Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 23 February 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Improperly resolved move request at talk:Mogilev

A move request for Mahilyow > Mogilev failed to gain consensus, with three editors in favour and four opposed since it was opened, on February 4. Administrator User:DrKiernan closed the request and moved the article anyway, insisting that the the request was concluded properly. Would one or two neutral admins please review the article move? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 18:12 z

Under discussion now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DrKiernan_moving_articles_against_consensus, as well as talk:Mogilev. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 01:00 z

Disruptive IP, feedback requested

• 76.181.250.255 (talk)

Hi. I believe I'm dealing with a disruptive contributor here. He is tendentious, resorting to unencyclopedic sources () and rejecting community input. According to DE, those are strong signs. :) He has long been involved in an edit war at Gothic music, which was brought to my attention at my talk page by an uninvolved editor (here). Both of the involved editors had been warned before, but I gave each a final, explicit warning telling them that if they reverted again without seeking dispute resolution, it would lead to a block. I thing there's pretty clear evidence that this individual previously edited under these ips:

• 76.181.232.187 (talk)
• 71.72.84.29 (talk)

This edit war seems to have begun in May 2007 and slowly escalated since. Any editor who has attempted to change the article has been reverted.

Given his response to my encouragement to seek dispute resolution, I don't think there's any reason to believe that this contributor is going to stop. See here and here. This matches his general belligerence in edit summary at the article ("Get fucked") under this ip and in earlier responses to talk page notices under previous ip (again, I feel contrib history is pretty definitive of identity there): "Blow me. It's not "vandalism", dip shit, it's the truth. Get a life.", "'stfu Thanks.'", "you are a puerile little ass-clown and you need to stop wiki-stalking me. Danke".

I don't particularly care that he's been rude to me, but I see zero sign that he's intended to follow procedure ("I tried "dispute resolution". But somebody refuses to budge....Consensus means nothing....") He obviously feels like he has the right and only answer, and he's not willing to persuade others, but is insisting on pushing his position. Since I'm primarily cleaning up articles, not dealing with edit warriors and disruptive editors, I'd like some input from other admins as to whether it would be more appropriate to block the IP for longer for disruptive editing—say two months—with instructions for how to request unblock if at some point he decides to seek WP:DR or leave it alone or to allow his block to expire and block him again, for a longer time, if he resumes the edit war. I'm leaning the former. --Moonriddengirl 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities on how to deal with this, but BOTH are going to require some additional input from you:

1. We can use targeted rangeblocks to cut down on his access to Misplaced Pages. Sometimes this can be helpful, but usually, if he is editing from an ISP that uses a huge set of dynamically assigned IP addresses, then rangeblocks are no more effective than whack-a-mole blocks of individual IPs. If you have a full list of the IPs he has used, we can possibly see if this in an option
2. We can semi-protect the target articles he tends to disrupt. It appears from your description that he is pretty much a single-purpose POV pusher, and if we take away his ability to edit his target articles, he will likely go away. This has worked in the past for particularly persistant disrupters (anyone remember the Walt Disney World vandal from about a year ago or so?), however we would need a list of articles he tends to target.

I would agree that this is a user who does not have the Project's best interest at heart, and the above methods should work to help protect the Project. We just need more info to enact one or the other... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a two-month block of the single IP, followed by the type of measure described by Jayron32 if he evades the original block. Semiprotection of Gothic music would be the next idea. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback. I believe there have been 4 IPs within the past year and a half (I didn't list one, from about a year ago, because it made one edit), and, excepting that one, he seems to be stable within each for a length of time. His current IP is the only one that I see any sign of him using since October of 2008. At this point, his disruption seems to be contained to Gothic music, which is currently a redirect as a result of consensus at AfD. (This article has been contentious for a long time it seems, having previously been the site of an edit-war by banned user User:Leyasu.) The only other recent article contribution from this IP is this; note that I'm linking where it was reverted, which states why, but he didn't edit-war over it.

The Gothic music article could be semiprotected, but given his tendentious editing, I am concerned that he'll just register an account. So far as I understand autoblock, he'd be able to create a new account within 25 hours or so, right? (Technical stuff--not for me. :)) Then it would be a matter of waiting until he met the threshold to edit again. I think a medium range block of the current IP would probably be sufficient, since it should be easy to see if he changes IP by a return to old behavior. Fortunately, he doesn't jump around like some disruptive editors I've encountered. :/ --Moonriddengirl 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, forcing someone to register an account is a good idea. Accounts (as opposed to IPs) can be indef blocked, and serial sockpuppeteers can be additionally sanctioned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Once the autoblock ends, what's to stop them registering a new account? </clueless about such things> --Moonriddengirl 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, except that now they have violated more policies, which can result in further indef blocks. Its all about giving them enough rope to hang themselves with... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How about, then, starting with EdJohnston's suggestion of two months for the IP, and, if this is ineffective, protecting Gothic music? I'd hate to protect an article space which might potentially be developed by a good faith contributor because of the actions of a single individual, but if he proves persistent it might be necessary. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I hope it works. I don't expect it to work, but I hope it does. I am currently dealing with a persistant vandal at the Days of our Lives related articles. He changes IPs every few hours. We have had to protect a whole batch of those articles for like 6 months just to shut him down. Likewise, about a year ago it took a whole bunch 6-month semiprotections to end this guy's (userpage deleted, but trust me he was a PITA) reign of terror over Disney World and other Orlando-related articles. I hope and pray that EdJohnston's method works, I really do. I have just become jaded from being here too long, and have little faith that anything but the "nuclear option" really works for these persistant types. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I have my own scorched earth at Dapto High School. --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Move Constantina Diṭă-Tomescu to Constantina Diţă-Tomescu

Please move Constantina Diṭă-Tomescu to Constantina Diţă-Tomescu. Reason: the letter ṭ (t with a comma below) is a letter not supported by many browsers, although it looks almost exactly like ţ (t with a cedilla below). ṭ is generally not used on Misplaced Pages, ţ is used instead. The name of the person is Romanian and the Romanian Misplaced Pages uses ro:Constantina Diţă-Tomescu. --BIL (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Actually, the original location seems to have had neither cedilla nor comma, but U+1D6E "t with dot below", unless my browser is fooling me. Compare: dot: ṭ comma: ț cedilla: ţ. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the original was "T with dot below", not "T with comma below". I don't claim to know which is "most correct" here, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See Romanian alphabet#Unicode and HTML. Funny it shows up just fine in Windows 2000 SP4, but then I'm ahead of the curve as I don't use Internet Expletive and I also know how to install fonts. ṭ (t with dot below) is clearly incorrect. ț (t with comma below) is correct as it is the only one found in Romanian. ţ (t with cedilla) is an approximation of ț, and about as accurate as interchanging β, ß, B, В, and β̞. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Constantina Diță-Tomescu (featuring our good friend T with comma below) does in fact exist now thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise, we might want to have the article there instead. Again, I claim no paticular knowledge of Romanian orthography, apart from the link already posted - but articles should be at correctly-spelled titles. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Willfully corrupting our data for the sake of "compatibility" is the best way to discourage software vendors from improving multi-lingual support. — CharlotteWebb 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of articles "doing no harm" recently...

Hi. I don't know if I'm entirely in the right place here, but I've noticed something quite curious going on at WP:AFD today. Two separate editors have been adding keep and strong keep votes within minutes of each other, each claiming the article in question should stay because "the article does no harm." As this seems an unusual phrase (especially in the context of voting in an AFD process), I thought I'd bring it up here and see what the general consensus on an incident like this would be?

Here's the first set of "does no harms": 1, 2, and 3 ... and here's the second one 4. Am I just being paranoid or is something fishy going on here? Richard Hock (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Worthy of note... All of these are AfDs initiated by either User:ScienceApologist or User:Ricky81682. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that some user has got the wrong end of the stick as far as WP:BLP is concerned... and that someone else has picked up on it... but it's a stretch. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Northwestgnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his comments are strangely reminiscent of Esasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for sure. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to point them to WP:NOHARM and let them know that the closing admin is likely to discount such arguments. Skomorokh 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Northwestgnome and Esasus that their names were mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was puzzled by Esasus' removal of a PROD on Rowan of the Wood, given the comments in the history of the article, which mirror the discussion here. I left a message on his talk page asking if it was OK for me to restore the PROD given that his edits did nothing to help the subject squeak past WP:BK. That article certainly does no harm, but that's not the point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have recieved the above mesage and I agree that "no harm" is a poor argument. If the closing admin chooses to discount such argument then so be it. In the future I will endevour to better explain my reasons on such issues. As far as the isue of removing a PROD, it is my understanding that it is my right to do so. Esasus (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think most of the problem was with two accounts making the same argument in near-identical words, something that always raises eyebrows here. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The expression "do no harm" is found in the oath doctors take (I forget the spelling, well, not really see: Primum non nocere) and in Wiccan doctrine. I'm not related to Esasus. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out Ahimsa as well. I might be wrong about the Wiccans. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Hypocritic Oath adapts well to inclusion/deletion debates. The do-no-harm mantra is a national joke more than anything, when medical error claims more lives than cars, guns, and drugs (the other things us Americans love). I'd be surprised if anyone takes your arguments seriously. — CharlotteWebb 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't defending my argument in the AfD, which was fairly weak, but myself against the charge of being a sockpuppet by pointing out how common the expression "do no harm" is. BTW the practice of medicine is very dangerous, which is why "first, do no harm" was said in the first place. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW my edit was in support of an article on a minor artist in South Africa. The material seemed to be true, although the sources were hard to verify and the article, well, did no harm. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to keep saying "it does no harm" in AfD debates but only if there is some other argument for keeping. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view, while I'm not sure about User:Esasus's prod removals, those are his right. He has a right to comment at AFD with "do not harm" I guess but that approaches the silliness of using the five pillars or I like it or whatever and the closing admin can consider it. I also don't know what I did to earn the somewhat nasty personal attack at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bushra Khalil but this version seemed like a reasonable redirect to me. I disagree with replacing the prod notice at Rowan of the Wood. Just list it at AFD and be done with it. Prod is prod and just follow what it's for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they just share a lot of interests: are there any studies available on Deletion by Geographic Location (or Deletion by Political Incorrectness Gone Mad?) 1 2 Richard Hock (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that my question was not answered in Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/David_Kuijers. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hidden page game

I recently came across the silly shadow world of Wikipedians creating so-called "hidden pages" in their user space, for other game players to find and sign in, whereupon they are awarded (or claim for themselves) a hidden page barnstar. Has this ever been discussed? I would feel like such a fussbudget for denying Wikipedians any harmless fun and games... but I can see where it would invite account abuse (e.g. sockpuppet accounts to avoid detection by other game players) if people really get into it.Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pointless Myspacery that is more-or-less impossible to stamp out without expending an enormous amount of energy. //roux   22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But what exactly is the problem? Even creating accounts for such a game would be acceptable under our policies because socks are bad because they are used to circumvent and manipulate. If the second account is only used for something like that, where is the harm? SoWhy 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm pretty sure this has been discussed somewhere (or was that some other silly/harmless/even-sillier-than-that pastime of the junior 'pedians?) It's a wee bit MySpacey, but--like those annoying fake "new message" bars, and increasingly goofy userboxen, and all the rest of the kerfuffles--since it hasn't broken the 'pedia yet, most people smile indulgently and hope the participants get bored with it quickly. (And then there are those who rant and holler and yell "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! It's not supposed to be FUN!!", but again--most people just smile indulgently at THEM, and hope they get bored with their sanctimony.)

So--short form: it's probably all right, though (IMHO) quite silly and pointless. I'm happy to be disagreed with, however.GJC 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this even a "game"? Surely such pages show up in trivial special:allpages queries (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=2&from=Wikidemon), and so aren't "hidden" at all? 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me we should care about this. so long as the people doing it are also building the encyclopedia, we should stay the heck away from whatever keeps them happy (bound by common sense, of course). We don't need to send another set of contributors packing because of some unpleasantly parsimonious interpretation of NOT#MYSPACE. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently using Prefixindex, et al, is considered "cheating"; also, as Wikidemon pointed out, a lot of users will create alternate accounts and hide the secret pages in their userspace. This page outlines some of the more general "rules" for the games, as well as some of the arguments cited for and against these. As for how to handle them, you're welcome to start up an MfD for any you find; this discussion held that these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, although there was a clear consensus that hiding secret pages in the userspace of a sock account was unacceptable.

Personally I think these are a waste of time, but unless I happen to notice one that's really ridiculously over the top, or notice that someone's not doing anything but this (as Protonk just alluded to), I'm not going to go hunting them down. Hersfold 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen several thread like this about "guestbook" pages. So long as there's no violation of NPA, I don't understand what the big deal is. Misplaced Pages has grown to be one of the top sites on the web, so we're going to attract a lot of young users. That's not a bad thing. They are the future of this site. I understand that guestbooks and game pages aren't encyclopedic, but do we really want to chase off the editors of the future - and get a reputation for being so stuffy. I'd say welcome the new generation, and gently guide them into productivity. After all, we are supposed to not WP:Bite — Ched (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Send their user pages packing. Why not? Is the Misplaced Pages foundation buying server space for them? What if it becomes real popular and takes up 10s of thousands of user pages? Just nip it in the bud. Misplaced Pages user pages aren't for game playing. They should be tagged for speedy deletion whenever seen. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We really should be cracking down on people using Misplaced Pages for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. Games are great, but if they aren't somehow related to our goal(like playing Whack-A-Mole at WP:AIV) then it does not belong here. There are lots of wikis out there for that kind of thing. Chillum 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you're an admin and all Chillum, but I just don't agree with you on this one. If we "hook-em" to use the site, and then we guide them into being productive - it just seems to be a win win situation to me. In a couple years - these "kids" will be admins., I think it's better that they have positive memories of their first edits. A couple K of disk space isn't that big a deal. — Ched (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

@KP Botany - one $200 1Tb HD can handle all the text they can throw at us. And I'm sure Brion can handle the bandwidth. — Ched (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to be the fun police. The editor is what is related to our goal. If we piss off someone and send them packing we forgo their future contributions and any positive word of mouth they may offer. This is why we don't have a 90/10 rule like conservapedia. It is why we should apply some common sense when talking about this sort of thing. If someone's only edits (or the bulk of their edits) are to their myspacey user page, sure, nuke it. But if we have people making a reasonable amount of contributions to the encyclopedia, I don't see the benefit of getting our knickers in a twist because someone just isn't "following the rules." Just click "unwatch" and it will be better. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's where to start looking. MER-C 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to alienate a heck of a lot of people if you start going down this road. I've noticed many editors take as much pride in their (admittedly sometimes silly) user pages as they do in the content they produce or the administrivia they're involved in. And besides, what are you going to use as criteria? The number of user boxes? Bad color combinations? Images of frogs? There should be some sort of speedy delete option for user pages that are obviously spam (and on Misplaced Pages, therefore heavily indexed), but other than that... leave them alone :) §FreeRangeFrog 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G11 applies to blatant spam in all namespaces. Any userpage that is promotional can easily be blanked and {{NOINDEX}}'d or deleted under G11. (Just FYI). Protonk (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I say let them do it, but if you catch them, kindly ask them to donate $10 to the foundation to cover the cost of their game-playing on the server space. And, quite frankly, no individual page hide-and-seeker is actually ever going to generate $10 worth of expense. bd2412 T 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But we are already getting free labor from them. :) Protonk (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're joking? You've just decided for the Misplaced Pages community against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that it is okay to use Misplaced Pages user space pages for social networking? I suggest you announce your change to the entire community then. --KP Botany (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be absurd. What is being argued is that this little crappy game is of no real harm; and that eradicating it from Misplaced Pages would, pragmatically speaking, take away editing time from admins and others which could be used for more productive uses. No one has claimed that the entirety of Misplaced Pages's policy against using it primarily as a social networking site has been brought down by people playing this silly game. What is being argued is that it, while a nuisance, is not really worth fighting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are reducing the results of leaving this game around to an absurd conclusion; that the end of Misplaced Pages As We Know It can only result from letting people play this silly game. Yes, it is a violation of the rules, no one has contested that. What has been contested is whether or not it is worth the time and effort needed to force people not to play it. And the world is not a binary place; it's a rather simplistic oversimplification to say that everything which is allowed is encouraged. (Or rather, "that which is not forbidden is compulsory") When a user does nothing EXCEPT use[REDACTED] for social networking purposes, they get blocked. They will continue to get blocked tommorrow, and forever. When a user spends most of their edits working on the encyclopedia, and has an occasional thing like this lying around, it isn't worth it to make them get rid of it. Again, this is not a black-and-white issue; it's not binary choice between "Stop all violations of every rule always" and "Let it be a free-for-all and stop protecting the encyclopedia against anything". That is an absurd reduction of the arguements presented by those opposing you. Time is a limited resource, and the time spent chasing this problem down is better spent fighting real problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Past MfDs have fairly clear established that these "hidden" or "secret" pages are not acceptable. When I come across them, I delete them. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have no problem with admins doing so. What I have a problem with is demanding that admins delete them. I don't cry when they are gone, but I do not wish to be told which parts of my volunteer job I must do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to look at this kind of thing on a case-by-case basis. I've actually had some users worry that comments to each other are too friendly. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a community, and friendly communication nurtures that climate. The issue comes down to what someone is primarily doing on wikipedia. The primary purpose is to make the product as valuable to the reading public as it can be. If someone comes here primarily for the purpose of networking, that's obviously not serving the purpose. But that does not mean we should discourage networking among those who have the proper primary goal of[REDACTED] in mind. Baseball Bugs 05:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean that you're just speedying them with no process MZMcBride, I'm curious as to what CSD category you feel they meet. I don't think there's a "we've deleted this kind of thing before so we're not doing an MFD this time" CSD category...--Dycedarg ж 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Better indef me then. I found one of those pages, and got a barnstar to boot! I still don't get why everyone has to act like killjoys about the whole NOT#MYSPACE provision. Yes, the original view of userpages differs from how a lot of users would like them. Also note, the original plan was for everything about[REDACTED] to be discussed only on the mailing list, with no equivalent of AN/VPP or the policy talk pages. People like baubles. They like barnstars. They like userboxes. They also like writing and improving articles. Honestly, so long as the people who made these pages are adding to the encyclopedia, I don't see what we gain by playing the cop on the beat here. What do we gain, at the margin, from deleting someone's guestbook or hidden page? Jayron has the right idea, basically. We do indef people who do only myspacey things, and we should continue to do so. We also do delete things which appear to serve only that purpose for people who do only myspacey things. Where we should throttle back is when we have people who make good contributions to the encyclopedia. Is it worth forcing them away in order to feel better that the rules aren't being ignored? I was semi-joking above when I remarked about these people providing free labor, but that is the crux of it. We have thousands of editors who add content for free. Since we hope that they don't do it for personal benefit, we have to wonder why they do it. We also have to be careful not to use policies intended to broadly define what we are as limits on what these volunteers can do in their spare time. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec X 2)Bugs, you're conflicted out of this one due to User:Baseball Bugs/hidden. I'm telling Elmer Fudd. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No! Not dat! Actually, I created that page as kind of a joke, since I was seeing that kind of thing turn up elsewhere. It's about as "hidden" as the nose on my face. I continue to believe something like that, by itself, is on the same level of evil as tearing a tag off your own mattress. It also gets very little traffic. As I said, if someone's primary purpose on[REDACTED] is to make it another MySpace or whatever, then they are in the wrong place. But using user talk pages to further the community effort, should not be considered a crime. Baseball Bugs 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Gosh, I feel like such a heel for even bringing this up. Next thing you know I'll be yelling "get off the lawn, kids." I think I agree with Protonk that we should have a little patience and not enforce a Misplaced Pages=no fun policy. Today's eager youth are tomorrow's good editors, and if we sour their experience it hurts everybody. Yes, from this conversation it looks like the pages technically shouldn't be there and it is okay to delete them. But I'm not going to tell you where any of them are - you'll just have to find them yourselves! If you do delete anything, please polite the the little ones, and also don't mention my name. (slinks back into mainspace) Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for making you feel bad. If it makes you feel better, I wasn't really trying to aim vitriol at you so much as I was aiming for those folks who agreed with you in a particularly vocal fashion. I also think there is something to be said about people like me (~40%[REDACTED] and[REDACTED] talk edit count % and rising) who don't contribute that much to the encyclopedia, instead engaging in the myspace-lite of AN, AN/I and other venues where much is said and little is done. :( Protonk (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the creation of accounts, and the use of Misplaced Pages in general, solely in order to play these games. In years gone past, these people would have been "sandbox fairies" — editors whose sole edits to the wiki anywhere are entirely non-project uses of the sandbox and its sub-pages. Since creation of such pages is now restricted to account-holders, placing the sort of pages, that the sandbox faires created, in user space is now more the norm. A quick check of Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Sandbox reveals not nearly as much accrued there over the past year or so as there was a couple of years ago when I was last involved in purging it. (I've just deleted the pages that were either completely stale drafts or outright problems, such as the long list of actual people's names and addresses that one person was keeping there and the attack page written eight months ago by a purportedly since-reformed editor. Most of the remainder that's there now is test-page content that isn't really worth bothering to delete, in my view. Every deletion, after all, increases the database size. And it is the sandbox.) Uncle G (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

this thread sure grew to be a hot topic. I know you guys (adminz) have a lot of stuff to cover here, so - I started a thread at WP:NOT here. Seems like a topic that should be talked out. And while I do think we need to lighten up a little, I also understand what Uncle G means when he states "...solely in order to play these games." By the way - is the prefindex thing supposed to be a big secret? — Ched (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy is fairly clear about using Misplaced Pages for off topic purposes. Any idea in acting otherwise needs to start at the relevant policy's talk page and gain consensus. Until then we should continue not allowing these things as we have for years. Ched's posting at WT:NOT is a great start. Chillum 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I greatly oppose having these 'hidden page' games like this. It's pointless, and it needs to stop (hopefully). Versus22 _talk 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell anyone with one of these pages that they'll never pass an RfA due to it, and watch how quickly they disappear. Most of the editors with these kind of pages are simply here to try and become an administrator (and most will fail for that exact reason). Daniel (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The silliness has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Delete the pages. Someone might wish to start "Hideandgoseekpedia" -- somewhere else. Edison (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete them, whatever happened to the yearly donation drives and precious server space if we allow such things like this to occur? Hypocrite, much? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the editor of the one mentioned, , and found a remarkable amount of useful contributions in an area where we need work. I have no problem suggesting to the people who come here only to play that they do some work or go elsewhere, but I am not going to discourage contributors like that. the ratio of useful/useless edits is at least 100/1. They're worth a lot more than $10. DGG (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If they contribute to the encyclopedia, let them keep the pages but tell them they shouldn't be using all their time for the game. If they have very little article edits, delete the pages and give the user a warning. If they have 0 article edits, delete the pages and block them and say they will only be unblocked if they show they can write an article on their talk page. This is how I deal with them, at least.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think people are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's not like these pages suck vast quantities of bandwidth or drive space, after all. It's all text. Jtrainor (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of like saying that if a person steals a deckchair from Wal-Mart, it's not expensive and they won't make much of a loss. But because Wal-Mart don't make their resources available for that purpose (their land, their heating, lighting, and the deckchair), they need to draw the line there rather than allow more than one person to go and start stealing things.

I'm sure there's all sorts of things wrong with that analogy, but I hope that my meaning is clear... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is clear, but what's wrong with the analogy is the trouble. To equate use of userspace with theft is a little troubling, but even if we agree with the comparison, we have to attach some value for the contributions made by the editors. We don't pay them (er...us). So maybe we can think of it as employing a carpenter to make a desk and letting them take home the joining material. Or whatever you like. They are adding to the encyclopedia. If they choose to not add to the encyclopedia because we don't let them fool around in userspace, that is a net loss for us. We've gained the joining materials and lost the desk. Protonk (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If people who play this game are properly contributing to the encyclopedia, for heaven's sake, let them play their silly game! It's not our job to forbid any kind of fun anyone might have around here, and I'm pretty sure that the few kB of text these pages cause aren't of much concern to our servers. --Conti|✉ 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community is weak enough already, we don't need conflicts over a harmless game that gives people practice editing and navigating Misplaced Pages. rspεεr (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that it would be harmless if I used Misplaced Pages for my shopping lists, or to track the changes in the software I make, or to publish a local town newletter about local farming. But that is not harmless, it is a dilution of our goal to make an encyclopedia. If we allowed people to use Misplaced Pages that way then such content would become larger than our encyclopedia. People are always looking for free hosting.

Misplaced Pages has a purpose, we are not just here for the hell of it. Pretty much all major community forums with a specific topic discourage off-topic postings. We are not going to run out of users because we don't let them post off-topic content. Chillum 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, we could (and should!) forbid everything that's not directly related to creating an encyclopedia, like most everything you find on user pages. Like this, for example. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "hosting" argument is played out. A hidden page consumes no more resources than this page or this page. Let's get down to it. We are "okay" with barnstars and "wikismiles" and stuff like that but we don't like hidden pages (by we I mean the people who write these policies and post in these discussions). So we look for a way to treat those as suspect while treating other material as benign. I'm not trying to make a "OMG OMG Hypocrite" argument. I'm just trying to note that our treatment of hidden pages isn't exactly on the same level as our treatment of barnstars and other things. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the harm of something that you only find if you look for it? What is actually wrong with 'Myspacing' if it doesn't hurt anyone. The only time it should ever be deleted is if people spend more time on their pages than the encyclopedia. But what about the people who delete these pages and devote themselves to doing so? Why are they here? They don't spend the majority of there time improving the encyclopedia. If any of these pages should be deleted then the userspace shouldn't exist as that falls under the MySpace category. Chubbennaitor 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

'Quote'"Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)" Is everything bad and irrespnsible t you? I feel sorry that you don't understand the word fun? Chubbennaitor 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride and deletion

So at 06:41 today, MZMcBride deleted my "secret page". While I don't really care if my 'secret page' is restored or not (I haven't looked at it in ages, and I couldn't tell you when the last edit was), I'm wondering about precedent here. Since when have secret pages been banned, and since when have admins been allowed to summarily delete pages in userspace with no discussion? If I was a total myspacer and only tried to hunt down these 'secret pages' and the like, obviously this would be different, but I think that I contribute to the encyclopedia: I have 3 FA's, a MILHIST A, 5 GA's (including that A) and 16 DYK's under my belt. "Please contribute to the encyclopedia more" is just an insult. —Ed 17 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – I deleted Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion and that seems to have solved the backlog problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Renamed.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – indef blocked as sock by PeterSymonds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Undeleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – No admin action needed here. --Tone 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved –  Done --Rodhullandemu 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – No action required at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – For the record this kind of thing is best asked at WT:ADOPT –xeno (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards