Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girolamo Savonarola (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 16 March 2009 (→Advice needed regarding blocks and socks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

CSD Backlog

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28

Request to unprotect User talk:Jennavecia

Last month I noticed that after her departure, she fully protected her talk page. While I understood it at the time, I feel it needs to be removed. Not just because she continues to edit, but because there is no reason to leave it fully protected. I considered a standard request, but decided it would not give this issue the attention it deserves (a conversation as opposed to a single admin). Synergy 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If one keeps editing, one surely needs an open talk page... Majorly talk 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This request probably should have been done via email as I know Jennavecia is a reasonable person. That said, I do agree that the talk page needs to be unprotected. Just the other day I needed to post to her talk page regarding a edit she had made and found it to be locked (yes, I could have edited through it, but I didn't). Synergy, maybe you can send her a email? Tiptoety 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt she wants to hear from me, but I can try. Synergy 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the e-mail, so we can only wait to hear her opinion. Although, since she is no longer an admin, she possibly won't be the one to unprotect (just a reminder). Synergy 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would have to agree here, full protection of the page is not appropriate. Users may be looking for information about her admin actions long after her retirement, and I'm sure there's helpful folks watching who can respond. –xeno (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Retirement and page protection don't go together, we just pretend they do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with Synergy. I'm not a fan of protecting retired users' talk pages in general, but an active editor should be easily-contactable. –Juliancolton 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• For reference, Jennavecia was occasionally a little too keen on fully protecting her pages. I concur with the reasons given above to unprotect. -- Earle Martin 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boo hoo, you couldn't edit my subpage. Tragic. Maybe my next edit, whenever I decide to make it, can be to one of your subpages, because it's so necessary.

Anyway, for the record, one edit in several weeks is not "continued editing", it's an edit. So go ahead and follow the policy to the letter, but any edits to my talk page will go straight from ignored to archived. If you have a question about a past admin action of mine, use your imagination or email me. I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap. The only message that needs to be there is the one that's there now. لennavecia 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a subpage, its a talk page... And as for your edits: Any editing after retirement is continued editing. I wont hold a semantic debate on how many edits constitute as "continued editing" since you should either stay retired, or come back and help out again. Synergy 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Jennavecia... If you are editing, any user may wish to discuss things with you. They might not wish to give you their email address, or don't have one. You are free to remove their messages, but good faith editors should be able to contact each other whenever possible (eg. when the page is not currently being abused). -- lucasbfr 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap"? That's a stunning statement coming from anyone, much less a long-time editor and former admin. I would love if my talk page didn't collect comments from the people who go into AfD with the idea that I'm a censor attempting to force the deletion of their book on the way that Alien Xray Satellites Are Controlling Our Brains, and the vandals who hate me reverting them, but I don't have the admin tools to force them to leave me alone - nor do I want them. In any case, anyone who is editing needs to be contactable via his or her talk page, period. Not wanting to see comments from people on your talk page isn't a good reason to protect it. Anyway, if we're going to be protecting anything, it should be BLPs. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

the wider issue of fully protected user talk pages

Does anyone want to search for User talk pages that have {{retired}} (or a variant) and are fully protected? Skomorokh 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

eh, a project for a bored admin to poke thru: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AProtectedPages&namespace=3&type=edit&level=sysop&indefonly=1&sizetype=min&size=&limit=5000 some of these are indef blocked users so they pages can be deleted per CAT:TEMP. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB limits the list it downloads of protected user talk pages to 25000. But for grins I'll look at the intersection of those 25K with retired, semiretired, and unretired.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, AWB is picking up all users, not just ones with protected talk pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any policy or common sense reason that many of these pages are protected - perhaps I'm missing something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't really get it either. –xeno (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, until a few months ago when the block option was added, there was no way to prevent a blocked registered user from editing their talk page except protecting it. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but wouldn't that normally be set with an expiry? And if not, because the user is indef'd, shouldn't their page be in CAT:TEMP and thus eventually deleted? Inconsistent admin work, this! Someone isn't doing their job. Cancel the Christmas Winter holiday bonuses! –xeno (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy has come to my rescue, and AWB is working like a champ now. {{retired}} has just 32 matches. I've posted that list here. I'll look at variants in a moment -- real life may slow that down a bit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are only semi'd and in the case of certain users, warranted. Can you drill down to just full-prot? –xeno (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy offered to set that up for me, and I thought with just 32 we could look at each of them without putting him to that trouble. On the other hand, I'm wondering if we should be thinking about reviewing all of the user talk pages that are fully edit protected (no idea how many there are -- there are 7286 with some form of protection (semi/full, edit/move)). If we think that's worthwhile, I'll drop a note to Reedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Xeno, Reedy is already on it. I told him no emergency here, but he thinks it's very doable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding/deleting those pages is rather pointless work, it's not like we need room or anything. John Reaves 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For me the bigger concern are the talk pages that are indefinitely fully edit protected without an urgent need to be protected. Especially if the editor involved still edits (or could, if they so chose) once in a while.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point John. @Fabric, perhaps a query to find if any of the full protected talk pages have active editors. –xeno (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest update. Once again, Reedy has come through. (Xeno was hoping candy would be involved, but that's a different story). The bad news, besides the lack of candy, is that there are 5480 fully protected user talk pages. Picking one at random to check that the list was generated correctly led me to Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users. If we aren't worried about reviewing these pages, we could eliminate 1200 from the list, bringing it down to 4280. I'm currently looking at weeding out anyone in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets, and will report back when I get that number. Also, any thoughts on subcategories of Category:Misplaced Pages blocking that could be excluded?

I've run the list excluding most of the categories at Category:Misplaced Pages blocking (and am truly stunned that we have 63,284 suspected sockpuppets). The list is down to 2934, but I see that a number of items on the list are archives. I'll see what I can do to efficiently remove those pages from the list. As to Xeno's suggestion of looking only at active editors, I haven't found a way to get that info efficiently yet. I was hoping that Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Inactive would be inspiring, but it looks like the edit dates are picked up by a bot.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is down to 1621 now that the protected subpages are gone. Several users I checked at random are blocked users who aren't in Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users. I'm not sure how to eliminate which ones are blocked users who aren't listed at Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users -- that might be a job for a bot. Also, I'm not feeling like we have a consensus on which non-blocked talk pages should be unblocked. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy isn't as clear as I'd like, but my gut interpretation is that unless there's been a problem with vandalism, the page should be unprotected. However, it might be wise to watch list any pages we unprotect, especially if the editor only edits sporadically.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one is interested in discussing the issue further, I'll deleted the list from my sandbox. I can always regenerate it if some consensus on what to do happens.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone said earlier much of this is probably unnecessary busywork, I think the only time a talk page should absolutely not be fully protected is when the user is/was an administrator as people may want to post questions about their administrative actions. –xeno (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog use in EN Misplaced Pages

Secaundis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ramz Trinidad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are exchanging Tagalog communications on their talkpages, especially in articles related to Sta. Maria, Bulacan.

Per the "Good practice" section in WP:TALK, in particular I gave Secaundis a uw-english tag and he responded on my talk page with an excuse that basically said he is not fluent in English, despite the fact that he has simple4 and EN-3 boxes on his userpage. I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia.

I suggested he take his Tagalog to the TL Misplaced Pages, but he responded to me in Tagalog, which like any other foreign languages, is not allowed here-unless there's translations (which he did not give). Both their talkpages are essentially chatboxes. I'm simply following WP:TALK protocols, any admin who cares to help, please reprimand them, especially Secaundis for his apparent defiance. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia. Have you ever edited a Misplaced Pages in a language you aren't fluent in? In most of them, there are people who are happy to help you out, happy to answer questions in English. Like WP:TALK, WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline. You shouldn't lecture people about not abiding by one guideline, while you disregard another. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both users have been warned with std template. Will keep an eye and see what they do/answer afterwards. -- Alexf 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that talking in English is a good practice, and a courtesy. However this is not mandatory (especially in user talks). -- lucasbfr 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. If they have insufficient grasp of English, then they're not going to be useful here - and their userboxes are inconsistent with that claim, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. WTF? Let them? Honestly, that sounds awfully xenophobic. Mind you, that's a talk page guideline...not even a user talk page-specific guideline, but a general one. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not xenophobic, some of my best friends are Tagalogs ;-) Sorry, all I'm saying is that non-transparent communication is not a good idea, but moreover, if they can't communicate in English, then what are they involved in an English encyclopedia-writing project for? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right- we're the English Misplaced Pages; it's not xenophobic for us to request conversations take place in English, any more than it would be for the Tagalog Misplaced Pages to prefer communicating in Tagalog. I can't see a polite but firm request (which {{uw-english}} is, despite the name) being out of bounds. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I don't think this is the first time someone has been rapped for fully speaking other tongues in the EN site....(and now back to your regular wikiediting) --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also ask for help at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines (the Philippines Wikiproject). Someone there could tell you what the exchange is all about. --A. B. 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I first took notice of those two when the Sta. Maria articles were posted for discussion. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They are at it again. User:Secaundis posted this in his pal's talk page, despite being admonished beforehand. I asked a Tagalog speaking friend and she pointed to the use four-letter words and chatting. They are obviously two young kids (Secaundis admits to be 14 y/o in his page, treating WP as a social network. Barring any guidelines on the contrary I'm inclined on issuing both a strong cease-and-desist notice to both. It is not being xenophobic as mentioned above but furthering the project. These two kids are making a mockery of the system. -- Alexf 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DAMN IT, I thought we already settled this! So that guy lied to me when he said he will speak English. I'm sorry for going PA-ish on this, but they're both hypocrites by posting EN userboxes when they don't even practice it here that much. And to think Secaundis is speaking english in the SM City Tungko AFD.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User RFCs

There are a couple of user RFCs that are a month or more old, and should be closed. As these have a tendency to become cesspools of nastiness when they go past their time limits (or usefulness), could someone please close them? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The most recent one should also be closed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1 of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving is certainly not satisfied; unless 2 or 3 are satisfied, I'm afraid the RfC filed against you cannot be closed or archived. If this has proceeded to another step in dispute resolution, can you please provide a link? Alternatively, a link to where the parties have agreed to close the RfC? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Protracted edit war at User:Calton

This is a continuation of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Incivility and personal attacks by Calton; as the protracted edit war at User:Calton (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) continues... The question remains: Does this removed text represent a WP:BLP or WP:USERPAGE violation? If not, should the page be semi-protected? –xeno (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with rootology there. As long as no one is named, I don't think there is much of a problem. -- lucasbfr 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- lucasbfr 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think those users who find Calton's page OK should review the Arbcom rstatements in the Tobias Conradi case, which said that personally directed comments like these should not be preserved in userspace. They should also revie Jimbo Wales' comments on the matter. Those say that content like this is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Calton is just wikilawyering that taking the names off the comments but making sure he posts enough information to identify his targets is OK. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

As many of you probably know, Special:NewPages contains a list of all Misplaced Pages articles created within the last 31 days. Many editors patrol the front end of the backlog, looking for immediately vandalism, spam, or copyright violations to nominate for speedy or uncontroversial deletion. However, the back end of the backlog is not as well covered, as one administrator, User:DragonflySixtyseven, has had to handle the backlog pretty much by himself, from what I can tell, with help from a few other editors. Currently, the backlog can only stretch up to 31 days. After 31 days, it falls off the edge of the backlog and is likely not seen again for a long long time. Those articles are prime locations to keep BLP and other violations, so we have to make sure to check all of them. Luckily, we have not had articles disappear for a while now, but we are getting pretty close; there is often less than 24 hours left in the "buffer" - the time before the pages start to fall off. If Dragonfly disappears for even one day, the entire prospect of monitoring New Pages is useless, and dozens of bad pages will be able to able to fly right through.

Right now, the backlog at New Page Patrolling shows quite well why something like Flagged Revisions would never work. Unless people are willing to put in some serious effort, all it will do is build a giant backlog. So, come one, do you part. Please help out. If you are interested, add

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/patrollinks.js');

to your monobook.js (or similar) page and come help out. It doesn't have to be a lot of help, but every page you patrol helps forestall another disaster. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is that script supposed to do? John Reaves 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just patrolled about 40 articles with NewPageWatcher. Hopefully that helps. On a side note, I wonder how many articles would need to be patrolled per day to keep up with the new articles being created. That would be nice to see some stats on that. MuZemike 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any way to keep up with the creation of new articles. I just spent more than an hour on the back end of the list, and I only managed to mark about 10 as patrolled. A few were obviously good articles and just needed the box to be clicked; but two turned out to be copyvios, one needed speedy tagging as not asserting significance, and one I nominated at AfD. What with all the Googling, tagging, and AfDing involved, we'd need an army of new-page patrollers to adequately handle the volume. Deor (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages definitely slip through, but every little bit helps. When the ability to mark new pages as patrolled was introduced, we notice a big drop in the pages at WP:DEP, especially the speediable pages. My guess is that marking pages as patrolled helped avoid duplicate efforts, so more pages got a glance before showing up on the DEP list. Now if we could just convince some of the more enthusiast patrollers not to speedy every article they see within a minute of creation... :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried my hand at patrolling for a while when the feature was first enabled, and my impression is that for every inappropriate speedy tag there was a case of someone clicking "patrolled" without checking for copyvio (admittedly, a particular bugbear of mine) or really taking much of a look at the article for other problems. Speedy tagging at NPP comes in for a lot of criticism, but I'd like to see an in-depth study of NPP practices as a whole—how many articles get speedy tags that are rejected, how many get speedy tags that result in deletion, how many are "passed" but later have to be deleted anyway, and so forth. I think that part of the problem is that, other than merely going on to the next article in the list whenever one is unsure about an article, db-tagging and just clicking "patrolled" are the two easiest things to do. Adding unsourced, notability, and other "problem" tags is (a little bit) harder, and actually investigating for copyvios, verification, etc., is hardest of all. Deor (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does someone want to whip up a page that tracks unpatrolled articles in the category Category:Living people or with bio-stubs? I'd be willing to put a few hours in. Skomorokh 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's probably not many with categories or any type of classification; they're likely to be orphans. I would just scroll through looking for titles that look like names. John Reaves 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the articles that have dropped off the newpages list because of time and inattention. Am I correct in assuming these are still detectable as "unpatrolled"? If my proposed parameters are too narrow, bots tag orphaned and uncategorized articles, which should catch the vast majority not bio-stubbed or categorized as Living people. 01:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, most of the new pages, especially blp's are not categorized or wikilinked at all. The only way to notice them is through the newpages list. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

John Reaves- The script adds "Patrol" links next to the article names on the main page themselves; if you use popups; it makes patrolling much quicker. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up patrolling the back side because it is so unproductive. A lot of the articles there are superficially valid but so trivial that I'm not willing to go to the effort of looking up sources to verify them (e.g., tiny villages in India, subway stations in New York, Slovak soccer players, etc, etc.) I've found that most of the articles I look at, I pass by without marking, unless they have tags that allow me to mark them as patrolled without doing anything. At the front end it's a different story -- I probably mark 2/3 of the articles I look at. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When I patrol, I just take a quick look to make sure the article is not a speedy candidate and move on unless something jumps out and bites me. Copyvios usually have a copy/pasted look and look more like a web page or a piece of spam then an article. Also, corin bot has in the past done a pretty good job finding copyvios but I don't know how well its working now. I don't think its necessary to go on a google hunt for every article one patrols. Have I been too casual about this? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion- we could add a feature to the script in which a person could click on a special Patrol link on Special:Newpages, and if the person does not do anything about the article then it would automatically be marked as patrolled. Or, if the person navigates away from the page, then a prompt would show asking if they want to mark the page as patrolled. The problem is that most people do not bother to click the mark as patrolled link. This would help cut down the backlog. LetsdrinkTea 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What does help is that friendly and twinkle now mark the page as patrolled when you use them to do something with it. I think one of the big problems in the past was that when you add a tag to the page, manually edit it, check talk, history, etc. the patrol link disappears. What would be useful would be a script that adds a "patrol" and a "don't patrol" button to the page. Both buttons remain visible whenever you revisit the page unless you click one or the page is patrolled by somebody else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir

Hey. I have just closed Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir as delete. I am asking myself whether I should remove the translusions or substitute the template? I think substituting is better, isn't it? — Aitias // discussion 12:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The TfD found the tagging itself useless, and by extension the template. Based on this I say remove it. --Amalthea 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone else see value in simply deleting the talk pages that contain this template where: 1) there is only one edit to the page and 2) the template is the only content? Having these pages blue-linked but blank with no useful history seems unnecessary. –xeno (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to keep such pages. Horologium (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see a reason either, but how would such a deletion be in accordance with policy? — Aitias // discussion 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    WP:CSD#G6... –xeno (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I for one am not sure whether this would be covered by G6. — Aitias // discussion 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Do you see any controversy occuring from their deletion? If not, then it meets G6, no? –xeno (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    I do not, but I can imagine a lot of people complaining about the deletion of a talk page. — Aitias // discussion 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    That's why we're only deleting the ones that meet the two criteria above. If we build a consensus here, then G6 applies. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Okay then, as there seems to be consensus, I am going to delete them. — Aitias // discussion 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • They should obviously be deleted. What is the point of an empty blue link talk page with no meaningfull history? Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. In addition, if the page has a longer history but only contains the transcluded WPRedir template, it can be redirected to the talk page of the article's redirect target. --Amalthea 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we seem to have consensus, second question, anyone know how to generate a list based on those two criteria? –xeno (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just redirect them to the talk pages of the redirect target? So if Foo redirects to Bar, then redirect Talk:Foo to Talk:Bar. I believe we've established several times before that mass-deleting talk pages that meet arbitrary criterion X is usually a Bad Idea... Happy‑melon 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If we do this, it'll become just another page that our bot army has to tend to fixing double redirects and the like when their targets are moved. These talk pages (at least those that meet the criteria above), while created in good faith, are simply useless and serve better as a redlink. MZMcBride generated a database query and of that I extracted a list of pages that should meet those two criteria. They are found here (permlink) if anyone wants to help. –xeno (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NobelBot misbehaving

NobelBot (talk · contribs) seems to have issues with templates using {{Documentation}}. Instead of adding the interwiki links to the template's documentation, it adds them directly to the template itself, outside of the <noinclude> tags. These interwiki links then get passed on to articles that transclude the template. (Examples: ) --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also adding interwikis in User space, which I don't think is appropriate behavor. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked until the operator tells the bot to stop working on the template (and probably user) namespace. Any administrator feel free to lift this block when the operator has confirmed their bot is in compliance. –xeno (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 - Sovereign Grace Ministries

• Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jbolden1517 has warned an editor after 1 edit in a highly contentious article. Jbolden1517 has repeatedly added a series of Blogs, discussion sites, and hybrid sites to the article, arguing that they must be included as there are no wp:RS to balance the positive information about the subject, both as ELs and as RS, arguing that all other wp:RS are "random" and the blogs and chat sites are together reliable. I am too close to this to take any further action. I think Jbolden1517 needs:

• a caution not to use warnings for 1st removal of content added without consenesus in a highly contentious article - this is incivil and abusive of editing privilege
• a warning not to use sources that explicitly fail wp:EL without clear consensus that they add enough value to the article to merit an exception to wp:EL
• a warning not to perform editing tests in "live" articles, but to use or create a wp:sandbox

A short full protection on the article to let interested editors seek actual wp:RS, and possibly (though I am dubious) discuss future expansions of the article.sinneed (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has nothing to do with the external links it was the removal of sourced material warning diff that provoked the warning to FenderPriest (talk · contribs). The actual change involved removing an entire section

The EL discussion is a separate issue, and had nothing to do with the vandalism warning. It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church. This has been going on for 2 months, well before I ever edited the article. I suspect, the recent ANI complaint is the result of the fact that I'm starting to put this all together in terms of reliable sources. You can look back on the article for almost a year of blocks and intimidation of other editors that have tried to mention this topic. I have suggested that the issue of these links be handled by an RFC which is fully in keeping with policy. jbolden1517 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church." - this is incivil, in and of itself, and should be redacted. "I have no dog in this fight." having followed a vandal to it, found it to be more an advertisement than an article, and cut away at what I saw as self-serving content steadily. Please remove your focus from me.sinneed (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs a clear consensus of editors to include mention of the survivor sites in the blog, and WP:Dispute resolution needs to be followed if people can't achieve that. In January 2009 an admin at BLPN explained how an RFC could be done on this issue, but nobody has followed his suggestion. Even an opponent of the links could open an RFC. People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution, could eventually be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring. Jbolden's comments about vandalism are certainly incorrect. Those who support the inclusion of the blogs would be expected to explain the case for them, in the absence of any WP:RS which comment on their importance and significance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed I 100% agree that an RFC is called for regarding these links. I 100% agree with other dispute resolution being used for those links. The vandalism warning had nothing do with those links (see the diff above). This is sineed (deliberately?) conflating two issues to strengthen his complaint. I want an RFC, since I think this is a more general problem. As I indicated on the talk pages.

The material that was deleted had references to all the principle parties and meets WP:RS. It had absolutely nothing to do with those links. What it was however was reliable sourced information about SGM that shows misconduct as verified by an independent 3rd party (Christian Research Institute) and a knowledge 3rd party (Growing Families Internation). A policy that (sinneed and?) FenderPriest would rather not have discussed. In other words this is not a debate about WP:EL at all, there are no external links in the material deleted, with the exception of the personal blog of the woman who is being discussed at length (a first party EL). That link, to the best of my knowledge, has not had any discussion prior to me bring it up.

In fact when those links have been deleted I have not made a vandalism claim. jbolden1517 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• At least 4 issues, actually. The 4th would be "claiming consensus for undiscussed changes", but that is part of the warning to Fenderpriest.
• As I stated to Fenderpriest, I cannot support Fenderpriest's removal of the content at this time, as it is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps at a later date, if it isn't improved, after discussion and flagging. I also see the warning to the editor to be wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• EdJohnston: "People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution" Perhaps you missed the mediator being called in, outside editors asked to comment, article locked after reports at AIV and BLP. The BLP report provided the feedback that while the blogs/discussion sites pose no BLP problems, they were correctly deleted per wp:EL. This had been discussed endlessly (literally for years before I followed an edit war to it), and there are usable wp:RS, but using them is challenging, and no one has cared enough to add the content they would support. I certainly have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the interest in that kind of contentious expansion. Thus, I focused on removing the pro-church PoV.sinneed (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make the article balanced. However, the admin who responded to the BLPN filing in January proposed an RFC on whether the links should be included, and nobody has opened such an RFC. Those who revert in either direction now (either adding or removing the links) are not following WP:DR, and they could possibly face sanctions. The fact that an (apparently unsuccessful) mediation occurred sometime in the past does not let either party off the hook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, that makes sense. I had not read such an interpretation before, so this is news to me. I would not say I was trying for balance, so much as to avoid misuse of WP as an advertisement medium. I have never pushed edit warriors toward RFC firmly: now I have a "new arrow in my quiver". Thanks.sinneed (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• WOOPS! I had taken this as guidance in response to the BLP proposal, and a look at that editor history shows that to have been a mistake.sinneed (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A reader has pointed out that that sounds like an excuse. It is not: I am personally responsible for even my most bone-headed edits.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

More backlogging

Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is approaching 300 pages. Admiral Norton 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedro thy master

Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) seems to be an impersonation of Misplaced Pages administrator User:Pedro given that "Pedro" exists in the users name. Could somebody please take a look?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many things on this earth named Pedro, and while not disagreeing with the principle that our Pedro deserves a legion of adoring meatpuppets, the fact that this user's contributions have been entirely constructive, and entirely limited to Two and a half men, mean that they are likely unrelated. Skomorokh 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The user's talkpage reveals he is responsible for the creation of an A7-failing article on Pedro Negrin, who would seem a more likely candidate to pin the equivalence relation to (admins can confirm). Skomorokh 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was in Spanish – someone more fluent than me can work out what it said:

Entro a la navalescuela

 – iridescent 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the beginning of a bio--Pedro was born in 1954 in Venezuela...the next section discusses his youth and his siblings, and the last section says that he joined the navy. (This is loosely translated, of course; my Spanish is not very good, but I can recognize a few of the words from my Spanish 1121 class last semester.) I doubt that anything priceless was lost when it was speedied. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Venezuelan Naval Attache to the US, according to the State Department website. – iridescent 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he *is* a rear-admiral, and holds a diplomatic post; it's possible that there is some notability, although there's nothing in the deleted article to indicate it. In any case, there is no indication that there is any problem with the user name, and we do have users with similar usernames (User:Hibernian and User:Hiberniantears; User:Mastcell and User:MastCell). How about slapping a nice big {{resolved}} template on this and calling it a night? Horologium (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon kindly notified me of this thread, but I concur with Skomorokh that there are many things called Pedro ,so this is not an impersonation but indeed article related. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Need a closing admin

Can some nice uninvolved admin stop by Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)/Opinions#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia:Notability_.28criminal_acts.29_be_adopted_as_a_guideline.3F to close the straw poll discussion on Misplaced Pages:Notability_(criminal_acts) as either adopted or not adopted? Thanks. MBisanz 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it the purpose of administrators to decide on the results of a straw poll? I think regular editors can judge consensus. Chillum 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)#What_happened.3F what consensus on the page is, and the usual way to resolve such things is to have an admin close. MBisanz 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read through the entire page, poll and everything else, I don't see any problem with this being a guideline. It fits in with all our existing notability policies and guidelines. Anc after all, it's a guideline not a policy. If anyone has any major issues with it they can WP:BOLDly edit it (though if they're reverted, WP:BRD of course). Therefore, marked as a guideline. Black Kite 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review. MBisanz 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Flarkins

Can someone else have a look at Flarkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his history and see if you think the indefblock is too harsh (I give explicit consent to overturn and won't consider it wheel-warring); also, can someone double check his image-taggings. I think I've reverted all the bogus ones, but there may be some I've missed. – iridescent 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… ABF is right more often than it's wrong. – iridescent 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is now claiming that he will sock in order to evade his block. This user is obviously racist, and doesn't want to change to meet our rules, I would suggest his contributions be watched, unless of course a CU feels like doing a check on his account to see if he has already created a new one, or at least, Iri, maybe you can give him a rangeblock?— Dædαlus 08:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On a technical level, I don't think being a racist is necessarily enough for a block. He's just an uncivil jerk, which is a perfectly fine reason for an indefinite block. Nonracist uncivil jerks deserve to be treated the same way. Look into it but frankly, he's not exactly subtle and we'll catch him when he starts again. At some point, he'll give up and be bored of this game. It's the subtle vandals that are the biggest headache. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Ricky; thoughtcrime is not a blockable offence – civil, neutral, amicable racists (should any be found) ought to be as welcome as their humanist, feminist, and liberal brethren. Everyone has a POV, and those that happen to be untrendy among Misplaced Pages's dominant sunstarved suburban white teenaged male demographic are not ipso facto any less conducive to the flourishing of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was racist, but he was uncivilly racist, in that when Iri confronted him about the taggings, he blanked the message with an edit summery of jew.— Dædαlus 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I think everyone is an agreement. He was uncivil totally. Edit summaries with the word "jew" for whatever reason are not appropriate and he should be blocked indefinitely for that. Just your other point is a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention- BACKLOGGED

Just letting you folks know, the page is as full as I've ever seen it.... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because User:Calton likes to report defunct usernames en masse. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing about a dozen of them. Seriously, is it really necessary to report "spam" usernames that haven't edited in months? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We should only block usernames that are actually causing a problem. ⚗ Dr. StrangeBong ⚗ (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published. A summary may be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Foxgirl.jpg

File:Foxgirl.jpg - Can someone figure out what's happening with this image? It has been deleted several times for valid reasons, and the same people keep bringing it back... I tried to follow talk pages but now my head just hurts. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the copyright description links to the Chinese version, which has GNU-disputed tags. Is that the best they can come up with? - Jarry1250 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We say the source is ZH, they say their source is EN. Which is why it was deleted at least once, it had an IfD as well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a picture of a 3d work, thus it is a derivative work of whoever designed the toy. The image will need a fair use rational if it is to stay. Chillum 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Tigeroo

It has been disclosed to me that since I let Tigeroo (talk · contribs · logs) out of an indef block, he made exactly the same edit as he had while evading his block. He has also ruffled some of the same feathers as before.

I have reblocked him, and now I think it's time that we consider, given this user's history, that he has exhausted the community's patience and cannot reform. Is there support for a community ban? Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I've had a brief look at the block log among other things, if you (or someone else) could provide a summary of the history (with links/diffs), that would help answer the question more definitely. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - why waste our time? //roux   21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On what basis were they unblocked - if they are violating the terms then the answer is fairly obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per Case. THF (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ilovebucketheadz

Please can someone take a look at the activities of this user - Ilovebucketheadz (talk · contribs). Some of his edits seem OK and he is a member of a wikiproject. However other edits would appear to be straightforward vandalism (example1, example2). I also suspect this user has a much longer history of editing Misplaced Pages than his <100 edits would suggest - his first edit was to create a project subpage: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Armed With Sodas. Is this something to be concerned about? Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the project subpage was originally created in article space, and only later moved to a project subpage, so that's probably not an indication of a returning user. Black Kite 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding blocks and socks

Currently we are conducting a coordinator election at WikiProject Films. Amongst the candidates is one Shamwow86 (talk · contribs), whom I asked several questions of when his stated editing history did not seem to match his contributions. His user page reminded me greatly of Creamy3's, a blocked user and self-proclaimed leader of the "Creamy Army" some time ago, who also ran for a film coordinator position about a year ago. Shamwow responded that he was not Creamy3, but rather Titchbits74 (talk · contribs), who was also blocked indefinitely (possibly as part of the Creamy Army - it is not yet clear to me), and appears to have nonetheless created two currently active user accounts, inclusive of Shamwow. While I have asked the blocking admin Ioeth (talk · contribs) for further information, since there appear to be no talk page records, Ioeth's activity lately has been sporadic, and I believe this requires some speed, since it involves an ongoing election. Has there been improper behavior, and if so, what should be done? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See the block log here instead of guessing. Tichbits74 was blocked for an inappropriate username (which I think should be clear). His last two comments under that account should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss that when looking at the block log. Clears some of my questions up (although not all). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User hitlists

Hi, I'm wondering if there a rule aganist users creating a type of "hitlists" on their sandbox page? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Details? //roux   01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, depends on the details. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with it. Longterm, it's seen as a sign of bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. Now this isn't suppose to be offensive but the user is friends with some admins that are of his ethnicity who seem to support him. He repeatedly accuses me of using personal attacks but I haven't. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin opinion: I have been told before (when I first started) and seen others told that lists like those in question aren't cool and shouldn't be in userspace or on Misplaced Pages at all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 02:25

After seeing the page, it looks like a bad idea. There's a difference in using a sandbox page to prepare a report on someone, and keeping a hitlist of editors you don't like without explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Clarification, NH: pages like that are acceptable in userspace if (and only if) they are being used as a sandbox for drafting an RFC/U, RFAR, etc. And even under those limited circumstances, the actual RFX needs to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. This use of userspace meets none of those conditions. Also, I have notified the user of this thread. There is also an odd accusation of sockpuppetry on the user's talkpage, which might be worth looking into given the apparent subject area interest. //roux   02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware and will remove it immediately. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards