know the subjects well enough to tell if the edits were useful or vandalism so I wondered if there were a way to warn other editors to double-check the edits.

These are the questions I hope you can answer:

Is there some way to identify an administrative contact at that IP site and find an email address? I'd be happy to send a message but I don't know how to find an email address. I will send snail mail if there is no better way.

BTW, what are the "new tools"? Sbowers3 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer

jbarrett@dockmaster ~
$ whois 63.162.143.21
Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1)
                                  63.160.0.0 - 63.175.255.255
DeptHomelandSecurity SPRINTLINK (NET-63-162-143-0-1)
                                  63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-17 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
More information:
OrgName: DeptHomelandSecurity
OrgID: DEPTH
Address: 801 I Street NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
IP address n021.dhs.gov
TTL Answer n021.dhs.gov. A IN 86400 63.162.143.21 dhs.gov.
TechHandle: JHO28-ARIN
TechName: Hoffman, Jim
NetRange: 63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31
CIDR: 63.162.143.0/27

• New tool that everyone's raving about: WikiScanner (wired.com article)
• Note: Misplaced Pages admins have known for some time that everyone edits Misplaced Pages. Whitehouse, CIA, Fox and CNN employees, etc... this is why the Neutral Point of View policy is so important. We don't discriminate on organization, anyone capable of putting together verifiable information obtained from reliable sources and adhering to the various policies we have on content, including notability is welcome to post. The people at the DHS are human, and when bored there's as good a chance as anyone else that they'll do something dumb. This is not news. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• p.s., For actual permanent deletions of specific revisions, please see WP:OVER. For simply deleting specific revisions, any admin can delete a page and restore all revisions except certain ones. This comes in especially handy when we find violations of someone's privacy, though it's labor-intensive. Sorry for not answering that question. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal comment

It is normal practice to respond on the page of the person who wrote to one, I respond again onmy talk but this is strange bnehaviour let us say, SqueakBox 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the practice of leaving the conversation in one place, as it's easier to refer to after-the-fact. Linkback: User_talk:SqueakBox#Some_trolls. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Exegesis (group)

Rather than delete the page, why cant you just delete the section that you consider spam?

Or

Reinstate it and use the talk page to let us know what you think is spam. Last time I viewed the page (couple of weeks ago at most), I couldnt see anything remotely objectionable.

Stevehawker 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While, perhaps, the top of the page could be salvageable, the sections "Graduates of the Exegesis seminar and ex-members of Programmes Limited and Merchants" and "Companies formed or largely staffed by Exegesis graduates and using the material" were indiscriminate lists comprised of only external links.

In addition, the text itself did not did not cite a single reliable source, made no assertation of notability at all.

The deletion of the lists was my main concern, however without the lists you're simply left with a stub with no citations nor assertation of notability, which still would've left the article subject to speedy deletion.

Now, just to clarify, while the speedy deletion criteria do state that recreation of deleted material (G4) is a deletion reason, that doesn't apply to deletions per the CSD's themselves. If you'd like to recreate the page, including asstertation of notability and citations, it may well satisfy the various policies for inclusion. In fact, if you'd like the source for the deleted page, please let me know and I'd be happy to recreate the page in your userspace for your reference.

I hope this was of some help. I'm copying this section to your talkpage (with a handy welcome message full of useful information!) for your convenience. ~Kylu (u|t) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, I would like to have a go at expanding the Exegesis page that you deleted. Would you mind recreating the deleted source in my userspace? Thanks AnthonyConway 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, text is now at User:AnthonyConway as your userpage was previously blank. You may wish to consider moving it to a subpage to work on it, and I assume you'll have no problems sharing with User:Stevehawker? Good luck. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Matt57

Kylu, you invited Matt57 to edit articles that Elonka isn't editing. Which articles did you have in mind? Because to my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles that Elonka's editing (though she's invited him to do so.)Proabivouac 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I've posted a an/i thread (link to it is on Matt57's talkpage, I'm sure you've seen it by now) regarding the situation. I realize you're his friend, and it's for this reason that I'm going to ask that you not do any unblocking yourself. Please, ask someone else to do this.

If you're his friend, you've got to see that this really just isn't healthy for either of them. Please, use the 24 hours provided to try to convince him to fixate elsewhere. I'm sure I've relegated myself to the deepest depths of wiki-hell for the sin of blocking a long-time contributor (yes, again, but with much more forethought this time, I promise you) but if there's a chance that just maybe this will persuade him to leave Elonka alone then it's worth it.

I'm really not looking forward to the headache this is going to cause me, but I'm trying to do the right thing here. On that note, I'm getting some Advil and going to sleep before this makes me grumpy in the morning. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit awkward, some information seems to have gotten lost in the delete/restore process. Apologies... ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's the private information I contacted you about, it's fine by me if it goes away; It shouldn't have been on here in the first place. Thanks for the help. Gonna go die for a while now, ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, Kylu. For tomorrow, if Matt57 posted personal information which Elonka hasn't disclosed herself, that's a big problem and obviously must be acted upon.

What the rest of this boils down to is, so far as I can discern, is her very strong desire to maintain her original research about her relatives in mainspace. Leaving Elonka alone is good, but that can't mean leaving her COI material alone. To threaten users who attempt to bring it into compliance with policy, whatever their motives, is just a continuation of the same conflict of interest she had when she created these articles.Proabivouac 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, what was private about the information I posted? Did you even investigate? That was public information posted on User:Elonka/About. May I ask how you were contacted about this block and what was said exactly? --Matt57 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have examined the circumstances leading to this block, and have come to the conclusion that it is both unwarranted and punitive. Hence, I have undone the block. Please see the thread on the admin board for details. >Radiant< 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have expressed my objections to this unblock in several places. "Unwarranted and punitive" seems a direct failure to assume good faith about your action. Your block had been endorsed by numerous admins at the time it was overturned. Radiant seems to merely have decided his judgment of the facts were better than yours. A poor decision in my opinion. WjBscribe 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant is entitled to his opinions, though it disturbs me that he's gone against what I see as consensus on the block. I certainly don't see it as punitive (obviously), simply hoping to persuade him to use the time to reconsider his course of action. I'm not Mike's mother, and if he continues this course, I'm not going to give him a spanking. I assume he's a grown adult and is willing to take responsibility for his own posts: I wanted to reinforce to him that his decision making was flawed and the fixation there seems to be inappropriate. I'm 0WW though, typically, so I'll leave it be. I'm not concerned about particular edits of Mike's, nor am I concerned about disputes nor content: I'm concerned that he's digging into the life of another editor for private reasons and not editorial ones. I'm concerned that he's still "researching" her even after she's given him "notice" to stop. Privately owned sites aren't WP:RS, right? Mike was wanting to remove unreliable sources and wikis from the articles? Then why visit her private wiki in the first place and start following links there? No reason, unless he's interested in her for reasons other than simple article-editing.

Y'know, I don't know Elonka. I have seen, but not voted on, her RfA. I've got people on either side of the vote there and quite frankly I don't know if she'll make a good admin or not. I'm a bit wary of having notable figures (per WP:NOTE, not per my opinion) be admins simply because of the COI potential. I personally like to stay far, far away from the article on my employer, for instance, and rather wish everyone did similarly. Is she a nice person? Probably. She hasn't left me any nasty template messages or called me dirty names to my face yet, nor either tried to dig up my real name and address to pester me to my knowledge, so I'm assuming she's a nice person. :D This doesn't magically mean she's my friend, it does however mean I'm willing to assume good faith on her actions.

Mike, this answer's just for you: Nobody. Nobody suggested a block to me, it was my own idea. The whole concept of an IRC cabal is flawed. The more accurate concept might be, "Off wiki conversation influencing on-wiki action." Was IRC involved? To some extent. There's a fast RC feed on IRC, similar to special:recentchanges, except it includes a bit more detail about the edits. The protocol used is IRC, sure, but the RC feeder certainly makes no suggestions as to appropriate action. This very edit will show up, along with the link to the diff, text moved, edit summary, etc... quite handy. So, I see your edit, click (actually I was going to start rolling back vandalism out of boredom) and stew a while on if to act or not. You've already had others ask you to leave Elonka alone. Elonka has asked you to leave Elonka alone. I've seen this on WP:ANI myself and in the RC. You don't leave her alone. Is it that hard to simply relent and let someone else handle the articles? Do you really think you have to be the one to fix the problems in them?

The link to the wiki really wasn't the issue, it's simply part of a greater pattern of ongoing Elonka-directed editing that quite frankly isn't needed here. It's intimidating, annoying, and abusive, and others on ANI have agreed. The fact that you don't see any merit at all in that view is at the root of the problem, in fact.

If any of the individuals involved believe that either my or Mike57's or Elonka's actions have been inappropriate, I'd suggest filing the RfC and notifying us of such. Maximum one RfC per recipient please, prices and participation may vary, void where prohibited.

In the interest of trying to maintain peace (and sanity?) I'm leaving the issue alone from now on, but I'm quite disappointed that instead of some sort of community effort to correct the situation, it's simply been dismissed by certain people who suggest that there's absolutely no problem here except some rouge admin blocking people willy-nilly and without consideration of the feelings of others. I'm quite near disgusted, actually, of our indifference.

Hopefully the wiki-drama ends soon, preferably with people leaving eachother's personal lives alone and getting back to editing articles and gnomish tasks. If I don't get any notifications of additional action, I'll assume the situation is resolved and we can move on. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you and IRC inspired blocks again? Giano 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Hi Giano. The funny thing about it all was that earlier that night, I advised a newer admin to not block based on irc conversations, and if they felt inspired to do so because of it, to let someone else handle the situation instead. Yeah, me, really. The RC tool (which is, granted, IRC based, but more a more-detailed version of special:recentchanges than anything) is filtered through a program so I only see th change feed itself, then I can pick at anything that looks interesting.

...by the way, you know anyone that speaks Sinhalese? si.wikipedia needs more native speakers. I'd write (or at least translate) articles, but I don't speak the language. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that I have nowhere suggested that there is "absolutely no problem here"; indeed, I specifically mentioned there was a dispute, and suggested an RFC. I see both parties equally at fault with respect to intimidating, incivility, and following each other's contribs logs. Neither have I in any fashion suggested that the block was "bad faith", "rouge", "willy-nilly" or "without consideration", and I apologize if this can be read from my words, because that was never the intent. However, note that a "community effort to correct the situation" appears to have surfaced, as evidenced by recent edits to the articles in question, and threads on COIN and MFD. >Radiant< 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)