Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:41, 12 April 2010

• 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)

Template:Active editnotice

Unprotected Images on the Main Page Part IV

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Misplaced Pages when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

for letting File:Polistes sp wasp.jpg sit on the main page unprotected for 27 minutes. β 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” (Winston Churchill). Black Kite 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the trout image needs to be so friggin' large? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the fourth time I've brought this issue up within the last two weeks. β 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any need for the trout image at all? 07:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.83.41 (talk)

TBH, we deserve the trout, no matter how large. This is a repeat epic admin fail, of which all admins have a share in the guilt. β, since this problem is clearly not going away, can you think on about an automated way of dealing with this? If we knew how to automate it, we can shake the Bot people until a bot drops out that'll do what's needed. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Defo need a bot. That trout is killing my connection.  f o x  09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Defo have a bot. (X! · talk)  · @556  ·  12:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect that bot is a sack of shit (seriously, up until about a day ago when I fixed it, it still suffered from that problem where it re-uploads images that are already off the mainpage (thank you very much, caching), as well as that iirc the irc portion of the bot is broken which ruins the bots immediate reaction and creates the whole race condition attack - finaly I think it could be improved by following the suggestions below and having it pre-protect the images where possible). I'll probably have finished my rewrite of it in the next few days and then I'll file a brfa. --Chris 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Redvers, this is the responsibility of the people who update the main page, not anyone else. I thought they had a system in place whereby the images would be moved from commons the day before and protected. But it's up to them to get a working system. Re betacommand: Putting the notes here will not help at all, since most admins are completely uninvolved with the main page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

CBM I also trout the admin in question when I can identify them . β 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never been involved with updating the Main Page, and haven't the faintest idea how it works. (The process looks a bit impenetrable.) What about requiring every mainpage picture to be inside a template which detects if the picture exists locally and is protected, and declines to display if if that's not true? Then when the updater previews the page, they'd spot that. Or is that not possible for X reasons? Just a thought. Rd232 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no wiki syntax to implement that template, but it's a good idea. We could implement it in two stages. First, we can use the ifexist parser function to make sure the image is at least local (not on commons). Second, we could get the developers to implement an extension so that all local images on the main page are protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

thats already done via cascade protection. (local image are protected automatically). β 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is it possible to program the bot to locally upload Commons images before they are to be used? It should work for TFP and OTD and probably for TFA. I don't know about DYK and ITN, but has this been a problem on DYK? I'm involved with ITN and I don't think it's been an issue there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Can bots protect pages? If so, can we have that main page upload bot automatically protect it when it uploads it? Ks0stm 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not needed, since local images on the main page are already cascade protected. So all the bot (or the admin who updates the page) needs to do is upload a local copy on enwiki. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:23133 --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian case closed

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

• User:Asgardian is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

administrator User:Arcadian merged 2 templates without any prior discussion

administrator User:Arcadian merged 2 templates without any prior discussion. They are Template:DSM personality disorders and Template:ICD-10 personality disorders. I left a message on his talk page. I reverted the merge but he reverted back.--Penbat (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the edit history. This involves a forking from November that also occurred without any prior discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You could at least commented your merge and you didnt even do that. What was I supposed to think ?
2. I dont agree with your prognosis that I created a fork. I simply created a new ICD-10 template as a spin-off. The original template was heavily DSM-orientated. I dont need a consensus to create a new template.
3. Even if i agreed with your analysis - 2 wrongs dont make a right do they ?
4. There are practical issues with the new merged template, too many to be explained here. I bet you hadnt even considered this.
5. It is very short sighted to merge simply because you didnt like the procedure for creating the new ICD-10 template last year. Well i certainly dont like your procedure for this merge and thats for sure.
6. You havent merged it in anything like the state in which the template was "split" so you havent simply undone it. There are all sorts of consequences. --Penbat (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the procedural side, you ask yourself is the merged template any better than the 2 separate templates and the answer is a resounding no. --Penbat (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ICD and DSM have nothing whatsoever to do with POV forking. They are very much self-contained and it is confusing to try and combine them.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Steady on, you're acting a little own-y here. Does it really matter?  f o x  18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

actually accusing me of own-y really pisses me off. If an academic or 2 came a long and took over from me I would be more than happy. But in quite few instances, such as this one, i sacrifice quite a lot of my time and effort into something, as nobody else seems to be interested in doing it, that suddenly gets blanked with no valid reason given.--Penbat (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, an editor made changes that undid good-faith work on your part. I've had that happen to me as well and I agree that it can be frustrating. But I again have to wonder: why are you posting about this here? Did Arcadian misuse his admin tools? Has he threatened to block you over your dispute? Is there sockpuppetry or wikihounding involved? If all there is to this story is regular WP:BRD disagreement that happens to involve a party who is an admin, but has performed no admin actions related to the disagreement, then there is no reason for it to be here. --RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why this was even brought to the admin noticeboard, instead of using a template talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Psychology. Merging two templates is something that any editor can do, as long as they know how. It does not involve the use of administrator tools, and prior discussion is a good idea but isn't mandatory. If there is an action required by uninvolved admins, I'm not seeing what it is. This is not a forum for every editorial disagreement that involves someone with the admin bit. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive AfD sockpuppetry

A sockpuppetry ring involving a (now indefblocked and desysopped) administrator has just been uncovered. These sockpuppets were often used to vote in and even close AfDs that the user's other accounts had also participated in. The overlap between the accounts in Misplaced Pages space can be found here. If anyone would like a deletion discussion overturned from here because they feel consensus were not reached once Altenmann's accounts are removed from the discussion, please post a link to to the discussion below this post. NW (Talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue here, NuclearWarfare; I neglected to post to this board following all of the other related activities. Former administrator Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), previously known as SemBubenny and Mikkalai has been blocked and desysopped for "abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry". The Arbitration Committee has voted to desysop already, and is currently voting on a motion that outlines conditions for return to editing and sysopping, should the user wish to return.

Community input would be appreciated at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Discussion re block length to determine how long the master account should be blocked, as this is usually something determined at a community/checkuser/SPI level. Risker (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AfDs that should be rexamined follow. Please use User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js or something similar to easily identify indefinitely blocked users.

• • Had a look at these. AfDs which may definitely have had their results affected;
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marketcetera
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derzhava
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity - undeleted, relisted at AfD
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Russian language topics
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Corndog Day
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maxim Holod
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siberian Misplaced Pages (2 nomination) (added by NW (Talk) 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CEMMENTI
    • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spime
    • I also might've closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida as Delete, but it looks like the article's been very much improved since then anyway.
• Some of the others I haven't listed because they ended up as no consensus and so can be listed again at any point anyway. The rest I don't believe were materially affected by the socking. Others may disagree though and this isn't a definitive list, of course; feel free to tweak it. Black Kite 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing what the point of reopening these discussions would be. I see at least one from four years ago... Aiken ♫ 00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot immunity probably should be undeleted and relisted as it's fairly recent and it was close enough that the outcome was affected. Ditto for Character shield which wasn't on NW's list but only had one "non-sock" delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed- I've restored Plot immunity and re-AFD'd it (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity (2nd nomination)). Not so sure about the other one - even the article's creator admitted at the AfD that it was probably not suitable. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Probably not; I was merely listing the ones where the result was probably affected whether that wasc to Keep or Delete (they go both ways). Black Kite 00:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not all of these discussions need to be reopened. I'm just quickly going through to see if there are any that need to be undeleted/renominated. If it turns out that the close was fine, so be it. NW (Talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• cf. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siberian Misplaced Pages (2 nomination) vs. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Siberian_Wikipedia. Colchicum (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is not only AfD issue, but edit warring by his socks in multiple articles. He was playing games. In this example, I restored good version by editor Altenmann, only to be reverted by one of his own socks: . See also ,. ] (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but this is a good block. It was a long time coming, too. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Community comment on block length is invited

In most cases where sockpuppetry is identified, the socks are blocked indefinitely, and the master account is blocked for a specified period of time; the length of block is usually determined by the extent of the socking, whether or not this is a first finding of sockpuppetry, and factors such as how the socks were used. Typically, the master account would be blocked anywhere from a week to a month for a "first offense". In this case, the blocks were implemented once it was clear that there was abusive socking occurring, in part because an administrator account was involved and the issue of whether to desysop needed to be addressed; therefore the master account (Altenmann) has been blocked indefinitely so that an appropriate block length can be determined. This sockpuppetry has been taking place over several years, and has involved editing in a large number of areas on the wiki; thorough analysis of the effects of this socking is not yet complete. In order to centralise the discussion of this case into one place, community comment is invited at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Discussion re block length. Risker (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ad insertion system

I know we once blocked a system that iframed[REDACTED] for it's own purposes. There is now this "ad service" http://www.magic-banner-bot.com/ which inserts images into wikipedia. It cannot be disabled, uses an iframe and insert ads into the[REDACTED] content, without explaining why. I think such is grounds for blocking that via Javascript. What do others think ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already did break iframes thanks to that advertising agency that was framing Misplaced Pages as a part of their homepage. If we don't, then yes, we absolutely should. Of course any webmaster who purchases a spamming tool that requires disclosing their webserver FTP password to work deserves to lose at life generally. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

??? Can you block people from reading wikipedia? 'Cause all that script is doing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What you can do is use Javascript to detect if the page is being served in a third-party iframe, and if it is, redirect to the Misplaced Pages page itself with no iframe. This won't stop anyone from reading Misplaced Pages, but it will prevent them from being forced to view a defaced version of our content. N.B., I haven't been able to force the "magic banner" to actually advertise to me, despite turning off many layers of anti-advertising protection, so I can't tell exactly how it's supposed to work; if it's just accomplished by redirecting through the web domain above, it's even simpler to block, since we could just detect the referer. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but it looks like it simply creates a new webpage like http://magic-banner-bot.com/468/ . I see it says (Redirected from Banner ads), so apparently the subpage "468" is linked to what is now a redirect. Maybe that gives a clue on how it works... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not sure if that example is just a canned demonstration or if it's the way their spam works in general. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this targeting specific pages, or all of Misplaced Pages in general? Noscript doesn't seem to be picking anything up, and I don't recall it doing so recently when viewing articles and/or other pages. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Noscript detects it for me, but there seem to be two things going on. One is an IFRAME, which Noscript won't detect because it's just HTML, not a script of any kind; and an actual script which makes the banner that the IFRAME creates move around on the page and become generally more intrusive. I was actually looking at it with the script part turned off when I wrote what I wrote down below, confusing their banner with our own example banner, and didnt realize I was missing most of the effect until just now. —Soap— 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

An easy way to test would be to make an edit to the target article, then see if it shows up on the iframe. I'm going to do that now.— Dædαlus 06:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the test was .. well, I don't know if I could call it a success, or a failure, but the end result was certainly bad. It isn't a canned picture. It's a live frame of wikipedia. I made a small insertion of a period on that article, and refreshed the ad-bot page. The change was immediately visible. We have to find a way to prevent this.— Dædαlus 06:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the way this software is supposed to work is that you, a blogger or other website designer, have to use "fake" links everywhere on your blog that go to sites that are technically still on your website, but look like they are where youre actually trying to go apart from the parasitic banner ads. I dont know from the context given on his site whether the ads will be served entirely through his own website and thus have the same referrer every time, or if youre supposed to store the ads somewhere else (in which case the referrer could be anything, or may not even exist). The code is ridiculously obfuscated, because according to the HTML source it's copyrighted and the designer of the software doesnt want people copying the source and using it without paying him. However, I think all we really need to know is whether it's an IFRAME, which it is. —Soap— 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have disabled the javascript for breaking iframes about 3 years ago. Not sure why. Dragons flight (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's just evil. Both because it makes it look like various innocent websites are using banner ads and because he's charging $27 for a big-deal box of software that could fit on a floppy disk and is essentially just a few lines of obfuscated Javascript a script that generates HTML code, not really a "program" at all. I have seen other websites doing this sort of thing, though, and it's not always "bad". For about a year the homepage of Skittles (the candy) featured our article integrated into their website in a way that made it function as if it was part of Skittles' own site, but with a sort of navigation panel that made it clear that it wasn't, and that you could also see their pages on Facebook, YouTube, etc. At least to my eyes, there was no deception involved. There was also, amazingly, no spike in vandalism on our Skittles articles despite the fact that none of them were even semi-protected as far as I can tell. The Skittles homepage no longer features Misplaced Pages, but I think that it if we used to block out this sort of thing in the past, we must have stopped doing it sometime before Skittles started. If we start blocking it again, it'd be nice, if it is at all possible, to think about possible "legitimate" uses of the same kind of HTML trick. (While I wont say that the Skittles campaign necessarily did us any good, since we make no profits and kids eating candy arent likely to be big donors, it didnt really do us any harm either.) —Soap— 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to concern admins. We aren't generally well versed in the technical aspects of the mediawiki software or these issues brought up here. These fixes would be nice, but if they are to be noticed by people who care, this discussion should be moved to WP:VPT and someone also should probably file a bugzilla request with the devs. --Jayron32 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

if (document.referrer.indexOf("magic-banner-bot.com") != -1) {
	location.href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Chris_G/Leech_detected&action=render";
}

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards