The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
When my bot attempts to remove someone from the bot list (subpage) at AIV, the command prompt shows this message: "Could not find parameter string, not doing anything: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2" . Do you know why this is happening. --TeckWizParlateContribs@21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That means either someone removed or damaged the parameter string that goes on each page the bot services, or there was a failure to connect to Wikipedia altogether, bad internet connection or server outage or such. It will display for each channel every 30 seconds that it is not serving the page. Unless you are seeing pages of it, it is not a problem.
I am responding to your comments to one of my employees a few weeks back (pasted below). I am a presidential librarian at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. We run a nonpartisan, free website on the American presidency. My employee was attempting to add links to the individual president pages as a service to wikipedia users. i understand the policy of not linking to one's own web site; however, in this particular case it seems that her actions were reasonable. Our pages are in most cases the most comprehensive resource on a particular president on the Internet. Each page is edited by a prominent Historian. Nobody would reasonably consider the links spam and anyone that took the time to follow even one link would agree that their place on wikipedia was an asset. The suggestion to ask the moderators of the page to include the link may be a good one for individual pages, but it is not practical in addressing all 42 presidential pages. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. For your reference, here is the url of the site in question: http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/—Preceding unsigned comment added by MillerCenter (talk • contribs) 21:19, February 6, 2007
Request reason: "I am an employee of the Miller Center adding links to our official website to the pages of U.S. presidents"
Decline reason: "Wikipedia is not a place to promote your companies website. This is an encyclopedia. The block will end in minutes, please do not advertise here again. -- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"
Thank you for your clarification. If your links truly are topical and helpful to the subjects, then I would suggest going to the talk page of each page you think needs a link. Tell them what the link is about and why you think it is topical. Other editors of that page should respond and a consensus can form.
Normally adding a link would not really require this much discussion, however if you are bringing the links to many locations, this discussion will remove the appearance of using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. We have terrible problems with people adding links to our encyclopedia, and when we see someone adding the same website to many articles it sets off alarm bells.
Well heres yer problem! This 0 is not a zero. It is some other thing that looks like a zero, not a number. I found it in the end of 209.7.119.160(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·block user·block log). Not the same name as the user that was blocked. Not sure why the {{IPvandal}} template sent to the correct spot. When I type the report manually it worked.
From my logs:
Found 209.7.119.160
Found 209.7.119.160‎
Found Bill Clark
Checking 209.7.119.160
Blocked
rm '209.7.119.160': User:HighInBC/FauxAIV
On further investigation, that is a 0, but there is also another strange invisible character there, if you go after the 0 and hit delete, it removes something, then it works: [2],[3]. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still there actually. I noted it at WP:AIV. not sure if you want to take a look at it or if it is just a minor glitch. I am a software developer so I understand that seeing an issue is worth 1000 words! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's up, there, either; I re-blocked the IP, the bot's been removing entries, and it still hasn't taken that one. It does seem to be counting it towards the "5 entry backlog" count, though. Luna Santin20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the only one, the other one did not use the proper template. The on that was not removed had an invisible character after the 0 in the IP, so the template was showing a name of a non-existent user. Not a bug, just a corrupt report. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This ip has been blocked. helper bot has not removed it so I am leaving it here for now to see if helper bot "Gets around to it" or if it is a problem with helper bot. I have notified highinBC. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked, I have notified on thew bot talk page about the problem ,please do not remove this one, so that HighinBC may see what the problem is. →AzaToth20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and for future reference folks, you can remove such reports without worry, it will still be in the revision history, and I can fix it in a sandbox. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It an invisible character after the 160 in the IP that caused that one not to work. It is the asterix that is screwing up the other one, I will fix that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late into the game here, but if you need it, I'd be willing to host a copy of HBC Helperbot (or any future bots you create). Regards, alphachimp01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he's fine with 3. The probability of all three losing their connection and failing is very low. And I think it's been made so that the three bots' owners are positioned so that almost always there is one operator around. And if he did want more, we'd have no problem getting it approved (2 and 3 were approved in 6 minutes) --TeckWizParlateContribs@01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alphachimp, if either of the two backups drops out or shows to have too much downtime, your next on my list. I am going to move the original bot to the tools server when I get my act together. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you close the discussion on user Malakaville? I know you said there was no consensus. But the only people who voted to allow didn't provide reasons that are relevant. For example they argued that there was no evidence that user Malakaville acted out of bad faith, when in fact I provided evidence to the contrary. Others argued that user Malakaville hasn't made enough edits to see if he is a bad editor. These arguments are not only false (I provided evidence for this) but they are irrelevant. If you look at the history of the discussion, you will see we reached consensus before user Malakaville and others entered the discussion (They entered very late into the discussion). Finally I would ask that you read the discussion in full, and if you still think the discussion should be closed then I will agree. It may aid your decision to look at my talk page and that of user Malakaville. Agha Nader20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
I have been reading that discussion since it began. I think there was not clear consensus to disallow. However, I do not mind if you return the discussion to WP:RFCN, I will let someone else close it. If you wish to re-open it, you can find that discussion in the history here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal opinion about the name, that is one of the reasons I chose to close it. If it is re-opened, I will not be participating or closing it. I also have very little interest in this particular debate(though I of course respect the debate's merit). Thanks. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if the consensus was to allow my username then why is this Agha Nader still persisting with his vitriolic campaign?? Is this guy obsessed with me or what?? Its bizarre because I have never had any interactions with this character and yet he has dedicated a lot of time to getting my name censored. Is there nothing you can do as an admin to prevent this kind of harassment and stalking? He has made false claims that I have called people "malakas", that I attacked people, that I have done this and that, that because I did not get involved in the discussion until he claims there was consensus to "disallow" (keep in mind I did not know about it and was not involved and was not notified of anything about my name before) that they should have stuck to that "vote" and prevented my involvement in the discussion. Its all there in the discussion if you look at his final remarks. Its incredible. Malakaville01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making the mistake of taking this personally. This is more about a word than any person. I cannot speak of other people's motives. I am not sure what the outcome will be. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I not take it personally considering his attitude and accusations? Plus, look at this [4] - this has been going on since the 5th! I've got to say, this is just bizarre. This is like having someone knock on your door demanding you change something about your house for several days straight. There is a policy I've found called WP:POINT which seems to illustrate the mentality here. Malakaville02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it. Any username that can be even slightly misinterpreted by such childish mentalities will be brought up like this, wasting even more peoples' time. I'm a grown man having to engage in this silly business. Its ridiculous. I get the feeling that even if this time he fails, he won't stop. I feel stupid for having lost my temper to begin with and wasted this much time already, but I don't like baseless accusations. Thanks anyway. Malakaville02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any user develops a clear pattern of harassment, towards you, there are actions that can be taken to prevent it. It has not yet developed to that point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am disappointed to see that you closed the RfC without addressing the three questions I raised to people who wish to close the discussion. But that is all in the past now, and I must accept your decision. Can user Malakaville be banned based on incivility, accusations, and ill-considered insinuations? If so, what actions must be taken against him?. Agha Nader03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
While I did close the RFC this first time, I did not close it the second time, that was another admin who felt the same. I also feel your concerns were addressed, they just were not the prevailing opinion in the matter. I suggest you take any complaints about this users behavior to WP:AN/I for complex problems, or WP:AIV for obvious disruption. I choose not to involve myself in this matter further at this point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And an attempt to drive off a new user from using Wikipedia is a clear violation of WP:BITE, we need new users, we don't tell them to go away from Wikipedia. I hope I have cleared this up? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it violates WP:BITE, but it was an attack on Wikipedia and last I checked, Wikipedia is not a person. I just think we should be careful about removing content unless it's really blatant. Aelffin17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Granted "the people who run" Wikipedia are people, but no specific person was mentioned, so I have a hard time calling it a personal attack. It just feels like deleting material because it's critical of Wikipedia, and that's censorship to me. Aelffin17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting a group of people is a personal attack. Otherwise people could insult religions, companies, members of wikiprojects. No, I disagree this was a personal attack. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing, censorship does not apply to private websites, censorship is when someone prevents you from speaking using your own medium. This is an editorial/policy decision. If I went to his website and told him what not to say, that would be censorship. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You are encouraged to ask for feedback about the quality of an article at any time. Ask your fellow editors for their opinions, list outstanding issues and areas to improve on article talk pages, get other editors involved. Networking to identify like-minded Wikipedians is one of the most important (and enjoyable) aspects of the project."
This is why I want to do this. I would like to get other peoples opinions on the issue before I post it on the site. I feal that it may be to opinionated or biased to be posted at this time so I have contained it within my own page for editing before "releasing" it.Stanler14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to the papers you uploaded to your userspace and got deleted. The policy in question is or no original research policy. Wikipedia does not host information that has not already been published by a reliable source. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not the place to seek peer review, but rather a place to collect information already published and accepted by the academic community.
I am afraid this is not the place for new ideas to be tried out. They do look interesting, I suggest you google Free wiki hosting, as there is a wealth of free services using the same software as Wikipedia. If you would like I can e-mail you the content of your deleted papers. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The message that Stanler posted above is obviously one that Stanler copied and pasted, as it's four talk pages: Mr. ChrisGriswold's, Josh Parris', yours, and also my talk page. Josh Parris had nothing to do with deleting the papers: John Parris gave warnings to Stanler and "friends" for vandalism (I know that's not an appropriate Wikipedia term, but Stanler does know four other users). Acalamari16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I sent the contents of Do greenhouse Gases Affect Hurricane Intensity, was there any more? I need to know where it was if there is. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, you protected this page at my request. It has since been left unprotected by another admin, but now there are vandals hitting it again, at a rather steady frequency. Would you please re-protect it? Thank you. Ryecatcher77323:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you make edits across 20 different articles attempting to remove every mention of Discover The Networks by David Horowitz, then vote delete on FrontPage Magazine which is edited by David Horowitz, then put up for deletion David Horowitz Freedom Center and yet, expect noone to be checking your contribution list? You edited over 15 articles on a concensus you and (1) other person made on a unrelated article. Of course people are reverting you, they do not agree with you, or your two man concensus. Its not stalking when you make edits across Wikipedia and people have to undo those edits because of lack of concensus, and what seems like a general dislike for Horowitz. --NuclearZer018:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The moral of the story is, those who go across the entire website implementing their own controversial policies without consensus, are bound to make all kinds of new people mad at them whom they otherwise may never have heard of. There's nothing wrong with monitoring such activity if it causes a disruption. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, the mass removal of David Horowitz from Wikipedia based on (2) peoples opinions seems a bit extreme and disruptive. However, we should not get emotionally invested and get mad at anyone. --NuclearZer019:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to link to the pages of the images themselves that you used. It is part of giving attribution to the original creators of the different starts. If I made one based off yours, the requirements of the the GFDL license you released it under would have me post a link to yours indicating I used it as a source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You left a message "This group of warnings was innapropriate[7]. First of all the edit in question was simply a mistake in the understanding of policy, not talk page vandalism."
Actually it was inappropriate that somebody is using a college IP address to hide their true identity. This person was not a party to any of the editorial work that was going on and then left warnings on my page that are FALSE claiming POV without citing any examples. I'm sick of what these people are doing.
"Thirdly you put it on the user page, not the talk page."
If that happened, it was obviously an accident.
"While you are allowed to remove warnings, you are not in a position to refuse others the right to post warnings on your page."
I don't "own" my talk page, but I certainly am the one who manages it. I see it as vandalism when these people are making false warnings and gaming the system in order to provoke a response out of me and constantly editing and reverting my own talk page (I don't do this to others -- as I see it as poor form and as VANDALISM). These people are BITERS and ELITISTS. Nowhere did I say that I refuse others the right to post to the page. JUST NOT TO POST FALSE WARNINGS AND THREATS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS like they have been! And if you weren't so biased toward them (your name a dead giveaway) then you might be able to understand. - Donteatyellowsnow
You are obviously biased, being a BC person and a Canadian. I have been attacked as an editor. Yet for the most part I HAVE REFRAINED from putting warnings on other people's pages UNTIL they have done it more than once to me (maliciously) or when they have reverted material that I contributed. Period. End of story. I have to fight fire with fire just to put a stop to what they are doing (which is PERSONAL ATTACKS, EDIT WARRING and DELETION of wiki content that has sources all of which is VANDALISM). You can lecture me until you are blue in the face, but you are simply wrong and biased in this case and what they are doing is wrong and hurts Wiki. Period. - Donteatyellowsnow03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, my being Canadian does not enter into it. Please do not call me bias, I really don't know about your previous problems with these users. You may fight fire with fire, but do not be surprised if it gets you blocked. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt look like this ISP is going to fix the problem, but it is not as bad now, its just every now and then - they are yet to let me know but I was wondering whether there a way to make my HBC AIV helperbot2 as a occasional running bot? Do I just apply again through the Bot requests for approval? Could you please let me know as I do want to continue running this bot - even though there is ISP dropouts, as it just reconnects when it sights connectivity again. Many thanks, Extranet(Talk | Contribs)04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot run it full time, then alphachimp has offered to host it. I appreciate your help, but this job really needs high uptime. I don't think we need to do another approval request, we can just transfer the account to the new host. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly apologise for my inconvenience as I am going to have to give up the running of User:HBC AIV helperbot2 due to my ISP problems. I would like to thank you very much for your help through setup and running. Its been much appreciated. If you need me to do anything further, just leave a message on my talk page. Many thanks, Extranet(Talk | Contribs)11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that is why we run 3 instead of 2 hehe. Thanks for the help, I know you did not know about your ISP outages until after you tried. I will work on moving it over later today. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I trust your judgement. It would be nice if the deleted contributions log were updated more often, but in this case I think it was safe to assume good faith. While I'm visiting, thanks much for creating the AIV helperbot, its a real godsend. Can't sleep, clown will eat me19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the IP you just blocked is an open proxy, so you might want to make it an indefinite, as well as any other IPs Shadowbot reports. Thanks for the block! Shadow1(talk)18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I confirm it is an open proxy? What's more, open proxies are do not last indefinitely, they stay on an IP for a while then they go down. This was the first block for that IP. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to block IPs just because they are proxies, often they are running on a legitimate computer(through malware). Only if it is a long term proxy that is actively being abused. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with Merzbow and I disagree with you. What is so bad about that edit that it should be removed? If you find the "A$$" and his general confrontational stance I will agree--but would argue you should not remove his edit but deal with him as a user. If you think it's a personal attack I would disagree because it was responding to a provocative statement that started the discussion--so it was done within the proper (if not productive) context of throwing the question back at the one who asked it. I ask that you allow the statement to stand but take matters up with VirtualEye about his general confrontational attitude and even block him if you must. But that one comment is not worse than his others and should not be removed. grenグレン18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing another editors family into a hypothetical situation where the US president releases his interpretation of her naked does not seem to be a problem to you? Well you are the only one defending this action and several are condemning it[9][10][11][12].
As you can probably see, my bot hasn't been running a lot. This is because I've been having a lot of problems with Windows Vista, where I can't be logged on at the same time as another user because it takes up too much RAM in the memory. However, today I ordered a new laptop (!!!), which will run Vista Premium and will be just for me, meaning the bot should be running 24/7 (and I'll make sure to set up the wireless network so I can auto-reconnect if I lose the signal). So, don't worry that it's running too infrequently. Expect it to be on constantly about two weeks from now. Also, we may need to find an operator for bot/get the operator's bot running soon, as next week I'll be away for 3 or 4 days, and the bot will not run at all, leaving yours as the only one running. --TeckWizParlateContribs@03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a couple of actual UNIX boxes (gasp) that I could probably run a Helperbot instance on. Both are on reliable connections - one's my home cable modem, and the other is a dedicated virtual server (ironically that one's less reliable than my cable modem). I've run plenty of servers and services before, and am a Perl guru professionally, so none of that should be a problem, if you're looking for another fill-in operator. I'd probably prefer to run it on my box at home if you don't have a preference, just because I pay for bandwidth on the dedicated server and I'm not sure how intensive it actually is, with all the re-loading of the monitored pages. Feel free to let me know here, on my talk, or via e-mail if you need another instance. —Krellis03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my helperbot account now being run by Krellis? I have read his talk page and it seems as if you thought I was having problems with my ISP. I'm having no problems with my ISP. It is a problem with my computer. And in under 2 weeks, I'll have a computer just for me that will run the bot 24/7. --TeckWizParlateContribs@13:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need one that is 24/7 now, and most of the time. What is more, Krellis understands the language it is ran in, and runs an operating system that is going to be more stable. There is no point in running a redundant copy if it not running reliably. It has to ran when you go out of town for 3 or 4 days.
I appreciate your help, but it was just not working out. It really does not matter where the bot is hosted, as long as it is stable. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I get approval with my own bot, would I be able to use your source, as it appears that Krellis is located in California, making no operator available in/near my time zone? --TeckWizParlateContribs@14:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source is GFDL, which means it is open for anyone to use for any purpose. You can seek approval to run it, but I really think three is enough. With 3 bots running, I don't see the issue with time-zones. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will seek approval. If bots break down for some reason and need to be restarted and there is no one awake, it wastes admin's time. I will of course give you credit with the source. --TeckWizParlateContribs@14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you rolled the displayed "current archive" on your talk page to /Archive 25, but the actual Werdnabot code is still using /Archive 24, so archiving is currently going to the "wrong" place. You might want to update one or the other to make it consistent. —Krellis01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a pretty significantly changed version of the helperbot previewed and ready to save on /source, but I wanted to check with you before I save it. Briefly, the changes are:
Bump version to 1.8.0 (significant changes)
A whole bunch of tabs changed to spaces because of copy/paste (sorry)
Changed all uses of "shift" to get subroutine args to @_ - considerably more efficient (really just a personal preference, performance doesn't matter enough to make a difference here)
Changed version handling significantly. Will now read the version number from the parameter string and parse it, comparing against internal version number. If any part of the parameter string's version number (reading from left to right) is higher than the bot's version, it will log a message and exit. If the bot's version is higher, it will continue to run (assuming backward compatability). So, with the current version in the parameter string of 1.7, 1.8.0 will run. If that was bumped in the wikitext to 1.8.1, 1.8.0 would not run, but 1.8.1 or higher would. This allows different minor versions to run. If we make an incompatible change, we can just bump the version number in the wikitext appropriately, and older versions will die. I expect in normal operation that the wikitext will only ever contain two parts of the version, ie 1.8, so that any 1.8 patchlevel can run. This will make maintenance of multiple bots a bit easier.
Fixed the bug reported on WT:AIV where the bot was changing the adminbacklog in the example comment.
Added "use warnings" to report warnings from perl when undefined variables and such are used. This requires perl 5.6 or higher, which I think everyone running the bot has. It can be removed if there are compatibility problems.
Fixed a couple of warnings that came up with use warnings on.
I believe that's everything. If you're okay with it, I'll go ahead and update the code, then let you and the appropriate other operators know (who is that, currently? - we might also want to set up a mailing list (or just an e-mail alias) to send that type of notification with, if it might work better than talk pages - I'd be happy to do that if you like). Let me know when you have a chance, I'm watching here for replies. —Krellis05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, I also tested the various fixes/changes in my local version (which is now running the 1.8.0 code) in a sandbox, so it should all run without problems. —Krellis05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, feel free to update the code, and change the parameter string to match the new version. I am going to bed and will check it out in the morning. It's good to have another set of eyes on the code, I have a few bad coding habits. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)06:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the instructions is on my mental to-do list, though they're really not that bad. I've been a little bored recently, so I'm happy to have something fun to engage me for a while. My next planned step for this morning is to create a template for the bots' user pages, so they'll be consistent, and so we won't have to worry about editing all three if we want to change something like the links to the source code, legend, etc. I should have that ready some time later today, if I don't get too distracted by anything else shiny :) —Krellis18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like all the bots are now working 100%, which is absolutely great, much better than a bot that is not dropping out all the time! Good luck to the bot runners and thanks to you Ryan for swapping this over swiftly. Extranet(Talk | Contribs)05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was shocked to see your userpage redlinked in Netscott's edit summary, until I realized the "In" was lowercased. That seems an easy typo to make. The "fix" for easily typoed article page names would be to create a redirect from the likely typo to the real page. So I thought, why not create User:HighinBC with #REDIRECT [[User:HighInBC]], and User talk:HighinBC with #REDIRECT [[User talk:HighInBC]] -- since no real user can get so close to your name? I almost did it myself, but then I wondered whether you'd want it done; if not, what a bother it would be to get them deleted, etc. So I didn't. If you'd like it done, well, you certainly know how; or if you wish, I will. -- Ben16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a blight upon Wikipedia and needs major work. I suggest we clean it up and delete about 50% of what's there. First, the whole point counter-point model should be done away with, I've never seen a Wiki article so convoluted. It should be divided up into around 5 or so sections dealing with the various main aspects of the arguement (religious views, health, evolutionary standpoint, etc). It seems that people have forgotten that ethics is a branch of philosophy and while the anti-meat section has views of various philisophers the pro-meat section is sorely lacking. I myself am a vegetarian and I'm guessing you're not so together we should be able to come up with a well balanced page. This is going to take quite a bit of work so I'm not sure when I'll have enough time. I'll post something on the talk page before I start editing. --Calibas05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed on your talk page that you are looking to photograph a double decker bus and a group of buses. I am not sure what your interest in these is exactly, but in case it interests you there is a fenced compound on the Alberni Highway between Parksville and Coombs that has a couple of dozen retired double decker buses. Cheers, --KenWalker | Talk08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is civility called in your dictionary? Are you the same judge who sentenced an innocent mother to death and upon that warned the crying children of that mother for insulting the court? Incivility is the production of injustice. When comes a topic about Christianity or some other matter then a lot of people come out for some unkown holes to defend it. When comes a topic about Islam then a lot of people come out offending it and moaning about secularism and civility?
Abraham Lincoln also had the majority of curses from the people, right?
In Christianity, Jesus was cursed and killed by most of people, right? Did that majority justify your policy of secularism and concensus? or was that injustice?
Slaughter the goat politely and with civility and when that goat screams or kicks you then again blame the goat of incivilty and call her rude, and tell her that she is born to be slaughtered according to the consensus.
Did any moment come in your life when you were forgiving and humble and listened to someone with patience in stead of thinking that the other person is insulting you?
I hope you would not be bad in nature and will give a thought to my comments instaed of rolling over your stick of policy and civility.
VirtualEye14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my definition of civility: WP:CIVILITY I know you have already been given that link. If your point requires your to resort to name calling you may need to rethink that point. You are welcome to bring up your ideas, just keep them civil.
Jesus and Lincoln would be held to these same standards. As for the rest of your comment, I think it is a bit unrelated to what we are talking about. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just managed to block and edit conflict with you, in a row! I was wondering however what template you used for the vandalism-only indef block. I think it was one due to the code involved. Thanks. —Xyrael / 17:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:USER, especially the section on what is not allowed on a user page, and I do not see anything that would support your removal of that banner from my user page. Can you elaborate? Harvestdancer18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, at the time I removed that, it was in there: [13]. But it has been removed pending further consensus. So I guess it is allowed for the time being, but it does look like the rule will come back once the discussion is completed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, have you started work on the comment parsing/ignoring for the HBC AIV helperbots yet? I just had an idea for how I think it can work, and am going to give it a try, so if you haven't started work yet, you might not want to start just yet. I'll be testing in my sandbox version as usual, if you have a chance and could add some examples of the situations that have caused problems in the past to that page, that would be great. I'll be adding the examples I can think of soon, but I figured it doesn't hurt to have you adding any you can think of as well. I've turned the bot off on that page for testing, so it can be safely set up with blocked users/IPs without them being removed before I'm ready to test. Oh, and, of course, if you're already 99% done with this functionality, please let me know and I won't bother with it :) —Krellis17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of fun, honest! I've made pretty decent progress, but it's not quite there yet. Hopefully I'll be able to finish it out tomorrow... we'll see. There are a LOT of testcases to handle (I haven't even started making sure merges and SpecialIP handling still work properly, particularly with the various possible comment placements). Comments are evil. Can't we just tazer anyone who reports incorrectly as a deterrent instead? :) —Krellis05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, don't worry, if someone is that sensitive they should unplug their internet. It is not like we disallowed her name, we just talked about it and allowed it. It is not as though they have a point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will happily honor the Wikipedia "real name" policy, but there seems to be a real fairness problem when Jance can accuse me of a COI, but then hide behind her non-anonymous anonymity when her COI is at least as problematic, and arguably more so. Is there a solution? Is there anything that can be done about the wikistalking, threats of litigation, personal attacks, and systematic violations of NPOV? -- TedFrank02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, see dispute resolution. There is also WP:RFC/USER for requesting comments about a person from other people. Any further threats of litigation can be reported at WP:ANI, or to me, Jance has been warned about this too, and we hold legal threats in the same regard as releasing personal information. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone to DR, and nothing is happening. Will you be a second for an RFC:User?
Question: is it fair to note Jance's sock-puppetry? She considers that a violation of her privacy to point to her earlier ID--her ANI links, with only one exception, consist entirely of places where I referred to her use of multiple usernames. -- TedFrank02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB: avoiding each other isn't an option. Jance has made literally thousands of POV-edits to civil justice articles, and every time I try to correct one with a neutral edit, she reverts and leaves a lengthy rant personally attacking me with the sort of rant we see above. -- TedFrank02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I will not second a RFC/USER, I am not really involved, if the user is that POV you should have no problem finding a second. DR has several options I find it hard to believe you have exhausted them all. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a RFC on three different posts, and have gotten no response. This makes a survey impossible also. Not to mention the fact that Jance is reverting me on all of my edits, not just these three posts.
I can't use "third opinion", because that requires good faith that is absent here on Jance's part.
I tried a Wikiquette alert, and got no response.
There isn't a relevant Wikiproject page that I'm aware of.
The wait time on a request for assistance is 12-18 days.
Can I use arbitration? It seems "too soon."
Does this harassment rise to the level of ANI?
I can't use RFC/USER, because no one is coming forward on these little-trafficked articles that even I wouldn't care about except I saw a reporter in my field mistakenly rely on one that had erroneous information pumped in by Jance.
I would like to know if I can make the sockpuppet allegation without being accused of violating the real-name policy, because, as Jance's comments (and the improper threat of a block from administrator Sarah) indicate, the allegation is considered "harassment." Jance has evaded a permanent ban by creating a new username while promising to disappear from Wikipedia. -- TedFrank02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is not now and there never has been sock-puppetry. please tell me how long this man is going to be allowed to smear me. all over wikipedia? good god what will stop this? go look at what sarah had to say. no i am not "friends" with her outside of wikipedia. that is one more asinine lie. Jance02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is the only one accusing me of being a sockpuppet. As Sarah said, the admins know who I am. There is nothing to be "cleared" up. I challenge TED to prove his allegation.
I repeat. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet.
I want to know if you are going to knowingly allow this man to continue harassing me? Go read his talk page. Sarah (an admin) knows my history. I do not hide who I am. I do resent any admin allowing this abuse to continue . Jance02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a message as to how we handle these things, this is not the place to discuss your problems with another user. This is my talk page. I don't have time to investigate your or his claims of abuse. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(note: "he/she/it" is not intended to be offensive. It's just... as gender is personal information and threats of bans are being floated about, one can never be too careful)
Can you explain your (frankly baffling) decision to support a user in suppressing his/her/its past history on wikipedia because he/she/it doesn't want to be identified with the name that is on that account? The rest of this is somewhat justifiable under the privacy policy, but can you imagine if the banned user User:Amorrow came on with a sock puppet and demanded not to be identified by that name because of privacy? An interpretation of the privacy policy that defines wikipedian usernames qua usernames, particularly when the username in question is clearly not actually the person's legal name, as "personal information" is in my opinion ludicrous. --Random832(tc) 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(as an aside, claiming "i am not a sockpuppet" while at the same time claiming the username of the account of which he/she/it is alleged to be a sockpuppet is personal information is contradictory and one claim or the other to be summarily rejected) --Random832(tc) 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of these circumstances justifies revealing personal information. That policy is to prevent physical harm in the real world. If there is any evidence that this is the same user then fine, but there is no evidence provided, and that user in question has filed for her own RFCU to disprove these accusations. People are allowed to change their account name to avoid exposure to their name in certain subject, from the WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security policy: "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area." Perhaps she denied being this account to protect her identity, perhaps not, I don't know. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat, "That policy is to prevent physical harm in the real world", and "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area." The revealing of personal information is not acceptable. This user has the right to hide her identity. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition of personal information, nor any interpretation of the privacy policy, that justifies considering usernames qua usernames as personal information. _especially_ when the username in question is clearly not anybody's legal name. --Random832(tc) 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the edits that gave out the personal information were deleted(and oversighted so even admins cannot read it), this may be the cause of some confusion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the impression that you were supporting his/her/its claim that the association between User:Jance and the other account in question was personal information; which seemed reasonable since he/she/it has clearly [14] made that claim, and you have not refuted it while supporting him/her/it otherwise. And, checkuser is NOT the only way to find sockpuppets, it's the LAST resort. And, were it not for the waters being muddied in this way, I would bet real money that the Checkuser response would be "obvious, no checkuser needed" (even if not for the fact that the data's probably stale). The proper venue would be WP:SSP, except since she's asserted (and no-one's refuted) that any association between the two accounts violates the privacy policy, it's potentially dangerous to file one.
And filing for a checkuser to "disprove" that he/she/it is the same person when he/she/it has [15] acknowledged that he/she/it IS the same person as the other account in question is clearly frivolous, and might be read as an attempt to take advantage of staleness to cast doubt upon that. --Random832(tc) 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend assuming good faith in this matter. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)
There are two different allegations. I did once incorrectly use Jance's first name in addressing her; I did not realize that she was anonymous, because she had publicly identified herself on a weblog, and I mistakenly thought she had publicly identified herself here as well, given that she acknowledged that she was the same person. I apologized for the misunderstanding, and will not do that again.
But Jance also claims that my identifying her earlier account (which does not give her name, though it may be identified with her in other ways that I don't know about) violates her privacy and will subject me to a lawsuit. Random832 is correct: Checkuser states that it is a last resort. If Random832 is an admin, perhaps Random832 can take his or her own action against Wikipedia abuse, because I am bound by the warning.
It seems to me, however, that Random832 has the better of this argument. It's easier for Jance to use the change-name feature than for other editors to dance around Jance's evasion of a permanent block by misrepresenting her intent to leave Wikipedia. -- TedFrank04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not and have never claimed to be an admin. I've merely stated that it is obvious that usernames (especially usernames that are not anyone's legal name) are not personal information. And allowing User:Jance's claim that it is to go unchallenged while supporting her other more reasonable complaints lends the impression (i certainly thought you did, it never entered my mind that you might not) that you agree with her. --Random832(tc) 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument has been brought up on WP:ANI. A consensus will form there. My opinion has been made, and I stand by it. I will take no administrative action in this case. Good night. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to defend my reasons for wanting privacy and not having my real name and the real name of my husband linked to on Wikipedia, by some political blogger who doesn't like my politics.----
Anyway - I think I can take a guess as to what Ted wants - I don't even particularly agree, but this is not the place to have that fight. If he's represented the facts correctly, what he wants is for a user who avoid being banned by promising to leave forever, to either keep that promise or be banned. That's not a particularly unreasonable request, under the banning policy. Has he represented the facts correctly? If so, why are you back? If you think that you should be given another chance, you should make a case for that, rather than creating a smokescreen to forbid anyone to confirm or deny if you are the same user who was nearly banned. --Random832(tc) 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHy don't you look at the history before jumping to conclusions? And also look at the rules of Wikipedia.
I wouldn't even ask for that if not for the fact that Jance is engaging in the same conduct that got her banned the first time. What I really want are NPOV articles that accurately reflect both sides of the issue, rather than just the side Jance agrees with; more personally, I want Jance to stop relentlessly attacking me and trying to get me banned and blocked; I want Jance to stop reverting all of my edits out of spite; I want Jance to stop threatening me with lawsuits. I've documented the POV and civility problems on my Talk page. -- TedFrank04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the dispute resolution page, this is my talk page. Please don't use it to argue with each other. I am finished with this matter. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you're now mediating this, so hopefully I'm asking the right person. Shouldn't there be an RFMF tag on the Discussion Page for the Muhammad article, alerting editors that a Mediation is underway? I, and others, having been recently discussing this topic there to develop a consensus, unaware that a separate Mediation page exists. JGHowes18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is rooted in an edit earlier today that wiped out part of the example, followed by an edit where a user messed with the example, combined with not-quite-perfect comment parsing. helperbot3 is actually running a test of some new comment handling code at the moment, and I've verified that it would have correctly reported no IPs left in this situation (well, actually, it had a slightly different bug in this situation, which I've since fixed). So, once that code gets out to all of the bots (probably later today), this particular issue will be resolved (as will, hopefully, many issues with reports in the wrong place causing further mangling because of the bots. Thanks for the report (and sorry for replying as if I were HighInBC, but I've been working on the comment parsing stuff, so I figured I'd take it :)) —Krellis22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked betacommands contribs and he's blocked a couple of other users for inappropriate usernames that aren't blatant and I feel should have been commented on first. The users are;
Maybe you can answer this question, since you are an administrator. Why do we have a requests for comment user page if folks are going shoot first and ask questions later? You can't get much more innocuous than "Wikipediasteve". (jarbarf)00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admin can make decisions about a block without consulting consensus. However, the RFCN can be used by an admin or a regular user to check consensus. The RFCN can also be used to review a decision already made such as this case. I don't really understand the reasoning behind these blocks, but is seems that RFCN is working fine as these names reached it. Admins can make mistakes, and if these mistakes get reviewed then I think that is fine. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for processing the User:Guest9999 RFC/N so quickly. The user now has an unblock request pending for an autoblock, with the IP number given—but the IP does not have a block log, and when I try to unblock it indicates that there is no block to lift. Since you have more tech-savvy and experience with this can you check out, and advise if either the user isn't really autoblocked or if I was trying to lift it incorrectly. Thanks, Newyorkbrad17:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw you cleared it ... I guess that merely clicking "unblock" on the IP in the "unblock" template box, which is what I tried, doesn't do it. Newyorkbrad17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But since getting it, he has also managed to vandalize my userpage from his IP 75.72.120.157. If you can fix that, you've got him. SBHarris03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a list at User_talk:Betacommand#RFCN. If you wanted either to use the templates yourself, or to suggest their use to others, please feel free to copy, save, and paste that block of text to other talk pages, as you see fit. -- Ben21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally sure that is needed at this point, only a couple of attempts to communicate about this have occurred. However, I could be wrong. As far as practical advice goes, unless everything is filled in it is not likely to be accepted. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I wasn't either, but then his number of RfCed blocks spiked, plus he's been deleting the user talk pages for those blocks that were overturned. Something is just not good here. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the pages deleted was only the username block notice, unless I am missing something. This seems to be done in order to prevent the user from seeing it, perhaps to spare their feelings(in case they did not notice it before). I don't think it is any sort of attempt to cover his errors, as you use a block log to research such stuff, not looking through talk pages. Proceed, but proceed chanting "AGF AGF AGF AGF ...". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in regard to the deletions of userpages, I routeenly go back and delete the pages that were tagged with username blocked templates. Since this was brought yo my attention I have since undeleted the pages in question. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see a problem also, but I would like to have seen a couple more days of talkpage discussion (or attempted discussion) before escalating to RfC. We'll see what happens. The additional information for the RfC is being filled in now (this is probably the first RfC to have had two outside views added before the initiator finished writing it :) ). Newyorkbrad22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I also agree that more attempts to discuss this matter happen first. Though not too much waiting, new users are being scared away. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closed and de-listed for now. Can be reopened if necessary and good luck in getting this resolved because I agree the situation needs to be addressed. Newyorkbrad23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at this and then this. I see both these edits I have removed as exacerbating trolling. I just want another admin involved to look over my actions. I ignored the Baphomet thing since it was actually talking about policy. Neither of these even pretend to be part of the discussion of a solution they are just meant to 'show the gap between Islam and the West' or something. Apparently, I'm the Islam side O_o. Thanks. grenグレン00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the user's edits, I noticed a lot of user space edits. I checked on this with Kate's tool and found some really disturbing numbers. Not a single article edit since October 14 but over 550 edits to user space since then. I've left him a comment on his talk page about this, but those numbers are really disturbing. Metros23215:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that I was in error, presuming that the IP was an actual username. I went to correct it but it had been done already for me. My bad, as I said. Peace, --Kukinihablame aqui17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There IS a user out there with an IP for his name. Or there was a few months ago. I would have to really hunt to find him now, but we have talked in here. I think I will just avoid blocking based on that rule, as I fear that I cannot tell the difference. Kukinihablame aqui17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on developing more talent and knowledge in here...but am consistently impressed with that of others. I recall User:Sango123 first impressing me in this manner. And, if I recall correctly, Sango is a youngun. --Kukinihablame aqui19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No of course I am delighted for you to improve on what I did. I should have researched it better before posting a quick warning. --BozMotalk19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [18]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 21:51, February 20, 2007
Howdy! I was re-reading the conversation on the username RFC regarding Jimbobbowillywhatchamacallit and I wanted to follow up with you on something. On my second re-read of the conversation, I realize that it looked as if I was calling your explanation ridiculous. This isn't accurate, and I apologize if I created that impression. Your arguments have been sound, and while we disagree, I certainly hold you in high regard and did not intend to suggest otherwise. If you read my comment as I noted above, I hope you'll accept my apology for clumsily wording my initial assessment of the block. If you didn't, then, uh... rubber baby buggy bumper. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I did not think you were calling the arguments themselves ridiculous, it was more that you did not express any argument, only opinion. You have since clarified your argument very well. While I disagree, I am not always right. Peace. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
