User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret Page Deletion

Hello! I see that you've deleted my secret page User:La_Alquimista/Open_Sesame. I was taking a wiki-break, and found this out a bit too late. The page wasn't really against any rules stated in Wikipedia, and it really wasn't harming anyone. It was meant for a bit of fun, and I'd have appreciated it if you'd informed me before deleting it. I'd like you to kindly restore it as soon as possible, thank you. If you've got anything to say, please leave a message in my talk page. Thanks. La Alquimista 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you signed in the page yet. If not, what are you waiting for. Don't you want a nice crunchy cookie?? La Alquimista 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Problems

Hi there, I'm here because you were the first sysop-type-person I saw. I'm uncertain as to how things work with regard to this, but I'll go ahead anyway. I edit this site quite frequently and often when I am at my sixth form, I am also finding errors and generally helping pages as I see them. Unfortunately, at these points in time (around 8:30am-3:30pm GMT every weekday) the IP for the area had been blocked, including for accounts already created. Now, I am afraid I am certain that this will occur again, because as things are the IP works for multiple schools across the area I live in, which pretty much guarantees some stupid vandalism - you know schoolkids. Is there any way of trying to make it so that I will be able to edit in future situations where the IP is banned? Please take into account that there are literally thousands of possible users of the site... thankyou --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IP block exemption? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your CSD nominations

You know, I was tempted to decline the whole bunch. I can understand that you don't want to do any controversial deletions right now, and agree that none of the pages you tagged are helpful to the encyclopaedia. I think I even have a pretty good idea of the algorithm you used to generate the list; all those user pages were from users whose contributions were few, over a month old, only to their user pages, and the user pages were quite big, byte-wise. I could have understood if you'd tagged them all as test edits, and looked for a second pair of eyes to review them. I agree that most were test edits. But tagging them with reasons that you mostly made up on the spot ("Résumé", "Not an appropriate use of user space?", "Non-English copy-paste something from somewhere", "Copy-paste of something without proper attribution") even though you know that those aren't SD criteria is unhelpful, to say the least.
Amalthea 00:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my plan is to bring them to MFD now that speedy deletion has been declined. I'm rather disappointed that you chose to seemingly put process over common sense, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Common sense takes consensus and policy into consideration, and consensus with SD is to be rather strict. I don't choose process over common sense, I choose consensus over my or your opinion.
I just saw that you are discussing the very issue at WT:UP#Non-contributors. Why didn't you just wait until there was some form of consensus there? I am a fan of housekeeping, I supported your WP:OLDIP proposal, and I support WP:NONCON with the criteria you mentioned there. With speedy deletions, I very simply want to be convinced that they are non-controversial – if it were up to me, I'd delete a whole lot of other stuff. --Amalthea 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame you at all for not deleting things outside CSD. Don't get me wrong. You make some good points, but discussion at WT:USER is quite quickly turning into what every Wikipedia discussion turns into... pure dreck. People arguing whether or not a problem even exists rather than focusing on solutions to the quite-apparent problem. I've MFD'd the user pages that were declined. That seems to be what people want. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChileProg. A translation of an article started about one year ago, while today the Spanish Wikipedia already has an article on the topic. That's the most controverisal of the bunch, and exceptions like these could make WP:NONCON problematic. --Amalthea 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Numbering in User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3 data

The WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits page has been updated with your data, but unfortunately some of the data is missing e.g. between 3600-3642, and some numbers are missing digits e.g. #224. Can you post an uncorrupted version of the file? Wnt (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the page history for the 'uncorrupted' data? It's in there. (Sorry for the delay, by the way. Wrote this a while ago and then realized I never hit "Save page.") --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooops. Should have thought of that one! Sorry. Wnt (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, MZMcBride. WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits is now on the Feb 25th version and I've replied to your comment at User talk:WereSpielChequers#User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3, including an update to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/unflagged bots and found Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous. Also there's an interesting thread at WT:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Calculating your rank with a request to go much further down the list than 4,000. I figure if anyone could do that it would be you, and if you did a one off version to say 10,000 that left out the user names but just gave rank and number of edits it would enable the graph to be extended without creating an over large file. WereSpielChequers 09:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:RMHED

I see you deleted this user's talk page per WP:RTV. There's a subpage still floating around: his monobook. I'm pretty sure monobooks are included as deletable under RTV, but I didn't want to overstep here. Should we delete it? caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I had meant to check Special:PrefixIndex, but forgot to. Just peeked and this really is the last page remaining. I don't see any problem with deleting the page. My only though was regarding if he used some custom JavaScript for browsing-related things, but I don't see anything in there. Should be fine to delete. I'll leave it to you. In fact, it'll ensure he gets out of Google results, too. (Pages in the User: namespace are still indexed.) So, yes, please delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I had also found a redirect to his sandbox, but as the sandbox was already gone, I just G8 speedied it. Thanks, caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The IP received a {{welcome-anon}} back in 2006... Not much else in the history. –xeno (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. NJGW (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
Hmm. Create-protections are ... difficult. Having someone review some of them might be a good idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a db report for them? –xeno (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The output is available as a text file here (warning, kind of large): tools:~mzmcbride/xeno-2009-03-indef-create-protects.txt. If you copy-paste (or import) this into a spreadsheet program like Excel you can sort the columns by timestamp, protector, etc. Let me know if there are any other queries you want or if you want this one run on a set schedule. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Barnstar notice

Original Barnstar.png 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)
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)

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)

I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing user talk page deletions. 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)
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. Mangojuicetalk 14:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

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. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Addendum: If someone could copy this to (or link to the diff at) the Arbitration Workshop page, that would be much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The motion was a temporary injuction, and the Committee is voting to support a lesser one. As you know, I cannot unblock you. Someone else will have to review that request. Will copy link to the arbitration workshop. DurovaCharge! 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I have unblocked you.
MZMcBride, there was clear opposition against the policy, and consensus can change. You have been presented some cases where deletion was on the edge, and the script could have been adapted earlier. You were also notified that the deletion did damage to certain parts of wikipedia, even if you don't see the use of that.
Also, I believe, that if you are running an admin script, that you then keep good eye on the policies that you enforce (and there was already opposition). You were deleting way after the policy changed, and that part of the policy has not been stable for the last days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Your script is still running. Didn't you intend to stop it? Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain if I have misunderstood in some way. When I archived the noticeboard thread about the controversy that led to your arbitration case, the thread was taking up nearly three-quarters of the page at ANI. Part of the reason that escalated as far as it did was because you continued taking controversial admin actions while other editors expressed their concerns. You have a fairly long block log, nearly all of which is related to running automated scripts on your main account.

When I sought to find a resolution through conduct RFC as an alternative to arbitration, I asked you to voluntarily refrain from controversial uses of the tools. From this vantage it does appear that running bot scripts on your main account was--over time--the most controversial thing you had been doing. Wikipedia does not function well when individual administrators habitually test the limits of their scope of action. Even if the actions ultimately get vindicated, too much volunteer time gets wasted working out matters that could be handled in better ways.

Consensus appeared to be clear at ANI that your actions were very problematic; no one was unblocking you. In order to prevent another admin board thread as big as the previous one, I brought the matter directly to the Committee. Other parties had already suggested a similar course of action.

I have no prior experience in the policy or procedural discussions concerning your use of admin bots. So if there's another angle to this that I haven't understood, please set me straight. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletions were ongoing, I reblocked, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone, feel free to unblock (and I may have forgotten to unset the autoblock ..sorry again), I have to leave in a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked to dsiable autoblocked and cleared the autoblock. –xeno (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There were two issues here. (1) The framework that the script uses (wikitools) doesn't stop itself if an account is blocked. It simply prints "(u"Unknown error: ``''", u'unknownerror')" and continues. (2) MediaWiki doesn't kill my deletion token after a block. Both of these are bugs; I think the second is filed, the first likely isn't.

Regardless, I apologize. As I mentioned earlier, my Internet access today isn't the best. The few moments I had earlier to respond were spent disabling the broken redirects / orphaned talk pages deletion scripts so that I would hopefully avoid further drama as they are set to run on a schedule. The other issues I haven't had a lot of time to read through or digest.

Please start separate sections below if there are specific issues that need attention. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you join the thread at ANI and see whether anyone thinks cleanup/restorations are needed. DurovaCharge! 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, I'm still blocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked, please stop the oldip script if you haven't already. –xeno (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, xeno. And the script has stopped now, I triple-checked.

Durova: I've begun looking at what Dirk posted. I'll comment there shortly. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded to Dirk at WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)I can confirm what MZMcBride said about the error (as the author of the framework), it seems like either a bug or omission in the MediaWiki API, that when you try to delete a page while blocked, you get an unhelpful error message that could basically mean anything, except that the action may not have succeeded. When attempting to edit a page while blocked, it gives an informative error message a script can parse (u'blocked', u'You have been blocked from editing'), apparently this check wasn't implemented in the API's deletion module, so it just dies and doesn't know why. The only thing one could do would be to check if you're blocked before doing anything, but that would basically double the bandwidth use and increase the server strain more. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, Z-man. DurovaCharge! 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot cessation

Please see motion passed by arbcom here that takes effective immedidately: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed_decision#MZMcBride_directed_to_refrain_from_using_automated_tools. RlevseTalk 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret page

Why was my page deleted? You're reason was:

o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less.

That's abusing admin powers! Vinson 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:NOT, it will explain much. Chillum 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So why was my page deleted then?
Its because of what Chillum said above. Mine got deleted as well, however I am very dissapointed that MZM has to be such a jerk to other people, and yes, I agree that he is abusing his powers, full-heartedy. He apparently also never stopped after the several hundred posts reagrding him being a jerk about his message, but no. I would be pleased if he could ACTUALLY respond to this message. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've restored your secret page, Vinson, but keep in mind there's nothing stopping someone taking it to MFD. –xeno (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please response to the talk

If you still keep watching the page List of emoticons and revert all the uncited additions, please also response to my (and there are also others waiting for response) question of the reason, why you reverted my completely (and the only) cited addition.--Demoeconomist (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions on /Workshop

Thank you for your prompt answers to the questions posed to you via e-mail. I have expressed my opinion that the questions and your answers (except for a few specific details) could reasonably be posted on-wiki, but you should wait to hear back from the committee as a whole on that.

In the meantime, I have posted some questions to you regarding your speedy deletion of the "secret pages", the issue that led to this case being brought. I have posted these in the "Questions to the parties" section of the /Workshop page, as I don't think there is any potential problem with their being answered on-wiki. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt responses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for leaving a note here; if you hadn't, I probably would've missed the questions for at least a few days. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Brother USA article

On November 11th 2008 you deleted an article for Brother USA. Can you please explain why you deleted the page? It would benefit me to know this before I go ahead and try to recreate the page. To shed some light on this, the page was in the process of being created and it somehow was published and made public. This was not my intent since the article was still under development so instead of deleting the article myself I simply removed the content. Please advise. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother USA (talkcontribs) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since MZM marked it as a "G6" (non-controversial deletion -not sure why- perhaps he didn't notice it was a userpage), I undeleted it. best, –xeno (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The user blanked it themselves. The user also has no contributions to any article. And it appears the page is being used to promote the user's company (which likely violates several of our policies, including COI). But, no, don't wait for me to respond to a thread on my talk page, just reverse my actions without consultation. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If something is deleted as "G6" then it should be just as uncontroversial to restore it upon request. Apologies, I didn't realize you were around. –xeno (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I think I was a bit hangry. I still think the page should probably stay deleted as it appears to simply be spam, but perhaps the company is notable. I'll leave that to you. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Brother's definitely notable, I've got one of their printers sitting in front of me =) Huge company. Whatever's useful on the userpage should probably be merged with Brother Industries which is fairly tiny for a company of this size. –xeno (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken redirects

I'm about to delete some broken redirects manually. No need to be alarmed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

70 deletions in one minute? You're quick. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'bout to do it again. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpages

My user page:[1] has been deleted. Could you please un-delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradanuva (talkcontribs) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this user as a vandalism only account. Chillum 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your sole contribution to the article namespace is adding "And the right to eat nachos." to United States Bill of Rights.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I warned this user last year that Wikipedia is not Facebook. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm speaking up here because this user happens to be my friend. If you wish to delete my user page or even ban my account for saying this, I understand. However, concerning the social networking violation, he was writing as an article about his own self, not as a page for communication. Does he not have this privilege? Also, he was not aware of the copyright of his pictures. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't mind if you put his user page back up without the pictures, but he at least wants the information he's written so that he can use it elsewhere. Yes, this website is meant to be an encyclopedia, but I even remember having my page deleted. Strangely, after merely asking why my page was deleted (granted I signed my comment on this page back then) it was not long after that one of the admins put my page back up. I'm not even sure what I did wrong that made him delete it, although I suspect he thought my page was an actual article page than a user page. As for this ridiculous "And the right to eat nachos" comment, I believe he was writing something that he thought would not hurt the Wikipedia. Obviously, this edit of the United States Bill of Rights is unnecessary, but he's argued with me that he thought that the Tenth Amendment just supports one of these activities as this specific activity is not covered by the other Amendments. Anyhow, if this user account was deleted for this reason (rendering this account a "Vandalism only" account) I would understand why this account was removed. All the same, if this is the case, I beg that you admins would show a little mercy and give him another chance. I will confer with him as to what's appropriate to add to an article page and what is not, since I happen to know him personally.
I also notice Ammut's account was deleted for "social networking". Again, the user page is an article written about herself. Does she not have this privilege?
I thought user pages were meant to allow a WikiUser to define who he or she is, no matter how ridiculous the article that he or she happens to write on his or her page turns out to be. This user page is also linked to mine, in case you admins have not noticed. With all due respect (and at the risk of the banning of my account and the deletion of my user page), I write this comment signed as WikiUsers are supposed to do.
While I'm also aware that I have not specifically contributed to any article as of yet, I would whole-heartedly add something relevant to an article when I find an article incomplete. This would happen, of course, while I'm not clogged up with IB work.
KOemxe (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)KOemxe
Users who contribute to the encyclopedia are typically allowed a wide latitude in their userspace. users who do not contribute to the encyclopedia, well, that's another story. –xeno (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I just made a contribution myself. If you guys want anything specific, look up the sonic screwdriver article. I thought it useful to provide details on two of the toys in the article.
KOemxe (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)KOemxe
What xeno said. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you guys can't bring his user page back, is it possible that you can email him what he put on there or something? He just wants to keep it for some website he might be making soon.
198.209.55.21 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)KOemxe

--MZMcBride (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit notices

Given that Domas has disabled the per page edit notices in Mediawiki space, is there any reason not to install something like what is in MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 for all of the namespaces and move the page notices to /editnotice pages? The only real problem I can see is vandalism which could be countered by adding ".*/editnotice <noedit>" to the title blacklist, which would effectively limit edit notice editing to admins. Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Domas told me he'd rather have ParserFunctions in the per-namespace pages than per-page notices, so yes, your solution sounds quite reasonable. Though, I'm not particularly sure if there's a strong reason to limit editing to admins only. Obviously the MediaWiki: namespace forces protection, but perhaps <autoconfirmed> or something in the title blacklist would be better? Quite a novel use of the Titleblacklist, though! (By the way, credit for the editnotice subpage hack goes to Happy-melon; I just implemented it, the original idea was his.) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps autoconfirmed would be enough, full protection could still be added on a case by case basis as needed. I actually was thinking about a parser function hack only to notice that you had already implemented such a thing months ago while I was looking at examples of what was already in editnotices. Incidentally, is there a strong reason to force the BASEPAGENAME restriction? It seems like it makes the functionality harder to explain while not adding anything. Dragons flight (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about the BASEPAGENAME restriction. I think I used whichever code worked most reliably. If there are other Magic words that will do the job as effectively (or more so), feel free to update the code. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean your code only works on base pages, e.g. User:Foo, but would not allow adding an editnotice to a subpage, e.g. User:Foo/Bar. If you don't have an particular reason for doing things that way, I'll just change it to allow editnotices everywhere. Dragons flight (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right. Well, editnotices in MediaWiki core descend as I recall, so all subpages of a page use the same editnotice unless you use ParserFunction hacks. I think the intention was to keep behavior similar for whatever reason. But your idea seems fine; better, even, in some regards. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, these issues are being discussed at WP:VPT if you are interested. Dragons flight (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your user page

Since it was being discussed, only fair you should know.

(Also, today it seems to have changed, though without being edited?) - jc37 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's random (?action=purge will change it). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

I'd like to know your side of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MZMcBride_continuing_automated_deletions_despite_injunction RlevseTalk 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List generation

If you're around and have a couple minutes, I know that you are savvy with this type of stuff: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 26#Generating a list of talk pages that meet two criteria. –xeno (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be simple enough with a database query. Though having one revision versus having multiple revisions with a single author is an odd distinction to make. Are you sure you only want pages with one revision? (To find pages that are only transcluding the template you look at page size so you'll need to factor in redirects, I suppose.) If nobody else wants this, I should be able to get to it sometime today or tomorrow. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The "one revision" only is to prevent potentially useful stuff in the history from being deleted. –xeno (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. The first column is page_is_redirect (1 is redirect, 0 is non-redirect). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch dude. Wish I knew how to do this kinda stuff =) –xeno (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi MZMcBride, you may have already seen it, but I sent you an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw it. I'll respond now. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I won't notify you every time I respond, but back to you. Thanks. Acalamari 02:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete my userpage.

Hi, If you would please undelete my userpage I'd be very thankful. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy001 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Utah Grand Lodge article

Hello, I was working on the utah grand lodge article and saw it had been deleted. I'm not sure why but I would like to bring it back. There are a lot of masons in utah and the west that this information would really be useful for.

Thanks

j_lechem@msn.com (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for someone else.

Also, using your e-mail address as a signature is a very, very bad idea on a site as heavily trafficked as this one, unless you enjoy spam. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Kosmix" article unprotection

Hi, I don't know the reasons why Kosmix was repeatedly deleted (and subsequentialy protected), but now Kosmix is INDEED something noticeable (www.kosmix.com) and it will become ridiculus for Wikipedia admins that nobody can create this article (and it is making news worldwide).

PS: I would solicitate this in the appropriate place, but when was there i saw this: "If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here."

You was the last admin who protected it, so it is your task to revert it now :-)

Thanks

jes (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A handful of hits indicate this may be approaching or exceeding our notability standards, so I would support unprotection to allow someone to create an article. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
When you've protected something with "deprecating protected titles" is that something you want to be consulted on, or is it just a judgment call any one can make? (also any luck sorting out a list we can use to review those 14000 some odd protected titles?) –xeno (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Completely a judgment call. With most of them, I have no idea what the background of the page is. So I usually check the logs and sometimes do a Google search before deciding whether to unprotect or not. As for the other 14,000 create-protected titles, you saw my post here? Setting expiries for some of these (or lifting the restrictions altogether) might be a good thing to do. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
kk. Nope, I had missed that. Thanks, I'll look into it. –xeno (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In looking through it, I'm just wondering if this is just best left alone. Most of these titles are vandalistic and should remain protected. Others are repeatedly recreated deleted articles and who knows if the subjects have now become notable. Do users generally have success in flagging an admin if they want to create a protected title? (I guess this is tough to judge). Anyhow, thanks for both the reports (the {{wpredir}}-uses and this one). You can delete them from your toolserver account at your convenience. –xeno (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abdel Aziz Khoja

Just curious about this edit. I'm not following why you removed the deadend tag on this article. Could you please enlighten me? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like a bug in AWB. I think there's a place to report these kinds of things. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken redirects

'bout to delete some. Also, as long as you're reading this, please help clean up some BLPs if you have some extra time. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi MZMcBride, I was hoping on getting help on the Rick Santelli article, specifically in reagrds to his "rant" section. I am currently involved in a lower lever dispute. All I was hoping for was a neutral, properly sourced and weighted section added only to the talk page for starters. Anyways, I asked one other edited for help as well. Hope you don't mind this, but I saw how involved you have been with biograpghies and making them better, Cheers! --Tom 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting the article entirely? Or redirecting it to Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC. That seems pretty reasonable. A separate article seems ridiculous. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Pls see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#Questions_for_MZMcBride_2 RlevseTalk 10:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Moar work for you, mr. database query guy

Category:Blocked former Tor exit nodes, need a report of which of these are not blocked so I can remove them from the category? at your convenience, thanks mate. –xeno (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. Sampling the data, everything seems in order. Though it is a higher number of results than I would've expected. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's because someone removed the stale blocks without removing the template. And then I don't think the bot that tended to these is running anymore... Thanks for doing this so quickly. –xeno (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Curious, does stuff like this require an indepth knowledge of SQL? I'd hate to be bothering you all the time if its something I could pick up easily. –xeno (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The queries are usually pretty simple, it's just a matter of knowing where to look for things and how to combine it to get the data you want. The query I used for that list was:
SELECT
  page_title,
  ipb_address
FROM ipblocks
RIGHT JOIN (SELECT
              page_title
            FROM page
            JOIN categorylinks
            ON page_id = cl_from
            WHERE cl_to = "Blocked_former_Tor_exit_nodes"
            AND page_namespace = 3) AS pgtmp
ON ipb_address = pgtmp.page_title
WHERE ipb_address = '';
    • There's likely a much better way to write this, but I was tired and it seemed to work, so I said "good enough." It pulls the pages out of "Category:Blocked_former_Tor_exit_nodes" where the page namespace is 3 (User_talk:) and then looks for a corresponding row in the ipblocks table. If there isn't a corresponding row, it prints the result. There's more and more documentation about some of this stuff on the Toolserver wiki (tswiki:Queries, tswiki:Database access, etc.) as I get a chance to write about it. Most of these queries are fairly trivial and they provide a way for me to exercise my mind, so I don't mind writing them. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, yes, looks complicated; I'll probably leave it to you then =) Thanks, –xeno (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of second injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

The Arbitration Committee previously adopted an injunction passed on March 6, 2009, directing MZMcBride to refrain from using automated tools such as bots or scripts to delete pages while the case was pending. The purpose of this injunction was to allow time for the committee to address issues concerning MZMcBride's mass deletions of pages, which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy.

Since the injunction was adopted, MZMcBride has deleted hundreds of additional pages, sometimes at a rate of dozens of pages per minute. MZMcBride has explained several times that these deletions have been effectuated using tabbed browsing, rather than by a bot or script. However, at least some of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction.

Accordingly, MZMcBride is directed to refrain from deleting pages while this case remains pending, with the exception of obvious attack, nonsense, or vandalism pages. There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.

This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect until the case is closed. It does not reflect any prejudgment of the merits of the case. The committee shall take reasonable steps to expedite the resolution of this case, thereby producing a final decision that will supersede this and the prior temporary injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Finding a long lost article

Hi, It seems you've deleted my request\enquiry to find out if i can still find a way to view my first post, now deleted. I am now new again to this site, and would like to get into editing in a bigger way, but this post of mine, titled cybercide, is kind of personally important to me, and although i'm not asking that it be for public viewing as it sits, if ever, could i at least find out if there is still a copy of what i wrote somewhere?, it had come from a very strange patch in my life, that i can't recall properly. Your help and time appreciated, Thanks. DvntJester (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

userfied to User:DvntJester/Cybercide. –xeno (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IRC user cats

The categories involved in this discussion, which you closed, are being discussed here, here, here and here. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sad to see so much discussion over something so mundane and uninteresting. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hercules Hook

Why did you delete the page about the Hercules Hook? some page -- TurtleBoy0 (click here to tell me something) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hercules Hook was a broken redirect to Hercules Hooks, which was deleted by someone else.

Also, please make your user signature less obnoxious. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Could I please have my rollback restored? Best, Steve Crossin Talk/24 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Crossin Talk/24 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Queries

Are you able to query the user tables? I'd like to create a list of accounts that exist on both dewiki and enwiki subject to a particular set of conditions. Dragons flight (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The user table has a restricted view due to sensitive data (e-mail addresses, salted passwords, etc.) The data available to Toolserver users is:
mysql> DESCRIBE user;
+-------------------+-----------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field             | Type            | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------------+-----------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| user_id           | int(5) unsigned | NO   |     | 0       |       | 
| user_name         | varchar(255)    | NO   |     |         |       | 
| user_registration | varchar(14)     | YES  |     | NULL    |       | 
| user_editcount    | int(11)         | YES  |     | NULL    |       | 
+-------------------+-----------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Compare to mw:User table. Don't know if that's what you're looking for or not. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Is user_registration the registration timestamp? mw:User table doesn't describe it, but it would seem to have the right length. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Though as far as I'm aware, the data is a bit odd. Originally the software didn't store user_registration date, so when it was implemented it was calculated based on first edit. However, for some unknown reason, some editors don't have a date stored.

Compare:

mysql> SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_name="Dragons flight";
+---------+----------------+-------------------+----------------+
| user_id | user_name      | user_registration | user_editcount |
+---------+----------------+-------------------+----------------+
|   16980 | Dragons flight | 20030803163139    |          13964 | 
+---------+----------------+-------------------+----------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

to:

mysql> SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_name="Versageek";
+---------+-----------+-------------------+----------------+
| user_id | user_name | user_registration | user_editcount |
+---------+-----------+-------------------+----------------+
|  146418 | Versageek | NULL              |          19118 | 
+---------+-----------+-------------------+----------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
--MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like to run the following complicated query. I'd like a list of every user account that exists on both dewiki and enwiki such that the dewiki account was created first and the enwiki account created no more than 30 minutes later. And further such that the dewiki account has editcount = 0 and the enwiki account has editcount <= 25. For output please provide the username, enwiki registration and enwiki editcount. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I've done. I ran two queries. On dewiki_p, I ran:

SELECT
  user_name,
  user_registration,
  user_editcount
FROM user
WHERE user_editcount < 1;

On enwiki_p, I ran:

SELECT
  user_name,
  user_registration,
  user_editcount
FROM user
WHERE user_editcount < 26;

I ran them through a Python script that compared the first columns of both and printed all matches:

file1 = {}

f = open("dragon-f-1.txt","r")
for line in f.read().split('\n'):
    file1[line.rstrip().split("\t")[0]] = line
f.close()

file2 = {}
f = open("dragon-f-2.txt","r")
for line in f.read().split('\n'):
    file2[line.rstrip().split("\t")[0]] = line
f.close()

for k,v in file1.items():
    if k in file2:
        print file1[k]
        print file2[k]

But, as I said earlier, user_registration has the NULL issue. So I'm left with a lot of rows that look something like this:

Moonmaster	20060213234001	0	en
Moonmaster	NULL	0	de
Akim	NULL	0	en
Akim	NULL	0	de

You're a far more competent programmer than I am, so I just gzipped the output and put it back on the Toolserver. It's available here: tools:~mzmcbride/combined-output-dragon-f.txt.gz (about 188,000 lines). Hopefully that gives you enough to work with. If you need further assistance, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that should work fine. Dragons flight (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, just as a side note, I'm fairly sure I figured out why the NULL values exist. The populating script for the column was run at a specific point in time and indeed used the first edit to determine user_registration date. If a user account didn't have any edits, the field was left NULL. Because the populating script has never been run since, some older users who didn't start editing until later have NULL values there. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions in ArbCom case

I've posted some follow-up questions in the ArbCom case here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that I'm a little annoyed with you would be a dramatic understatement. Jesus Christ, Carc. It's four weeks into the case, NYB keeps telling me there's going to be a proposed decision soon, and out of left field you post a shit-ton of questions that will inevitably delay the case for at least a week, probably closer to two weeks. I'll answer this newest round of questions when I have some time and inclination. In the meantime, there are plenty of biographies that need fixing, surely a better use of everyone's time and resources. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree about BLP issues. Will try and help (starting with a group of 100 from Nixeagle's lists). I have proposed some things myself concerning BLPs, but nothing happened back then. When you get time (between looking at the questions and carrying on with BLP work), would you be able to look at this proposal I made last November?
  • In terms of warning, I should have given you a more explicit warning that further questions were possible. I mentioned it in two places (see below), but should have let you know directly on your talk page or the right place on the case pages. The first place I mentioned it was when I opposed the proposed temporary desysop: see here. The second place was at the AC/N discussion (easy to miss): see here. Having said that, I do see that this was a bit unexpected. Sorry for coming out of left-field on this.
  • If you need more time to answer the questions, or want to discuss any of the questions (e.g. if you feel they are phrased or posed unfairly), please feel free to ask on the workshop talk page. In terms of the timing of a proposed decision, it would be best to ask Brad about that. He was aware of these questions, so talk to him if you are worried that answering them (where you can) will unduly delay the case.
It wasn't my intention to upset you, and I apologise for that. Hope this makes things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I skimmed your proposal from November.

The first step in any "BLP fix" in my mind is to first find all of the biographies and categorize them. In my view, you can't begin to adequately solve a problem until you know the size and scope of it.

The second step is establishing much clearer and stronger notability guidelines regarding living people. Working in specific areas seems somewhat helpful here, for example determining which criminals or porn stars are notable. Currently, it seems anyone who has ever committed a crime or anyone who has ever made a porn video is "notable." They're not.

The third step is deleting quite a few biographies (or redirecting them).

But, as you note in your earlier comments, the main issue right now is that nobody cares. Even with definable problems with definable solutions and goals (e.g., categorize all biographies of living people from a specific list), participation is still very low. Smaller groups might motivate people (e.g., task force ANUS), but probably not. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the scale of unmarked biographical stubs was so large. Thanks for making that list. In the past, there were people at the WP:BIO WikiProject who kept such things up-to-date, but it seems as people left or reduced their commitments, that such work fell by the wayside. What didn't stop was the steady increase in the number of BLPs (i.e. people still like writing about other people, or about themselves or friends, as I suspect). One thought I had was that instead of sorting by alphabetical order (which is very boring), sorting by existing categories, or sorting by date of creation, or number of edits, or date of last edit, might help. You said somewhere that publishing lists ends up with people working on the same lists, and I ended up working on a section someone seems to have done already, but they hadn't marked the section as done (wasn't a problem, as I found other things that were missed or needed doing). There is a big checklist of stuff that needs to be done for any biographical article (sometimes for any article). Ideally, all biographical articles would be created using a template that included all of these things, with the appropriate "this bit is missing" categories for others to clean-up and add afterwards. Here is a brief attempt at a checklist: User:Carcharoth/Biographical and new articles checklist (see also the wishlist on the talk page). Any follow-up should be there or at a suitable Wikipedia namespace page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI your answers to questions 14 and 15 I believe are misplaced (should be placed under 15 and 16, respectively). –xeno (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Goddamn parser has a mind of its own! Fixed the formatting. It looked fine in Firefox, but Safari had issues. Should be better now. Thanks for the heads-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Caulde

This page has had substantial editing from more editors than just Caulde. So I don't think it should be deleted just because he says he wants it gone. Friday (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm... couldn't that be said of any User_talk: page that's deleted? (Lots of edits by other users are inherent to a user talk page....) He invoked his right to vanish. Am I missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, user talk pages should not generally be deleted. So he claims to be leaving.. so what? User talk pages are a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh, you can't simply rewrite policy and then declare it law. This has been long-standing practice for years. One of the oldest principles. You need to find consensus for such a dramatic change in policy before instituting it. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, there has never been consensus that we deleted talk pages on request. Friday (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please use AN or some other similarly-appropriate forum for some outside views. But it's been long-standing policy that we delete User_talk: pages when a user exercises their right to vanish. Though, ironically, I'm in the awkward position of not particularly wanting to provide evidence as it would violate the wishes of those who chose to leave. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll note here (as I imagine it's possible I'll get asked at some point): if another admin feels that this user talk page should be restored, they're free to do so. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

What happened to your deletions? Did all the article writing secret page making users get too annoyed? Can you still delete old ip pages?--Otterathome (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoined from deleting anything at the moment. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Did the WP:OLDIP get deleted? So no admins can delete the old ip pages?--Otterathome (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There were spam-related issues or something. Someone should fix that redirect, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Facebook_Era was deleted because the book wasn't released yet. It has since been released and featured in a number of notable third party sources, including the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2009/03/29/29venturebeat-author-clara-shih-on-the-facebook-era-and-w-105673.html Could you let me know how I can go about getting the article restored? --Jeff.yip (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List questions

Not sure who to ask (you or Nixeagle), but there are questions at User talk:Nixeagle/BLPPotential. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there and put the page on my watchlist. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ferguson (Sex offender)

Hi! I'm curious as to why you deleted this page - while I never cared for it, a number of us made sure that it met any BLP issues by removing unsourced information. As it stood everything was sourced, so I'm not sure why it would constitute a "BLP nightmare". I'm assuming, then, that you had other concerns? Or that it had been discussed elsewhere? - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight? Notability concerns? People notable for one event? The article was a train wreck and I'm not particularly sure he meets out inclusion criteria. However, because he is a living person, his biography must be in somewhat decent shape or it quite simply won't exist. Feel free to start a draft in your user space (at User:Bilby/DF or something) that asserts notability and gives appropriate weight and it can be discussed.

On a side note, putting "sex offender" in the page title needlessly seems to be a horrible idea.

--MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I completely agree with MZM on the last sentence (his side note). Cbrown1023 talk 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly agree about the (sex offender) in the title. I can't remember who or why it was added, but it was a very poor choice. In terms of notibility, though, there was no issue - as it stood there were ten references, all reliable sources, covering six years. Similarly, one event doesn't apply, as he's notable for a number of reasons - primarily sex offences, but also been driven out of towns, media hounding, and one court case being (temporarily) refused on the grounds that he was too well known to get a fair trial. I can see arguments for not having the article, but I'm not sure that those listed are it. Perhaps there is a general question about having articles on living criminals that needs to be hashed out somewhere? - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is pretty decent. Most of what you mentioned wasn't in the article; had it been, it may have been a bit more balanced. But without it, the biography simply isn't acceptable. I should point out however that simply because something has media coverage doesn't necessarily make it notable. The media has a lot of hours on-air and pages in-print to fill each day; they cover a great deal of inanity every day because it fills the gap. (Not that that really seems to apply here, but as a general caution regarding media coverage versus what's actually important.) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I wasn't aware that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) existed, and it helps with some general questions I had, although it seems the article would have met it without any problem. Most of those issues I mentioned before were covered in the article, but probably should have been expanded. I'm not very worried either way - while I worked on the article, it was to address BLP concerns, rather than because I wanted it here. Maybe I'll bring myself to revisit the topic some time and expand on the other areas, but working on some topics are less than enjoyable. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Redeleted article

I had a question about a redeleted article at WT:AFD#Redeleted article. Since you conducted some of the actions mentioned in my query, would you care to respond there? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored Names of Asian cities in different languages. The past AFDs were unclear and there were later issues (some of which I don't particularly understand). Anyone is free to re-nominate the page for deletion, but at the moment, I see no harm in having it up. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete my userpage? Muzzy12345678987654321 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficult deciding whether or not to block you indefinitely. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Java (Sun) delete

You deleted Talk:Java (Sun) on 31 May 2008, reason "orphaned talk page redirect". What does this mean - was it because Java (Sun) ceased to exist or the redirect Talk:Java (software platform) ceased to exist? In which case, both of these were never deleted, so how did it become an orphan? Please undelete, if it was a mistake. Jay (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned as in "without backlinks" and it was the talk page of a redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why was that a reason for deleting it? Algebraist 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The pages generally serve no purpose. (Esp. if they have no incoming links.) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It does serve a purpose. I went to Java (Sun) and saw it was redirected to Java (software platform). The history of Java (Sun) said it was moved based on a WP:RM, but provided no link to the move discussion. I went to WP:RM to the date when the move was done and found the move listing, but the discussion page was red-linked. I finally found the move discussion in Talk:Java (software platform), and was about to mention about this discussion in Talk:Java (Sun) in case someone else comes looking for it, when I realized that the talk page should not have been deleted in the first place, and the redirect should have remained. Jay (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So re-create it? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to recreate it, but rather undelete which is what I requested you for. As per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Deletion review, assuming it was an "out of process" delete, I can go ahead and undelete it. Jay (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the mantle

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin Barnstar
MZM, I award you this image, and these words, for the tireless work on BLP's, deletions, protections and other administrative tasks that often go unnoticed (you know what happens when they do get noticed). Unfortunately now, you cannot say this is a thankless job. Kudos sir, kudos. Synergy 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 10
Very kind words and much appreciated. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

As the admin who deleted User:Hoserjoe's user pages to enforce his indefinite block, I wanted to let you know that another user with a similar "style" has been editing on at least one of the same pages, Jamaica. Considering that HoserJoe used socks/was a sock, I thought you might want to check out User:Bushcutter, just to be safe. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, I'm like the worst possible sock hunter ever. Try AN? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but I'll have to get to it later today. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rabbits in baskets

Hey there. Can I suggest you put {{bot|MZMcBride}} and a link to the BRFA on User:Basketrabbit's user page? That little template and link is usually enough to ward away worries and questions should someone follow an edit summary from the bot, and neatly cordons off the account as a bot of yours. — Coren (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. There was no way to include a link to the BRFA without ruining the page layout, so I just called it approved.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I didn't even know that template had the feature!  :-) This does the trick. — Coren (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Userpage#Add configurable width

Ya, I see the timing may be poor, but could you please make a fix to this page? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Over a year and a half later and the only thing that's changed is that my signature now includes a (talk) link.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. fyi, I made this change on some other projects; ex: [12]; new is on the left, there. G'day, Jack Merridew 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Resigned

I've had a steward remove my administrator rights on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Though I acknowledge that the RFAr has highlighted some mistakes of judgment, I had rather hoped to avoid this outcome. I continue to believe that your actions were a net positive to the project, and am sorry that it has come to this rather than finding a more focused solution to smooth out the rough spots. Thanks for the work you have contributed over the years and I hope that you will remain interesting in working on Wikipedia despite your reduction in rights. Dragons flight (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank for you for the kind words.

Yes. The two questions that have been rattling around in my mind for the past few weeks are, "Is the project served by me resigning?" and "Do I still have the support of the majority of longtime users?" I don't believe the project is served by my resignation. And I still believe that a large majority of longtime users still have trust in me. However, others obviously disagree. Oh well. Am I disappointed in the outcome? To be sure. But life goes on.

And, as they say, it isn't over till it's over. There's still a possibility (albeit a small one) that an Arbitrator will change their vote. We shall see.

In the meantime, there's a lot of non-admin-related work to be done, especially with regard to biographies. So I think I'll focus my energies there.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I really appreciate the actions you took with regards to the questionable page. I thank you for all that. I was inclined to change my vote after you voluntarily deleted the soft redirect of the questionable page and the page itself from Mediawiki. However, upon having a look at the case's talk page I found this post which really changed my mind again. The last sentence is really not my standard hoped from an administrator. My couple last questions MZMcBride... have you thought about it for a second before posting it or that you considered it to be productive? Have you thought that you could have been assessing John Vandenberg's vote inaccurately? Do you believe that it is a result of a burnout caused by the case itself? And if you believe that was wrong, would you believe that you could avoid such situations in the future? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I mis-read John's intention, which I clarified in my later post. That was a mistake on my part. Did I think it was productive when I posted it? Yes. I even considered posting it on John's talk page, because I think the underlying issue is an important one.

In these cases, especially ones that focus on specific editors, it's easy to point out every mistake that they've made. (And even easier when the person has made a lot of actions or has been around for a long time.) But I'm a firm believer that all users have belly-buttons. As much talk as there is about me being a robot, I'm actually quite capable of mistakes. And, more to the point, I hate making them, so quite often I try to ensure that I don't. But I'm not infallible; I've screwed up in the past, but I've also learned a great deal from those mistakes.

I think two of the most important lessons I've learned here are: (a) that responding to talk page concerns and questions is incredibly important; and (b) that even if you try to anticipate every corner case, with a database this large, you'll always miss something. Regarding talk page concerns, there are some admins who edit and act and only respond to talk page messages every few days. Having been on the other side of this, I realize how frustrating it can be to feel as though your messages are ignored. So, I try to respond to all posts to my talk page as promptly as possible. Regarding corner cases, it goes to show that review of large-scale tasks is important. It's simply not possible for one person to anticipate every possible scenario. "Many eyes make a bug shallow," as they say.

When I saw John's vote, I tried to speak with him privately, but he wasn't available at the time. I considered posting to his talk page, but in hindsight, I think posting to the talk page was a better choice because it opened up an avenue for discussion and brought to light what John pointed out may be a serious issue in one of the findings.

You've asked if I'm burned out a few times and I've avoided the question in the past. The reality is that these cases can be incredibly draining. There were a lot of questions to be answered, the case has gone on for nearly five weeks, and yes, it has become draining.

Personally, I think I've done the best I could answering all of the questions and at this point, responding to nearly all of the requests that have been asked of me. I deleted all of the subpages that caused people concern and I filed two Bot requests for approval.

There are admins who have in the past chosen to take the easy route and simply quit or retire when faced with challenges like this, but I owned up to my responsibility to the community to accept criticism and improve.

The comment on the talk page to John could have been phrased much better; for that I apologize. As I said earlier, these cases are difficult when a lot of people are judging you and assigning you motives and such. And it becomes much more difficult when people focus only on negative contributions. And even more difficult when people take positive contributions (finding and reporting biography-related issues) and put a negative tint on it. Did I feel attacked? Yes, and so I posted a note on the talk page. But I sincerely hope an off-hand remark doesn't taint the entire case.

--MZMcBride (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and detailed response. I'll be sending you a private e-mail later today if you don't mind. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What a shame. I still believe that your contributions, especially in regards to correcting the never-ending troubles with biographies of living individuals, have been a net benefit to this project regardless of the stance a few, vocal opponents take to this. Resigning the adminship rather than having it battle it out in some venue speaks volumes on your character, that you'd rather see the drama die down than string out, in the hopes that perhaps we can move forward towards a workable solution. A shame that it took your pushing to really bring this to light. seicer | talk | contribs 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to echo Dragons Flight. You leave big boots. I hope someday you put them back on. Hiding T 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dolorous. --Ali'i 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh this just sucks. In my Wiki-encounters with you, you have always done the right thing and acted fairly. I hope you will reconsider some day and re-apply for the tools. We need more good admins not fewer. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words. It's been a rough couple of days and the sentiments expressed here have been much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could You Please Restore My Page?

Hi, Could you please restore my Ohio Preteen Murders page, This time I will Cite The Sources. --Waglenic (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a copyright violation of the article listed in the deletion log at [13], not because it did not have sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

oh--Waglenic (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked files/Configuration

I see that this report is pulling up articles where the image is redirected. Is this intentional, or does it need to be tweaked?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example row from the report for me to test with? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, the first one. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100,000_Dollar_Mamal links to File:$100,00 mamal.jpg, which redirects to File:Sea Scouts - $100,000 Dollar Mamal album cover.jpg. Weird thing is, it doesn't look like a redirect...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Should be fixed. I'm re-running the report right now. Let me know if you notice any other strangeness. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Looked good at first glance -- don't know if I'll be able to take a closer look, but the obvious problems are fixed. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Redressing grievances

With a project this large, there are bound to be people I've upset or pissed off in one way or another. This becomes especially true with the unusually high number of actions and edits I've made. I'd like the opportunity to redress any grievances that people may have.

Please feel free to post below if you have any concerns with my past behavior or actions. Or, if you'd feel more comfortable, feel free to send me an e-mail.

I promise, you won't hurt my feelings by being honest. I want to improve, but the only way that can happen is if people make constructive criticism.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have one. Your WP:Database reports page provides me with thousands of menial but easy tasks to do, forcing me to spend hours doing them all. I demand those hours back!--Jac16888Talk 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have only one greivance. You doubt yourself too much, and create too many outlets for trolls to vexatiously object to your otherwise good work. If you spent more time doing your job, and less time worrying about how people who have no right to be offended but get offended anyway feel, you could do a better job doing it. Rather than constantly seeking feedback, just do your job justly and rightly, and then any criticism will be seen as rediculous... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear MZMcBride: I myself do not agree with your actions, you made errors that the community at your RFA entrusted you would not make. You failed to follow the deleters maxim, "When in doubt, don't delete." IAR has its limits that must be carefully evaluated in light of community consensus and common precedents. Still, I think you handled the fallout remarkably well and for that I present you this:

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For being honest and doing the right thing in light of your recent controversy. Ipatrol (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"When in doubt, don't don't delete" would mean "when in doubt, do delete"... –Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Thank you all for the kind words.

Jayron32: In all seriousness, I want people to air their grievances if they have any. Truly. Jac16888: I'm afraid the reports will only continue to grow. :-) Let me know if there are any others you'd like to see added, updated more frequently, or adjusted. (Even minor things like making redirects not redirect or adding (edit) links are possible.) Ipatrol: Thank you for barnstar.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you still owe me $20 bucks, jerk. :P Hehe, no but seriously, I think in everything you've done you've done so with the best of intentions, and I definitely hope you stick around. =) --slakrtalk / 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Get back to BLPs. Speaking of which, if you're so busy you're looking for beatings, you should help me make Daniel Rodriguez a good article in the face of the crap-factory that keeps editing it, and thereby honor Jeffpw with its improvement to GA, I met Jeffpw at the article, and we fought, and we made up and became friends, because he knew it was worth it to get along with people and work for the encyclopedia. You worked for the encyclopedia. A bunch of silly people decided that harming a good editor in order to keep crap on board was a good idea--and had to work it to make it seem like more. WTF? I'm pretty sure I have a beef with you. If I remember it, let me know. Oh, by the way, I was right: allowing the secret pages was a really bad idea that led to harm for the community, and it continues to be a really bad idea. But, glad to know that there's so little wrong with en.wiki.

I don't have time to work on the DR article now, but maybe this summer. It's the type of biography that wikipedia could and should do really well: sufficient well-sourced material is available. However, the poor guy's friends (Daniel Rodriguez's) can't write worth shit and keep trashing the article. It could be an excellent example of a first rate biography of a slightly famous figure. It's a shame that so few admins pay attention to problems with BLPs, as there really are problems there. However, as long as the AN/I of the moment crap fest is open for comments why do any hard work? --KP Botany (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. We're making progress on the biography front. Slowly, people are helping out and the backlogs, well, they're not going down, but at some point surely they have to decrease.... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate your overly broad deletions of user pages where the accounts weren't in the database. It caught some where the account was registered before the conversion to Phase II software, then abandoned, such as Mike Dill (talk · contribs). I also used your deletions of talk page redirects to advantage in finding pages that needed to be history merged, thanks to the Special:DeletedContributions feature. I very much appreciate your regular database reports and work on BLP's, and hope you stick around despite recent events. Graham87 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't something I was particularly proud of and it's one of the true regrets I've had (those user page deletions). I learned a valuable lesson there about trusting the database. For the most part, the data is fine; however, sometimes when querying for pages, it's simply wrong or completely misleading. (I've filed my share of bugs and poked and prodded people to clean up some of the mess that's been left behind, as well.) Hopefully, others have learned from my mistakes. All the best. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(And let me know if there are any other database reports you'd like to see—I enjoy making them. The "Redirects obscuring page content" is fantastic for finding poorly-done ("manual") page moves.)

Grievances? How about giving up adminship, which allows you to weasel out of being one of the best non-vote-counting closers that we have. I may have to find a sharp stick and start poking you (hard) to get you on the path of non-admin closures : p - jc37 05:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking below, looks like the sharp stick did the trick (and better than I had anticipated : ) - jc37 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a grievance. On more than one occasion I've confused you with MBisanz, and it's all your fault for having too similar a user name! Because of that, I can't think of anything specific. But I'll consider it all settled if you buy me a camera :) Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I had not previously commented in this section, nor at your ArbCom, in keeping with my comments here; but in the light of your (IMO) extremely ill conceived RfA I think that perhaps a few negative comments here might have given you reason to more fully consider your choice of action. My grievance is that you fail to interact with all viewpoints of the community - your communications are fine, but in instances where you disagree your comments are devoted in arguing your case rather than trying to find common ground or determining the consensus. Moreover, you are inclined to refer to conversations held elsewhere when faced within the community pages with lack of consensus with your preferred choice. This is good in producing robust discussion, but it is not in keeping with the sysop function. It is a struggle I often face, and not always conquer, but I do recognise it; I wonder if you do. Lastly, we do not (have not) got on, but I think your general adminship was of benefit to the project and would not oppose a future request for the flags, but would strongly urge you to consider if you have previously divorced your own bias' sufficiently when making sysop decisions. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the blunt words. Much appreciated.

      I think your assessment is pretty fair overall. In a lot of cases, I think it's easier to simply do something and call it a day rather than trying to explain it to people. That's probably a fault of mine. And, yes, I get frustrated when people arrive months late to a conversation and try to throw a wrench in productivity simply because they missed a previous discussion.

      I think one thing that has become more clear to me is that this project can be incredibly frustrating at times. Something that I imagine you can empathize with.

      You said we've not got on in the past. To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean. Regardless, I hope whatever it is I've done has been reconciled between you and me. If not, please let me know. This section is about redressing such grievances, after all.

      Thanks again for the frank comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Really sadden to hear about this. And to think that I was working on doing the same thing over a year ago then never did it, I think we even talked about it back then. I really think that you did nothing wrong, and that it's a shame that some people forgets all you've done here. Too bad I was too late for the RfA, you have as always my support :) See you around on IRC, Snowolf How can I help? 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

talk page deletion

I have great respect for the work you do, and I'm sorry to hear that you've resigned. Since you no longer have the tools, whom should I contact about undeletion of this old talk page of mine, which you deleted and I'd like to get back? --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seemed uncontroversial enough, so I've restored it. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, xeno. I had actually just pinged someone to take care of it and you beat them by seconds. :-)

For the record, any admin who sees any uncontroversial task on this page is free take care of it, as I'm currently in exile. (Nearly all of my deletions would count as uncontroversial, or at least restoring the content per a user request certainly would be.)

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem - feel free to ping me for any tasks you need taken care of (though I'm sure IRC is faster ;>). –xeno (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

I'm running for adminship (again). --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZM, I came here originally to say, my !vote should not be taken personally. I am disturbed by what appears to be a gaming of the system and think you made a very bad political move. I REALLY wish you had waited at least a few weeks. Oh well, the best.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I was tormented by the idea of being de-adminned when I felt the community still had confidence in me. We'll see what happens. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you RfA fails, remember that being an admin is not about the buttons... it is the attitude and mentality that comes with the respect of the community. If it fails, continue to be an admin. Just do so in areas/manners that don't require the buttons and come back in a few months asking for the buttons back.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, Balloonman, ArbCom have no proposals that restrict the resysop to Arbcom, so a community vote is not, in itself, problematic. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't really want to get into the debate here... I came here to be supportive despite my oppose. That being said, it's the way this was done... by starting it while the case is still pending, he is A) gaming the system ("I stepped down to jerk you guys around.")and B) declaring that he is going to attempt an end-around on ARBCOM. It's a powerplay wherein he has basically created a scenario that puts ArbCOM in a difficult position. ArbCOM clearly was going to close the case and let it die without anymore dhrama. They clearly anticipated that MZM would run in the future, they just didn't think he'd have the gual to run less than 2 days after stepping down. Now ArbCOM is put into the position wherein they can either do something and risk the wrath of the WP community coming down on their heads, or not do something, in which case MZM has successfully snubbed his nose at the committee and the community. If his RfA passes, then the snub is complete and MZM has symbolically said, "FU ArbCOM!" IMO, by starting the RfA while the case was still open, he is begging for Dhrama. He knows his actions are contrary to the spirit of the discussion and is now playing games. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Again, I do have respect for MZM, but he lost a lot of that via his actions here today.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as you closed, I started to write:

  1. Neutral. I've already commented on the candidate's XfDs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_A_Nobody and as I indicated there, two were really weak, one was good, so not enough to support or oppose. Now as far as admin actions go, the candidate accidentally blocked me as a Grawp sock all things, but immediately unblocked me. On one hand, hey, it was a mistake and rapidly rectified so it kind of cancels out. Yet, on the other hand it just makes my block log look that much more cumbersome on an initial glance. So, again, kudos for undoing the error, but how did it happen in the first place? Now otherwise he seemed helpful in our most recent interaction at User_talk:Bjweeks#wikistalk_tool, so I'm just torn here I guess. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't know if there's anything in the above that is helpful or not, but it's there as what would have been my stance for better or wrose. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E kala mai (my apologies)

Aloha, MZMcBride. I just wanted to apologize if my vociferousness in your request for adminship in any way dissuades others from supporting your request. I (and I probably shouldn't say this, but whatever) just have a hard time believing that we as a community can be so fucking stupid that this is even a question. I suppose I'll step away for a bit. I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry if my actions hurt your chances in any way. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about defending a friend... you did so with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, defending people at RfA's often allow others to build cases... and solidify what might have been a less developed stance.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride's not really a "friend" (sorry, MZ), but for the reasons you outlined above, I felt I should apologize for any (however minimal) harm I may have caused. Mahalo, Spartacus (as if that is your real name). ;-) --Ali'i 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Basketrabbit and the bot policy

Would you be willing to have the above bot account renamed to fit with Bot policy? Namely the part that states "bot" must be in the account name?--Rockfang (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that your bot account's name does not comply with policy. According to current policy, bot account names must have "bot" somewhere in the name.--Rockfang (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you started a discussion at WT:BAG. I'll comment there in a bit. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read your reply there. Thanks for giving input on that issue. But on that page you didn't answer my question I asked here. Would you be willing to rename both User:Whip,_dip,_and_slide and User:Basketrabbit to conform to bot policy?--Rockfang (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I boldy updated the policy page to better reflect current practice. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank for letting me know about your change. It doesn't appear to have consensus though at the moment. And since current policy states that "bot" must be in the account name, and the fact that I see no reason that ignoring policy in this case helps Wikipedia, would you be willing to change the above account names to conform with bot policy? A Yes/No answer would be preferrable.--Rockfang (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Always has been. Discussion is ongoing with regard to bot names. Do you have some sort of vested interest in these particular accounts? You seem incredibly interested in a specific answer, but I have no idea why that is. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2cents from the TPS'er: these bots are operating only on database reports. The handful of people that actually look at these database reports will know they are bots. –xeno talk 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Rockfang, et al.: If you come up with clever names for the bots (there are currently two: "Basketrabbit" and "Whip, dip, and slide"), I'll gladly find a bureaucrat to rename them. Examples of un-creative names: "DatabaseReportBot," "MZMcBot," "BoringBot." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any interest in the accounts other than the fact that they are currently against policy. If, for example, xeno got 2 bots approved with names that didn't follow policy, then I'd be asking him/her to be changing them as well. I haven't seen any reason to ignore policy in this situation other than "I just don't feel like following policy". I'm not saying you used those words, but that is the impression that I get. With regards to any possible renames, if you just put "Bot" on the end of the account names, then they would be fine. "BasketrabbitBot" and "Whip, dip, and slide Bot" for example. Would those be ok with you?--Rockfang (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are rather lame names. And you're missing the much larger point. Imagine for a moment that no policies exist. What's your issue with the current account names? And, looking at the current list, User:R. Hillgentleman, User:CommonsDelinker, User:Wikipedia Signpost, User:Pearle, User:CanisRufus, etc. Will you be posting to those user talk pages next? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My additions aren't very imaginative, I agree. :) But they are a possibility. About the hypothetical situation of no policies. If there was no policy regarding the names of bot accounts, then I would have no problem whatsoever. There are other editors that may still have a problem though. Some examples would a few of the opinions stated here. About those other accounts. I'm probably not going to do anything because I don't know what the policy was (if there even was one) at the time of their approval. I do know what the policy was at the time your bot accounts were approved.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
/me nods. I understand what you're saying. I don't see a need to rush anything right now. I think the current discussion about whether to force "bot" into user names (and for which types of bots) is a Good Thing. In this particular case, there's also the issue that if a name like "MZMcBot" is chosen, there's the issue that that account already exists and that you'd be merging two bots into one (or maybe not). Needs some further thinking. I thought about "MurrowBot" for the database report bot (after Edward R. Murrow).... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll chill for a bit. Just please don't archive this section in the mean time. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was actually thinking about "BernsteinBot" and "WoodwardBot" for the pair of report bots. Is there any guideline / practice / policy regarding using (famous) living people's last names in bot names? Seems like there shouldn't be an issue; it's a honor, no? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Those sound like cool ideas to me.--Rockfang (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem using lastnames as bot names. Full names may be another story. –xeno talk 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that the humor benefits of the cute names (like Basketrabbit) exceed the community's interest in having bots be consistently named. Insiders may know they are bots, but ordinary editors should also know. Frankly, I was puzzled by CommonsDelinker, and perhaps I am just out of the loop, but it seemed like some kind of supernatural force emanating from Commons that had to be obeyed. If I knew it was a bot, that would help. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Bots renamed (Basketrabbit → BernsteinBot; Whip, dip, and slide → WoodwardBot). User pages updated and bot requests for approval moved (redirected) appropriately. Updated the settings.py files for the scripts and updated the edit summaries. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Well done for listening to other editors' concerns and being willing to compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

  • MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or approval of the Committee.
  • MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
  • MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
  • MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
  • MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Break

Whether or not my current RFA passes or fails (I still have hope that the community will find forgiveness), I'll be taking a break the minute it closes. I've been active on this project day after day for a very long time. It's taken a toll and Durova is completely right that I need a break.

I'm announcing it in advance to make sure that I don't leave anything unattended. There's little around here that others can't handle, but if there's something in particular that you need from me, put it below and I'll try to take care of it before taking my break.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How long do you intend to break for? Majorly talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know for sure. "Until it feels right," I guess. I can't imagine it will be less than two weeks. I can't imagine it will be more than two months. So somewhere between those two, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up to my comment on the RfA. The whole thing was a really bad idea but kudos for withdrawing the RfA and doing so with a thoughtful closing note. And whether your break lasts a day, a month or a year, just make sure you come back. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That was a graceful closure. It's sad to see things headed in this direction, especially in light of your prolific record. If you feel like discussing life after adminship, I'd be glad to talk either onsite or offsite. Best, DurovaCharge! 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A genuinely classy move. Best wishes to you.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes as well. As indicated above, I would have been neutral although might have just given you the benefit of the doubt with a weak support on reconsideration. Anyway, take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A very well written closure, have a nice break, and best wishes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I add a {{wikibreak}}, or will you?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed your RfA. :( I don't know how I didn't see it, I've been watching the new RfAs for the past few days. Was it transcluded properly? Anyway, I hope you come back to us soon, my friend. GlassCobra 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shovel

I buried you two feet deep in the archives, I think you can claw your way out. Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you MZ for closing your RfA early. Like I said, my stance was not against you personally, but rather against the action which I saw as only having the potential to damage the community. As I said in the RfA, I firmly believe that opening it while the ArbCOM case was open was a huge mistake... and honestly think you might have had a chance if you had waited just a week or two. I am all for reinstating the bit to former admins... I really wish we had a system that allowed for people to move in and out of adminship easier and with less drama. Again, I am posting this here because while I was a very vocal voice in opposition, I wanted to make it absolutely clear, that my opposition was against what I perceived as forumshopping and gaming the system---not against you. I do not believe that harming the community was your intent, I believe that (as you said) you honestly felt that you were a victem of an injustice, but the consequence of your action sowed discord in the commuity. Your closing the RfA early helped redeem you in my eyes. I wish you the best and hopd that this doesn't become too much of a downer for you. I know from my personal experience, how hard it can be to be rejected by your peers on a project you've put a lot of time into. I can also tell you from experience, the hurt does go away, and there are enough areas on the project that I hope you can find something new to be pationate about. I also wanted you to know that if (down the road) you chose to run again, *I* will not hold this against you. IMO you made a mistake by opening it, but you fixed the mistake by closing it. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to say, being an admin is not about the buttons... but about your attitude and commitment to the project. I firmly believe that you can be an admin without the tools or passing an RfA. An RfA is just the means to confir what, IMO, should already be evident through one's actions. If one is acting like an admin, one is an admin, regarless of whether or not they have a globy thingy on their page.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the past few days thinking about your comments, especially the final one about adminship and buttons. You're quite right. Thank you for the kind note. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned talk page redirects

That a page is an "orphaned talk page redirect" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please do not delete talk pages that have content on them or in their history, but instead make sure that you're using CSD-G8 (or another specific reason for speedy deletion). —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, glancing over the rest of this talk page, this may be moot now. Sorry if my comment is irrelevant.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an old practice that is now discontinued. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aria Wallace

Since you were the admin who protected the page, could you please remove the page protection for Aria Wallace. Info is out of date.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That was Daniel who protected the page, you may ask him to reduce to semi for the remaining of the protection. Or make an {{editprotected}} request if he doesn't want to. Cenarium (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite. Thanks for responding, Cenarium. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Database reports

Hi. Thanks for share your source code in Database reports. I'm going to use them in Spanish Wikipedia, and I'm going to learn a bit more about SQL queries. Thanks and happy programming. Emijrp (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :-) The source code on-wiki is a bit out-dated. The most up-to-date source code is available here. Let me know if you have any other questions, suggestions, etc. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Pankration2008's talk page

Hi. I realise that you are on a break, but hopefully either you get this when you come back or someone else spots it. I believe that your bot deleted User talk:Pankration2008. Would it be possible for it to be restored? The reason I want it undeleted is that the user tried to accuse me of racism on a number of occasions and I want my response and the reason for the subsequent blocking of the user to be visible. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It was Z-man's bot, FWIW. –xeno (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for getting the wrong editor! I spotted a link to MZMcBride's arbitration page at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:CAT:TEMP_deletion_bot and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gastrolith

Hi MZ: I'm curious as to why you deleted the talk page for Gastrolith; I don't want to recreate it if there's a problem with the article, but right now it's not hitting any WikiProject article listings because all the project templates have been deleted! Can you please shed some light? Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a single edit to the page by an anon, consisting entirely of
Gastrolith
(an obvious test edit) Feel free to add the appropriate wikiproject templates to the talk page (there weren't any before). –xeno (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! MeegsC | Talk 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam Songo Living

Hello. I noticed that you categorized Sam Songo as a living person. I haven't been able to find out much about him after his initial burst of popularity when the Mission School works were in vogue in the 1950's and early 60's. Needless to say, the records for that part of Africa aren't exactly great. Do you have any sources to verify that Mr. Songo is indeed alive? Thanks!! --LoverOfArt (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, things work the other way around: if someone is plausibly alive at the time, and there is no verifiable confirmation of death, then we must presume that the person is indeed living and extend the protection of WP:BLP to articles discussing them. — Coren (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite. Thank you for responding, Coren. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Body1 page

Can you unprotect this page? I would like to write an entry but cannot due to protection status. Monday20 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Body1 page was created numerous times and deleted as it was always created as either a copyvio or blatant advertising. Go ahead and write the article in you user space--Eg click here to create a page in your user space. After it is completed, let me know and I'll confirm that it isn't a copyvio or blatant spam. At that point, I will unprotect/move the article to the mainspace. I generally recommend writing articles in your user space anyway as it allows you to write without fear of a CSD'er tagging and deleting a work in progress.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Andersonlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Andersonlogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi MZMcBride I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Whip, dip, and slide has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Question about user deletion

Today you deleted my user acccount(see notes on helpdesk page) What is the reason for deletion and how do I rectify this? TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalink. I've already restored it. There's probably some lesson to be learned here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It was the user page of an (apparently) abandoned account with no encyclopedic contributions. Apologies for the inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Using interwiki templates

Hello. Is there any way to use templates specific to one Wikipedia version on other wikis? What I would like to do is to create a template on Turkish wiki that uses {{Template:Numberofarticles}}. Is that possible? --Superyetkin (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way is usually to copy and paste the content of the template to the Turkish wiki and cite the history page in the edit summary (or copy and paste the page history onto the talk page. Let me know if you need further help. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update but what I would like to clone is a special template. It is called Template:Numberofarticles in English wiki and outputs the wiki-specific constant {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. Is there any way to use this figure in other wikis than what wiki the constant actually belongs to? --Superyetkin (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is a Magic word. It's part of the software and is available on any Wikimedia wiki. It doesn't require the use of a template. If you look at the content of the Template:Numberofarticles (here), you'll see that the template is just a wrapper for the magic word. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Superyetkin, you can have a look at {{NUMBEROF}} which is apparently updated via bot. --Amalthea 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I am going to contact the administrators on Turkish wiki about how to clone this template. --Superyetkin (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List of wikipedians by articles started

Hi. I was wondering if it would be possible to draw up a list for this. I have absolutely no idea how many articles I've started and there doesn't seem to be any tools to find it if you surpass 45,000 edits. WOuld it be possible to generate lists by articles started (excluding redirects and dab pages of course)? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I did. I generated a list of all pages in the article namespace that aren't redirects that you created:

SELECT DISTINCT
  page_title
FROM revision
JOIN page
ON rev_page = page_id
WHERE rev_user_text = "Dr. Blofeld"
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND page_namespace = 0
AND rev_timestamp = (SELECT
                       MIN(rev_timestamp)
                     FROM revision
                     WHERE rev_page = page_id);

Then I manually excluded all pages in Category:Disambiguation pages. The results are available here: dr-blofeld-pages-created-2009-04-27.txt. (Warning, large-ish file; 48,812 results.)

Creating a list of all users by articles created would be pretty difficult and intensive. Though it may be possible if you're really interested. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see that on some database report (not one for wp:database reports though, obviously). It would be interesting to see a list of our top article creators. Synergy 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


There's a list of Wikipedians by articles created from November 2007 at User:Bryan/List of users by pages created. The query used to generate that page took about 30 hours to run. Graham87 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Updated data available here (warning: kinda large page). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, I'm having trouble accessing previous versions of that page from the history, so I can compare the two versions? The servers time out when I attempt to go to any older version. I've tried a server purge, a rollback, and deleting/undeleting the page. I managed to find the info I wanted from the old version by deleting the page and viewing it that way. Graham87 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a diff is too large as nearly every line changed between the versions. The old version of the list used {{user}}, which makes rendering of the page incredibly slow. It's possible to view the raw content of the old version here. You can compare that version to the current version, albeit only for individual users in the list. A broad comparison list is feasible, though some results would be missed due to user renames. A bit of manipulation of the data in Excel or another spreadsheet program should do the trick, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made a version of the old list that will load slowly, but reliably, by replacing all instances of "{{user|" with "[[user:" and of "}}" with "|]]".

I only wanted to compare the numbers of articles created by certain users. Of most interest to me was the article creation figures by Mav. He did a large number of cut and paste moves in the early days, when the page move function wasn't very reliable. I spent some time in the last year history merging his cut and paste moves, with the result that his article creation figure in the new list is significantly less than that in the old list.
Speaking of odd page history happenings, would it be feasible to make a list of diffs with perfectly normal rev ID's but bizarre timestamps, such as the ones that are listed here in my page history observations? I'd also love to know where the old history for the Mafia article went, because it seems suspicious to me :-) ... but I don't know if that can be found with toolserver access. Graham87 13:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Off-hand, I can't think of a good way to find such anomalies. But sometimes it simply requires pondering for a few weeks to come up with a working query. I'll keep thinking about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi there. Please remember to notify users if you tag their pages for speedy deletion and please remember that "no encyclopedic" value is not a valid reason for speedy deletion and that such userpages need to be deleted via WP:MFD if needed. Also, please remember that criterion G2 does not apply in userspace. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification seems a bit unneeded when the users haven't edited in months or years. As does an MFD for "i rule u and u wish u were me" copied and pasted over and over again. It saddens me that you think it's a valuable use of the community's time to debate the merits of what is obviously vandalism. But off to MFD I go. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the page content is (was, soon enough):
Try as I might, I'm failing to see what part of that is appropriate for a user page. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Unneeded or not, it's just courtesy to do so, so the user's understand what happened to their creations. As for vandalism, it is always a difficult thing in userspace because vandals usually target places where people see their "work", so I would not make this bad-faith assumption on a userpage - inappropriate maybe, but vandalism carries a much stronger implication than just inappropriateness. That leaves a test page and that cannot be applied in userspace. If it's as clear as you think, it can still be SNOW-closed at MFD. But it's much less harming in the long run than to imply bad faith for a user who just wanted to test on his userpage. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of perception (and I don't really know the origin) that we're some sort of test wiki. We're not. The goal here is to create an encyclopedia. It's fine if people use their user space to test wiki syntax and such as long as they're contributing to the encyclopedia, but (a) that doesn't mean we need to retain those test edits for eternity; and (b) it doesn't mean that if that's the user's only contributions that we need to keep the test edits (or vandalism) around years later. Alternate outlets lists places where people can create test and vandalism pages or even create their own wiki. This attitude that it is appropriate to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for test edits really needs to be adjusted, whether it's in the Category_talk:, User:, or article namespace. This isn't directed at you, really. Just a more general rant. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to try and change it. But as long as we have a criterion that says "userspace is excluded" from test page deletions, we need to follow the policy. Personally I think you are creating problems out of thin air. Some obscure userpages that noone will ever see are not threatening the goal to build an encyclopedia, rather all the time spend to tag those pages, discuss their merit, delete them, restore them, ANI about them (you know how it goes from your experience) is much more damaging to this goal than just ignoring them. Seeing that deleting them all would not stop people from creating such pages in the future, it's like trying to empty an ocean with a teaspoon. That time could really be spend more wisely improving articles. Just a general thought. Regards SoWhy 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh, when they use real names of people or companies, they're pretty easy to spot in Google's (and other search engine's) search results. The amount of spam, vandalism, and attack pages that we freely host for the world is staggering. But, you're right, until there's a page with a green check at the top of it saying that vandalism and attack pages aren't going to be tolerated here, what's the point of removing some of it? Right? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Page Unprotection.

Could you please unsalt Grooveshark for me? I've got a well sourced article at afc that I need to move. Thanks. ƒingersonRoids 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Unprotected. MBisanz talk 01:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have some spare time...

I would value your expertise here: Wikipedia talk:AWB#Is it possible to pull a value from an infobox field and then chop it up and put it into a different ref?. –xeno talk 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

{{Newmessages|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Wikipedia:Requests for editors to stop being so stupid_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Requests for_comment.2FUser conduct}}

Yes, I saw. I didn't really feel there was more to respond to, but I will try to expand my comments a bit. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Phillip Santos

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of John Phillip Santos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Law type! snype? 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed there. Thanks. Law type! snype? 22:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm

I gather this line needs changed to point to en.wiki, no? –xeno talk 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

wiki = wikitools.Wiki()
It was written by Mr.Z-man, so it defaults to en.wikipedia.org (zomg bias). But if you want, you change it to:
wiki = wikitools.Wiki('http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php')
--MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hrm I figured because I am getting the following:

Traceback (most recent call last):

 File "xeno-commune.py", line 7, in <module>
   wiki = wikitools.Wiki()

NameError: name 'wikitools' is not defined

I'm on IRC as xenocidic at the moment. –xeno talk 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ok all the python errors are vanquished,, now "Server error, trying request again in 5/10/15/20/25/30 seconds" =) –xeno talk 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems to be working now. \o/ --MZMcBride (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • 'Tis working great and almost done its run ~! =) Thanks again. –xeno talk 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For your expert coding work and patient assistance helping me get User:Xenobot/6 up and running as well as your ongoing help here and there with technical issues and regexes, I award you The da Vinci Barnstar. =) –xeno talk 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB Special PrefixIndex

Whats up with it? (Haven't had chance to check it)

Reedy 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a bug introduced in the last scap which has been fixed in SVN. The issue is that we haven't SVN up'd / scapped in about six(?) weeks or so. It's been a long time. Hopefully an update will be coming this week or early next week. (But isn't AWB using the API for PrefixIndex? I thought only the user interface was broken....) --MZMcBride (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. AWB is certainly using the API for PrefixIndex... When im back home on my main computer, i'll see what the api queries are returning. Reedy 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)