Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 25 September 2007

User:Swatjester
User Page	Talk	Contributions	My Awards	Sandbox	ToDo	View Subpages

Swatjester for ArbCom. Lead the way!

1. Before leaving any messages pertaining to help on a certain subject, check to see if the question is answered here before leaving a message on this talk page!
2. To start a new message, click the + mark by the "edit this page" tab. Enter your subject, message, and sign your name (see rule seven if you don't know how to sign your name).
3. If I begin a topic on your talk page, I will respond on your talk page.
4. If you begin a topic on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page.
5. I may deviate from that if I choose.
6. As always, please adhere to civility rules and no personal attacks rules.
7. If you write a topic out of the ordinary, and delete the topic or text later, I will see it via the history page. Please think before you type.
8. ALWAYS sign with ~~~~ four tildes, or your message will be deleted.
9. I have the right to delete inappropriate messages!
10. Formatting on this page and its transcluded parent courtesy of User:Miranda.

--- Swatjester

Misplaced Pages Signpost and Admin Backlog summary enclosed

24 December 2024 News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Protection of MediaDefender

Re: protection of MediaDefender, can you at least provide a basic explanation of the issue with the OTRS ticket? And why full protection was needed and not semi-protection? It seems rather nontransparent and mysterious at this point, when this issue is breaking very quickly. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected based on an edit war. I counted at least 4 reversions within the past 50 edits, all of which in the past 24 hours. As for the OTRS ticket, at this time I can't provide any further information, until I hear back from the originator of the ticket. ⇒ SWATJester 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'm not keen to unprotect the article since I do respect your experience and judgement on this for now. Though my old school thinking would make me more apt to protect if it's 4 reverts in one hour, rather than 24 hours. Some pause in figuring out what sources to trust or not trust is not a bad idea. There is still the very small question of whether the e-mails are authentic at all, but every indication seems to point to "absolutely" since the leakers were able to get passwords to phone conferences and servers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's my logic too. I don't mean this anything near as a permanent full-protect. I'll go back and make sure that I put a VERY short expiration on it (like, 24 hours). I mean this to be "pushing the pause button" so we can get more administrator eyes on the article. ⇒ SWATJester 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the MediaDefender article really semi protected because of vandalism? Neververyvery 05:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The MediaDefender article is semi protected with a label stating that the reason for the protection is vandalism. The article has never been vandalized. Could you please put the real reason for the protection or unprotect it. Thanks Neververyvery 13:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not ready for unprotection. As for the label, we don't have an automatic label for "article protected because IP's are pushing POV", and the bots get angry when there is a protected article with no label on it. ⇒ SWATJester 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you wouldn't want the list of IP addresses I was referring to. I've rephrased my question without the list below.

There's a list of all the IPs' edit's since the email leak on the Media Defender Talk page Talk:MediaDefender#Why_is_this_page_still_semi_protected.3F and here . As you can see (don't take my word for it), IP's aren't really pushing a point of view. The IP's tend to be adding information that damages and is negative towards Media Defender, but that's only because the leaks are damaging

So far the page has been protected because of an edit war that wasn't happening (which was nearly immediately changed to an OTRS reason) and vandalism (which is really IP's pushing POV). Apart from the OTRS reason, they don't seem to be supported by the edits. Would you be prepared to discuss the protection on the talk page (bottom)? Neververyvery 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before. The main reason is for the OTRS ticket. It's also a high profile news item right now, and despite what the protection policy states, we regularly do protect pages in which we anticipate a swarm of vandalism; for instance, the release of Halo 3 tomorrow night. Beyond that, there is a credible threat that MediaDefender employees in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines, will disruptively edit the article. Keep in mind that semi-protection does not just stop IP's, it also stops newly created accounts. Removing the protection would be too dangerous at this time. I cannot recommend doing so. ⇒ SWATJester 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand how it works now. Neververyvery 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not really true, and unfortunately I just can't lie so I've had to strike it through. I don't find your reasons for semi protection consistent or justified (except for the OTRS, which isn't open to scrutiny). I do understand that you aren't willing to unprotect it though and appreciate that you've made that clear Neververyvery 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made it abundantly clear. If you can't understand the reasons, which are indeed consistent with our policies, you should consider editing a different article. ⇒ SWATJester 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Atala T

The bad thing is, They dont have any newspaper articles or anything because they are not really known in the internet world. If anything by them making more products availible such as the Atala T Toolbar , thet would be more known to the public. is there any other way I can save the article?

--Muriness 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. If they're not known yet, then they probably don't qualify. ⇒ SWATJester 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater USA & Erik Prince

Can you do me a favor and add Blackwater USA and Erik Prince to your watch list? Given recent news coverage, but have been subject to significant vandalism. As someone who has written about Blackwater a lot in the past and is known to upper management, I feel weird playing guardian angel to Erik Prince's entry, and I think that Blackwater's management would feel similarly. I do not have a conflict of interest as such, but am uncomfortable with the current situation. --Pleasantville 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best. I don't see any reason why you couldn't though. ⇒ SWATJester 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Second that, if its clear vandalism there can be no question of COI issues, especially as you're quite open about your relationship. If anything questionable comes up, ping me (or ping Swat, heck, he's only a law student so I'm sure he has more free time than I, heh) Ahem. Or post on WP:RFPP if the vandalism gets bad. KillerChihuahua 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Blackwater knows who I am. Their VP and their legal counsel once came up to me at a conference and said if I ever had any questions, I should get in touch, and handed me business cards. But regardless of my opinions on the private military industry, people making fun of the death of Prince's wife by cancer is really over the top. In any case, I will continue to monitor. --Pleasantville 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty sick.⇒ SWATJester 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

hello

I appreciated your back up on the recent CSN matter - obviously, I think your take was correct. Nice to meet you Tvoz |talk 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My problems with Ferrylodge went back to the RFC. I supported his banning before the Fred Thompson deal. ⇒ SWATJester 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of all of that until now - reading it, I can see why the response to the CSN was so rapid. Tvoz |talk 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Banno is still complaining about it, on Ferrylodge's talk page, which makes no sense to me. First he complained that FM didn't close the discussion; now he's complaining it was closed too soon. He states he thinks FL would have been banned no matter how long it went on, but thinks it should have gone on longer. And he chose to place his complaints on Ferrylodge's talk page, where I don't see how it can possibly do any good - I'm confused and perplexed at this line of reasoning. KillerChihuahua 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. ⇒ SWATJester 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Atala T

Thats not really fair because you know I worked hard on the artice and with the images, You know what i went through just to have my article on here and again someone is threttening to remove it. If they remove my article then I think Im not going to re make anymore because this doesnt make sense, and then they tell you dont get offensed if they delete it. I dont know what to do

--Muriness 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you worked hard. Not everything is meant for Misplaced Pages though. I'm not sure what to tell you. If you can find some sources around there about Atala T, you might have better luck. ⇒ SWATJester 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Atala T

I dont know anything on the internet about Atala T but I think the CEO put a download of the Toolbar on upload.com . The reason how I know everything about Atala T is because I know the CEO personaly, and I have left links to the website and everything so they cant say that it is irrelivant. I posted on the deletion page so im waiting to hear what they have to say, Can you please back me up on the page please because like you stated before, you know I worked hard and I even improved on my adittude? the link is ]

--Muriness 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Call of duty 4 source

Im confused on how www.fourzerotwo.com is not a relible source. Its the Blog of Robert bowlding, head community relation manager for Infinity ward. He an offcial source for most Call of duty 4 news. ForeverDEAD 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. It's not on the COD:4 website. ⇒ SWATJester 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright i understand, I personaly think that the relible sources should make an exeption with cases like this but alas i dont make polocies ForeverDEAD 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No

I don't know who you think you are, but it is highly unconstructive to drop a templated user warning on a longstanding admin's page for a good faith (and correct) edit. ⇒ SWATJester 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, a couple of things.

• Admin or not, I fail to see why a templated responce would be any less "unconstructive" than me sitting here and typing the same thing out manually. The alternative would for me to have not left a message for you at all.
• Although I am not making a bad faith assumption here, I would warn you that perhaps, as the nominator of the AfD, that it would be best leaving the Rescue Template alone until after your AfD is complete. Otherwise you may be accused of a Conflict of Interest.
• I have reworded the Template to be less "demanding"
• If you have further issues with the template, I suggest you note then on the template talk page. - Fosnez 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• We have a very strong essay called "Don't template the regulars". Instead of leaving a warning in the first place, you should have talked about it, perhaps asked me why?

• I changed the entire template. It has nothing to do with my individual AfD. If that's what you think the "conflict of interest" policy means, you need to reread the policy.

• You did not reword it. You simply reverted it.

• I'm posting at AN/I. This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you delete old accounts

Sorry to bother you again but before i got serioes into wikipedia i made an old account to vandalism protected pages. I decided to start fresh and make this one and as you can see i dont like vandalsim anymore. Could you please delete the user =GAYlordpoor as its my old account. ForeverDEAD 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't. Technically I don't have the ability to do that. Just let it sit there. ⇒ SWATJester 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks ForeverDEAD 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re:Hey there

I've responded to your concerns on my talk page. --Iamunknown 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

We have obviously had our differences, and I have been monitoring your edits, as you have obviously been monitoring mine. In future, please do not edit my user page - it is rather un-civil. In fact, if you feel that there is something there you would like me to address it would be polite for your to speak to me about it on my talk page first, before you go editing my user page. After all, editing pages and leaving only edit comments as an explination is how this whole thing got started. My linking to your contribution is not a personal attack, and neither is the section of my user page. - Fosnez 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your user page does not give you the right to maintain incivility. ⇒ SWATJester 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And precisely what about my link was incivil? Fosnez 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies that I am a contributor who needs to be "watched". It's incivil and it promotes wikistalking. ⇒ SWATJester 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where we will have agree to disagree, being able to watch other users contributions is a feature of wikipedia, and although it can be abused, it can also be used for good. Fosnez 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)