User talk:MZMcBride: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:33, 6 March 2009

User:207.170.135.18

On 29 Feb 2008, you deleted the page User:207.170.135.18 under CSD U2, regarding the userpages of nonexistent users. I don't think it's any big deal, but U2 appears to exclude the userpages of IP users. Was there anything of interest in the deleted page? Was there another reason it was deleted, aside from U2? As I say, it's likely no big deal, but it caught my attention. --SSBohio 04:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the page was:

<div style="float:right;border:solid #C0C8FF 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#A2808C"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#914046;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[Page Creation|pg]]-0'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This [[anonymous]] user is not permitted to create pages in the '''[[Wikipedia]]'''.[[Category:Anonymous Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Anonymous Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|}</div>

And, not that it matters, but I think CSD U2 used to be specifically for anonymous user pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for explaining. My reason for asking is that this IP seems to have made some useful edits, and the deleted page seemed out of place given that. It looks like the only thing on the page was a warning that that user was prohibited from creating pages on Wikipedia. Was there a page there that was replaced by the warning, or was the warning the only edit? As far as WP:CSD#U2 goes, I've been wary about using such labels by themselves as deletion rationales, since what they mean can change over time. --SSBohio 01:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Hi. Could you kindly advise if you plan to present evidence or a further statement in the arbitration case concerning you, and if so, what is your timetable for doing so. I understand that you do not want to spend too much time focused on the case at the expense of other work you are doing, but the committee would certainly want to have the benefit of any input you plan to provide before we proceed with any drafting on the workshop or the proposed decision page.

On my talkpage last week, you indicated that you believed some of the comments contained in my analysis offered at the case acceptance stage were inaccurate or misleading. You followed up with two specific instances where you took issue with my comments. If there are any other points where you believe my comments were factually inaccurate or took things out of context, it would be helpful if you could point those out to me, on-wiki or otherwise, as obviously I would want to make sure that any proposals offered by me or other arbitrators are based on complete and accurate information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few things are unclear. Do you consider the long statement you made when accepting the case to be evidence? If so, will you be adding it to the /Evidence subpage?

The broader question is what the scope of the case is. Currently, much of the focus is adminbots. You seemed to indicate in your acceptance statement that you had a far wider scope for the case, but the other issues you raised haven't been discussed by anyone. Until it's clear what the scope is and what the issues being discussed are, it's rather difficult to respond to most of it. Especially given that, at least at this stage, it could end up being me trying myself.

FT2 did make a suggestion in his statement when the case was being considered that it would be best to do at least part of the case via e-mail. Given the amount of sensitivity you feel exists surrounding some of these issues, perhaps that should be strongly considered. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out your post here to the other arbitrators and see if we can give you some guidance on what issues you should address and whether to do so in some cases on- or off-wiki.

With regard to my prior statement, I don't consider it as evidence, but as some thoughts regarding whether we should accept the case, and (because at that point it looked as if we were about to decline the case) my then-current understanding of the facts. I noted on the RfAr page after the consensus veered toward acceptance that anything I had previously said was preliminary and was subject to revision based on the evidence presented. For what it is worth, though, what I thought as of last week the facts were would remain my best understanding as of now, except insofar as you or someone else presents additional information that changes my best understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:128.220.183.121

I just placed a vandalism warning at User talk:128.220.183.121 and saw that you had previously deleted that page. There's no block log, so is there anything important to know about the history of that IP, or it just part of a random DHCP network? NJGW (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP received a {{welcome-anon}} back in 2006... Not much else in the history. –xeno (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Welcome template, template substituted. Nothing exciting. (As a side note, that deletion was before WP:OLDIP was codified. The deletion summary for that page would now be "Old IP talk page", though I think they're re-re-debating that again so the link currently doesn't do much....) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NJGW (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The silliness of bot deletions

Category:Project-specific Welcome templates was recently moved to Category:WikiProject-specific welcome templates. The admin that took care of the move forgot to update the redirects CAT:PWELC and CAT:PWEL, and then you deleted them. Please stop deleting such redirects, since a human would have noticed the CFD discussion in the log. --NE2 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any page title containing "CAT:" will no longer be deleted as a broken redirect (by me, at least ;-). Thanks for the note. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealousness

Overzealousness bites...

1) Note the redlink use here at the top of this category page.

2) Last fall some zealot decided he didn't like the Template sharing project, and in an MFD, was given permission to tidy up and tear it down... which is fine, but along the way he's torn up a lot of unrelated and otherwise useful and used template tools such as this one, which iirc, uses an intermediate call to another. (One's a front end or 'filter')

3) Would you be so kind as to restore the template (chain, if needful) to functionality since this wasn't a TFD endorsed process so the redlink on Link templates works again.

4) Have you ever wondered how much we could get done around here if someone else wasn't coming along every 4-9 months and once again rearranging, recatting, and otherwise messing with templates organization. So many wasting so much time on so much that is best just left alone!

I wouldn't ask, but I seem to be outlasting most admins I've worked with since 2004. Should probably ask for a sysop bit one day--like I have the time. Thanks // FrankB 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wpd-catlist-up restored. All other issues should probably be directed to Happy-melon. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAH

Hi there, MZMcBride. I would like to request you to unprotect the page WAH and redirect it to Wah (disambiguation), please. Thanks in advance, Waldir ^talk 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the redirect (WAH=Working at home as mentioned on the disambig page). Page is unprotected as it was only set as create= , no prejudice to reprotection if it's necessary. –xeno (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Create-protections are ... difficult. Having someone review some of them might be a good idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a db report for them? –xeno (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to create one before realizing just in the article namespace there are over 14,000 protected titles. Good grief. There's always Special:ProtectedTitles I suppose.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Of course, the report would be ideal for sorting purposes. Maybe updated less regularly than your other ones... –xeno (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the issue isn't speed or anything like that. In fact, the query is incredibly fast — it takes 1 to 2 seconds to run. The issue is that putting 14,000 results on a single page is impossible, so the results would have to be paginated, which quickly ruins sort-ability and navigation and is all-around icky. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... When going thru indef semi I found it easiest to start at the oldest... Unfortunately the Special: page doesn't have the ability to sort by age of protected. –xeno (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer

Do you mind temporarily reinstating this page, so that I can retrieve some information from it ? GoldDragon (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left the deleted content in a hidden comment on your talk page. If you're going to work on the article, I can userfy it if you like. –xeno (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar notice

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for having the sense to nominate the inclusionist-magnet Template:Rescue for deletion, even though it'll be fruitless. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) It's too bad that even an effort to put the damn thing on the talk page is likely to fail. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP talk page deletions.

I have been working out a current case of talk-page warnings (User:Beetstra/DeletedTalkPages#XWiki_spam_range; name is misleading). You say that you scan for spam, promote, and promotion. That is, seen the current state of these warnings, NOT enough. According to the state of the talkpages in a /24 range, 3 of the 4 talkpages would be deleted according to the current policy (... next February) as they were warned for spamming, but the talkpages do not contain any of these three terms. The other example that I already gave on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Old_spammer_talk_pages regarding the Rubic Cube spammer does show that you do checking, also there only one of the two pages would have been saved with your current scan ([User talk:213.59.221.19]] would still have been deleted according to your explanation of your settings).

I am asking you here now to stop your ongoing deletion process NOW. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_user_talk_page_deletions_by_MZMcBride. It is now 22 minutes after the request to stop, and I see no response. I have suggested to block this account awaiting further discussion. I again ask you to comment, there or here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked. No offense, MZ, but it sounds like there might be collateral damage happening here and you aren't online to respond or stop the bot yourself. I've disabled autoblocking, please feel free to unblock yourself when you are personally back online, but please don't start the bot up again without resolving this discussion. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, and I also did not see this earlier, but apparently the deletions are not supported by policy anymore since early this morning (diff) .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a heads up: after several administrators expressed unanimous concerns I filed a workshop motion for a temporary desysop while the case is ongoing. It would be a very good idea for you to respond as soon as possible.

Having discussed suspension of controversial uses of the tools for a prospective RFC, it really seemed too obvious to mention that the same would apply to an arbitration. Since you were unavailable for dialog while this occurred, and it appears that similar instances have happened before, a temporary injunction appears necessary.

A very clear and prompt statement on your part that you get the point could persuade me to withdraw the motion. But it would be imperative that nothing even vaguely like this would happen again.

The proposal is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#Temporary_desysop_of_MZMcBride. You may post a response here; I'll watchlist your user talk. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving you the same heads up. I worked out two examples of 2 /24 ranges this morning. The first did not hit on anything out of the ordinary, except for one deletion that put a grin on my face.

I have endorsed the desysop mentioned by Durova. I am not going to be around soon, I am giving Durova per this statement permission to also strike my endorse if she is persuaded. For me, a promise to stop completely with deletions of user and user talk pages (bot assisted or by hand) until the issue is resolved, but leaving that completely to other admins is enough. Attempts to meet our concerns with the policy (or even attempts to help in undoing some of the damage..) would be appreciated, though. I'll watch this space as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me at your earlier convenience (I'll likely have irregular Internet access today). This script has been running for nearly two months straight and is documented in a subpage of mine.

I have no idea why a motion to de-admin me was brought forward. Obviously the script has stopped running. I think it's rather absurd to fault me for running it when the policy regarding it was established several months ago and literally changed within the last few hours. (Not that I don't assume good faith, but changing the two-months-old policy and instantly expecting strict adherence is rather Orwellian in my mind.) I have no intention of restarting the old IP script until this issue is resolved. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 :I am giving you the same heads up.  I worked out two examples of 2 /24 ranges this morning.  The first did not hit on anything out of the ordinary, except for one deletion that put a grin on my face.
 :I have endorsed the desysop mentioned by Durova.  I am not going to be around soon, I am giving Durova per this statement permission to also strike my endorse if she is persuaded.  For me, a promise to stop completely with deletions of user and user talk pages (bot assisted or by hand) until the issue is resolved, but leaving that completely to other admins is enough.  Attempts to meet our concerns with the policy (or even attempts to help in undoing some of the damage..) would be appreciated, though.  I'll watch this space as well.  --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
+Please unblock me at your earlier convenience (I'll likely have irregular Internet access today). This script has been running for nearly two months straight and is documented in a subpage of mine.
+I have no idea why a motion to de-admin me was brought forward. Obviously the script has stopped running. I think it's rather absurd to fault me for running it when the policy regarding it was established several months ago and literally changed within the last few hours. (Not that I don't [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], but changing the two-months-old policy and instantly expecting strict adherence is rather Orwellian in my mind.) I have no intention of restarting the old IP script until this issue is resolved. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)