Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 8 April 2014

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Making OTRS human.

Good morning young man. There is a empty glass on the table- awaiting your visit. How do you rate the NHS (stub, Start, C, B- or still pending?)

To business, can you have a look at this page and give your OTRS opiniion. Does it have all the detail OTRS needs to give the donated text a thumbs up.

Martin of Sheffield sent me a poke regarding a young man who had asked a webmaster friend if he could copy a chunk of the website onto a Misplaced Pages page. He did, and Martin just wanted a simple way to get Misplaced Pages approval. We ought to be able give him the correct text to make official I thought. I have spent the weekend playing Dungeons and Dragons with the official OTRS pages- they make Stalin's and the STASI look like a bunch of pussy cats. The language is a direct cut & paste from the Old Testament (/rant)

I think I said in Manchester that we needed some simple A6 cards, like the creative commons one, to encourage new people to get involved and to signal that the text & photographs on their websites was CC-BY-SA- and they would like WP to use it. So here we have a practical example of that almost happening.

• I have C&P ed the available text and customised- but does it hit all the points on your OTRS checklist? Can we point the young man at the page and let him get his friend to fill in the blanks.
• Is the format right?
• What have I missed?

Then

• How can we extend this into a Smartphone app? That will take some backend work
• Then what about a OTRS Tutorial for humans?
• Can we make the OTRS pages more encouraging, and less threatening?

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clem! Still pending wrt our beloved NHS; perhaps they're waiting for the Tories to privatise them completely. I'm already being seen by a private company that runs part of the hospital "under contract" from the NHS. I'll get back to you wrt OTRS when I have a bit more time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season RFPP

Hi. I was scrolling through WP:RFPP when I noticed a user has requested you extend your protection of the page 2014 Formula One season. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look; I was meaning to go and clear out RfPP anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't fancy sticking an oar into the 2014 F1 season discussion, do you? I don't know if you've had the fortitude to follow it closely, but there's never going to be any resolution there. There is previous history of this kind of problem (four or five editors against one or two) and stalemate can literally continue for weeks/months. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As a Formula 1 fan, I'd love to. Alas, since I've acted in an admin capacity, I have to keep my distance. Though if I might offer a suggestion: if it's the same old people having the same old arguments, an RfC might be a good way of attracting outside opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take care of the speedy deletion tag I added to Josh Willis (Neighbours)? - 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Long time no speak. How are you doing? Anyway, always happy to mash a button to help a friend. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. Been busy creating articles as usual. Thank you! :) - JuneGloom Talk 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Warning spammers

Well, actually STiki doesn't have a separate warning option for spammers, it only provides us with two choices: "revert vandalism" or "revert good-faith edit". Therefore the tool doesn't understand the final warning others gave for spammers. The message you saw was automatically sent by the program when I hit "revert". ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

fair enough; I'll mention it the STiki folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for approving my rollback request.

I'm well aware of what Spider Man said - "With great power comes great responsibility" - so I know that this isn't something to dork around with.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not that big a deal, but you'll be fine as long as you apply common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible edit war

Can you consider my request for protection as soon as possible. Possible Misplaced Pages:PUSH, WP:Soapboxing and WP:crystalball also.

I've seen the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously need your help. , Shriram 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks for Rollback

Hi. Many thanks for granting me Rollback. Have to say that I keep reverting with Twinkle sometimes by mistake. But nonetheless Rollback is very useful so thanks again.--good888 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you find it useful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

He followed me to other articles after I told him to stop. After he was unblocked he has continued the same behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps assume good faith on that one. They did revert themselves, and they did apologise. Unless a pattern emerges post-unblock, I'm inclined to hope that they move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. The apology is disingenuous because it was obviously intentional.

He added OR to the lede but he claimed the text was verified. The text added to the lede was not a summary of the body. The references he added to the lede did not verify the claim. He was being disingenuous because he obviously ignored my comments.

After I told him to stop following me to other articles he did continue but has never apologised for following me.

It was also a strange coincidence that two different accounts made very similar edits.

I thought it was important to give you more detailed information on this. I don't want the editor to move on to other articles to do something like this again in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

QG, it might just be best to leave it for the time being. They've hardly done anything since they were unblocked, and they've provided a plausible explanation for the one questionable edit. Frankly, you both seem to have an unhealthy obsession with each other; can't you just give them a wide berth? If they carry on the way that got them blocked the first time, there are plenty of other editors who can deal with it, and I'm sure somebody will bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remove protection for Space Elevator

Hello,

We've been having problems with IP 68.228.67.228 on Space Elevator. However, I don't think it would be anywhere near as big a problem without the uncivil antagonism of Tarlneustaedter. In this go-around, Tarlneustaedter essentially baited 68.228.67.228 with 1) reversions based on the editor not based on the edit content (ad hominem), 2) Uncivil commentary toward 68.228.67.228 in edit summaries. IP 68.228.67.228 has a checkered past, but in this cycle he started out with good good-faith editing and only "went rogue" after abusive treatment by Tarlneustaedter.

Please review Tarlneustaedter's edits and see if you agree. If you do, please consider removing the protection you put on Space Elevator a few minutes ago.

Skyway (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of the situation, but leaving it open just because the IP started out in good faith isn't a realistic option, especially when they've used proxies to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps you could encourage them to engage in conversation and make suggestions on the talk page, then we can think about lifting the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll buy that. It's a difficult situation. We need the contributions of IPs to give us vitality, but the way things work, one determined rogue can place any article under siege. The protection periods get longer and longer with less and less review each time. Before we know it, we have permanent protection for "persistent vandalism" by just one person who long ago moved on to other things. I hope we can avoid that path here. Skyway (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. We have very few defences against anybody who's determined enough and patient enough, but we have to hope that that energy can be channelled into something positive. Permanent protection isn't in anybody's interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner disruptive editing

You have blocked user:The Banner for disruptive editing, especially edit warring for one week. There was a hope that after that he will act more responsibly.

However, after he had served his block, he has engaged twice in edit warring on article UE Boom. He also posted a number of uncivil messages on the article's talk page in the first section. He fails again to accept consensus, and engages in name calling. Please see him calling A merger of Roman Catholic parish article in AfD nomination as "vandalism". Overall, he continues the same pattern of behavior as prior to the block - disruptive and uncivil. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of indef'ing established editors on the basis of a single post on my talk page, but in this case it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had my own concerns about The Banner's conduct since their block expired, so I don't think I had any choice in this case. I've blocked them indefinitely; I hope not infinitely, but that's up to him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check your post on The Banner's talk page, I think the block template is missing (and also mistyped 'yo' should be 'you'). Although I'm an involved editor, I would rather prefer that his disruptive behavior would cease without a block, however I'm afraid that it is rather not possible at this time.

Could you please also add conditions: 1) The Banner should remove all non-constructive messages on talk pages that he had posted; especially name-calling and other uncivil messages. 2) He will not engage in edit warring. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are probably the most active admin at RFPP, if I had a nickel for every time I saw an edit summary of yours saying protected for a fortnight, well I would have a lot of nickels. kelapstick 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)