Misplaced Pages

A more drastic solution suggested by Zoe in the VPr thread and agreed to by a few so far, is to disable raw sigs entirely, but offer the option to add a "user talk" link after one's username in the default sig. E.g. ~~~ creates either Username OR Username · talk

This is all quickly becoming a perennial proposal, and should probably get centralized somewhere soon?

Disclosure: I'm quite strongly opposed to the use of colored/complex sigs, and tend to treat them as a possible warning sign of patience being required with their owner…</mini-rant>(and of course I don't mean you! ... ;-P —Quiddity 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a purely technical approach is not the solution, because people can easily use JavaScript injection to continue using a signature of arbitrary length. You'd think this would be rare, but it's not. Awhile back one of the Esperanzians figured it out in bookmarklet form and it spread through that community. I echo support for a policy-focused solution that prohibits signatures that are greater than a certain length. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but there isn't any reason not o restrict it technically too. My proposal is for 250 chars, as I feel it will filter out most of the monstrosities, while still allowing for a case-by-case evaluation of the remaining. We must also have objective, rather than subjective criteria in eg. color combinations (there have to be specific color-charts for reference re "people with vision problems"). Finally, I feel that this discussion should be concentrated in ONE place (rather than 1, 2,3 persistently spammed campaigns, plus my MfDd subpage where people are beating a dead horse coz I haven't had a new client since last October). It's really unfair that some people's personal dissatisfaction with the current WP:SIG guideline's limitations is broken on my subpage (which never violated WP:SIG of its time since I found out about it -quite early). NikoSilver 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Is there a "convenient" number to suggest for programming reasons (such as 255/6), or is that irrelevant these days? Also, I don't think that should be able to be enabled in preferences. It pretty much does away with the idea that a userpage is the "frontpage" for a user. (Everyone will click "talk" first.) Though I wonder what would be lost if we did away with userpages and had only user talk pages... - jc37 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From a programming standpoint, there's no special benefit to any number in this circumstance, other than that every number is slightly worse than the number less than it. The best number would probably be something nice and round, that humans are used to, like, say, 200, 150, etc. --Cyde Weys 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets

This page is backlogged to the point of behing overwhelmed. Reports dating back to early November are going unanswered.

I think the whole system needs overhauling, as at the moment such cases are far too complex and confusing for us to look at anyway. In the meantime, I wonder if we should put an amnesty on all unanswered cases from November and December and call the page temporarily dead? The current system is impossible to work as it is an impossible call for admins to make. --Robdurbar 10:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to completely overhaul the way these are delt with (or at least begin an overhauling) at Misplaced Pages talk:Sock puppetry#Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets policy overhaul. Please contribute, as I want to create a system that we can deal with efficiently. --Robdurbar 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, these are backlogged - I am starting with the oldest - from November! They take a while. I've never closed any before, so please be kind. AnonEMouse 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005

Some time ago, a user created several hundred pages about a day (e.g. Dec 16 2005, as opposed to our regular articles like November 1). These articles are redundant and ultimately unmaintainable, so it was suggested that they be deleted. Rather than creating several hundred noms, Fram (talk · contribs) created a single nom listing a handful, as linked above.

Now the point is that the arguments, and most people who commented, support removal of these articles. But, several people have argued that this is out of process. The problem with this line of thought is, that no matter how or where you want to discuss potential removal of these articles, there will always be people arguing that it was out of process. If you do it on AFD, people suggest CENT. Do it on CENT, and they'll request the village pump. And the village pump will ask you to get your {{shrubbery}} at AFD.

So I propose we look at the arguments rather than at whether or not it conforms to Da Rulez, close the AFD and remove these poorly thought-out articles. Thoughts please? >Radiant< 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Damn, we've had this transclusion debate before with WikiProject Cricket. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that says we don't transclude in the article name space. My initial thoughts are that we cut out the forum shopping, but maybe run this one over for another week making that point clear and hope to develop a strong consensus. I'll try and find all the cricket discussion, it's about 18 months ago, I remember archiving it all together. That was one that spilled out onto the pump and cent as well, from what I remember. Steve block Talk 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just make them go away, Radiant!, please. --Doc 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose and Misplaced Pages:Template namespace. My gut is to push towards a merge and redirect to the monthly articles. Steve block Talk 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Analysis suggests that a redirect isn't necessary because there are little or no incoming links, and a merge isn't necessary because nearly all the relevant information is already in the more general articles like July 2. >Radiant< 14:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I've had a look at a couple and seen incoming links, maybe ten an article. Protected redirects might stop future occurrences. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These pages are probably in the main namespace because Portal:Current events used to be in the main namespace. Several of them are still transcluded on other pages. I have suggested to move them all to subpages of Portal:Current events, as they might be archives of that page. Individual month pages like December 2005 (a page consisting mostly of transclusions of articles included in the AFD) could also be moved out of article space. Kusma (討論) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This might be the best suggestion. They do seem to be part of the current events format as was, and they get pushed out of the article space where they clearly don't belong. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • yeah, they are a part of the current events portal, see January 2007, that's made up of transcluded pages from the portal namespace. I'm leaning towards closing as moving to portal namespace on that basis. Steve block Talk 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This does seem like the best solution, and is unlikely to be controversial or require further discussion since it matched the current practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yay. Proto has now closed the debate, stating that there is consensus to delete them, but we must nevertheless tag every single article and discuss it further in some other forum (which will undoubtedly also reject it as "out of process"). I find this a rather bureaucratic approach, and it will likely not be productive. >Radiant< 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated on my talk page, someone will see a page is deleted they didn't know about, take all 1400 pages to DRV, and enough people would ask for them to be restored based on them not having been AFD tagged for them to be restored (as DRV is based on headcounting, inexplicably). If you want them to go through AFD, then tag them for AFD and do it properly. If you didn't want them to be AFD'd properly, why bring the articles to AFD? If you want them moved to the portal namespace, be bold and just move them instead of complaining about bureaucracy. I won't mind. Proto::► 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • DRV is not based on headcounting, but on policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not what people who close DRV discussions have told me. Proto::► 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy says, Undeletion requests for inappropriate items do not succeed.. What "inappropriate items" are is an exercise for the closing admin to decide, but WP:ILIKEIT is not an appropriate reason. There must be policy to support the undeletion, majority rules is not policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Does your back hurt? --Sam Blanning 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that since I started this thing (the AfD, not the articles), I'm willing to take every step deemed necessary, be it starting a WP:CENT discussion, posting on the Village Pump, or starting a new AfD with all (some 1,400) pages tagged: I'm also prepared to merge all articles into the month articles if that is the preferred solution, and to change all links to these pages (coming from article pages, not from user pages or talk pages) to better links (splitting in two parts usually). If any of these needs to be done, please drop me a note, and please also be patient since it is quite a big task obviously. I'm of course unable to do any of the needed admin tasks, be it deleting pages or merging histories. Fram 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspammer sockpuppet

Is anyone available to block repeat vandal and linkspammer User:Neurosurgery (and likely sockpuppet for repeat spammer User:Lifeinneurosurgery? He's back on the Neurosurgery page (several times since being warned.) Nposs 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RasputinJSvengali

This user appears to have a history of contentious editing, but I noticed one thing recently that make me suspect that he is the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user.

He added a link to a deleted article, Saintsteven, see . As it was a red link I was curious and checked the deletion log and found the AfD, where it appears the article was created by the subject Quadmona (talk · contribs), who ended up getting indef blocked for repeated vandalism. I know it's not much to go on and probably doesn't merit blocking at this time, but it might be a good idea if someone were to keep an eye on this user. He seems to have been doing some edit warring on Kurt Cobain last month as well. Jefferson Anderson 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's Saintstephen.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See also the history of Targ the impossible. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed warning template series

First off, if this isn't the right page to post this I apologize (and would appreciate a nudge in the right direction.) I've noticed that a very large percentage of the vandalism done to WP takes the form of gay bashing or has some sexual component. That's no surprise, of course, given the number of lonely, pathetic teens out there with computers, but what I would like to suggest is that a series of vandalism templates be written that address that type of vandalism specifically AND that they should to some extent deride the vandal. "Your comments to <Article X> have been removed because they were deemed unhelpful and indicative of your tragic sexual confusion rather than the article itself. If you would like to contribute more constructively you are welcome to do so, but regardless of any such participation, here are a few wikipedia pages that you might want to look at:" and then a list of pages dealing with repressed homosexuality or various exhibitionistic/vandal related issues. A series of such templates should exist just like the other levels of warnings. (The aforementioned one might be, say, level 2.) While this might be seen as a joke, I am serious that something like that would be both amusing to WP participants and a more effective method of dealing with these very sad, sad people. Geeman 22:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, don't give them a list of articles for them to vandalize!  :) We could point them to Misplaced Pages:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, we sent vandals for 'diversity awareness training? That's some idea.--Doc 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we start a practice of suggesting to kids posting silly insults (that they likely just use at school) that they might be repressed homosexuals and have a "tragic sexual confusion"? This is ridiculous; what sounds like your personal vendetta does not belong here. -- Renesis (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, calm down! User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I've taken what is meant to be funny the wrong way, then sorry. I didn't see any signs of humor, though. (And my point is only that the suggestion that there should actually be a template with wording anything like the above, if serious, is way out of line) -- Renesis (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this is about me all of a sudden, I feel obliged to say that I don't have any personal vendetta. I'm just looking for a response to vandals that will not be completely ineffectual--which it is pretty clear the current system is. When dealing with vandals who add material like (a modest example) "Ernest Miller Hemingway had a huge dick and was born on..." a response that such a comment indicates a personal problem on the part of the vandal is IMO perfectly reasonable. The current list of templates do absolutely nothing to deter such comments. Something more direct might have at least some chance of making the vandal go away (or, at least, wander off to some cyberspace location where their motives aren't revealed.) If that strikes you as being over the line then all I can say is that it is a very modest response to some very crude vandalism, and I'm looking for something more aggressive than the current, very passive, system. Geeman 08:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Geeman, I can see you're well intentioned, but I don't know if you've ever done counter-vandalism. Quite frankly, these editors vandalize because they can, and it's stupid, and it's fun, and they know it. Just imagine a concerned parent walking by and telling kids to "stop being so profane, it's rude" - the reaction would only be laughter. Giving them a warning about their homophobic behavior will probably do worse than good (believe me, I've tried {{obscene}}, and we might as well scream at them "Don't shove beans up your nose!"). The only solution I find that might be helpful is Zoe's: it's a humorous way of saying, "you're not the first one to think you're funny"). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

We should not forget that most kids entering puberty are actually sexually confused, since very few people develop exclusively heterosexual sexualities, but are wrongly led to believe that "it's either one or the other".

Still, Misplaced Pages is not the place for them to come to terms with where they lie on the spectrum of sexual identity. --Sam Blanning 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we just leave them a {{test2}} with the note "That's not funny and it makes you look like a fool"? They aren't spamming pages with the word fag because they need sensitivity training, they're doing it because their infantile sense of humour finds it funny. --tjstrf talk 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do think vandals who post gay bashing material are dealing with their own repressed homosexuality, but that's not really the point. Maybe this wasn't particularly clear, but the repressed homosexuals are just one form of vandalism that I'm talking about here. Vandals who just put the word "Pussy!" in the text somewhere would get the same template warning.

I'm also not suggesting anything like sensitivity training. If anything, the opposite. My point is that we should call them on the root of their motivation in a series of vandal warning templates which indicate that not only has the vandal clearly shown his sad mental state to the world, but call him on it in a way shines the light back on them. It would be an interesting tactic to also direct them to pages that they would be more interested in vandalizing. Coralling them, if you will, into areas where their efforts will be more easily monitored.... And if we do so in a way that makes it amusing for the person who posts warning messages then all the better.

I'm not really surprised that something like {{obscene}} template would not work. It's practically a reward. A template that says, in effect, "your vandalism indicates you're sexually confused" doesn't congratulate the vandal. It turns the issue around on them. Geeman 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, I say respectfully, that Centrx has it quite right. FWIW, {{obscene}} is now at TfD; the discussion seems to track quite closely with that supra. Joe 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, it can't be good for our response to "Brad Pitt is gay ha ha ha" to be "No, you are." Even if we use more words to say it. FreplySpang 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:HBC Searchbot

• Current source and search patterns.

I am bringing this up here because there was some resistance when I first mentioned the idea See "ArbCom ruling on talk page removals". This is a bot that will search through each revision of a talk page history and report when it finds certain patterns. I currently have 213 user page templates programed in as patterns.

The bot will report the name of the pattern found(ie: Template:3RR), and the date/time of each occurrence of it being removed or added and a diff to that occurrence.

The report will emphasize that the existence of a warning does not mean an infraction necessarily occurred. It will urge the reader to examine the context of the warning and will provide diffs to aid in that effort. I am posting here to find a clear consensus before I proceed to make a bot approval request.

I have not chosen the form of the final report yet. There are several option from my point of view:

1. A user could place a tag such as {{User:HBC Searchbot/scan|HighInBC}} on a blank page and the bot would replace it with a report on HighInBC.
2. A user could place a tag such as {{User:HBC Searchbot/scan|HighInBC}} on their own userpage, my bot would remove the tag and e-mail the report the user.
3. The bot could run on a separate server outside of the Misplaced Pages interface. I can provide this server not problem.

What do people think of this bot, and how should I proceed? HighInBC 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because presense or absense of such templates has a tenuous relationship with policy, I feel the report itself is best kept off wiki. So, not #1. Of 2 and 3, 3 feels like a more natural interface, if you have the resources to do it. Dragons flight 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't really have a good sense whether it would be used in a productive way or not. Dragons flight 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have given first warnings to users before only to later find they were well aware of these rules, having seen and removed a warning. Anyone using this bot will still have to present diffs to evidence when making an argument, and if those diffs are blindly taken out of context, that will be evident. It is just like looking through the contribution history. HighInBC 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could have a feature to ignore warnings by indef-banned users. I can't tell you how many times I've been warned by a malicious user. That being said, I do think it's helpful: community consensus has agreed that users can remove warnings mostly because anybody can go through the page history. This bot will simply do that manually. I don't see a problem with that - I even have some warnings on my own history (outside the vandalous ones) that I wouldn't mind if someone saw. -Patstuart 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a blatant vandal warning in my history, it was placed accidentally, then removed by the same person. HighInBC 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the toolserver be a better place for this? It seems tedious/wasteful to make edits to a page to receive a report via email. -- Renesis (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a fine place for it. I also have a server of my own. HighInBC 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, toolserver... would... be best. Place.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting punctuation, was that a Shatner pause? HighInBC 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was my brain stalling. Sorry, I'm going to take it in for an oil change soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.smith (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Full page protection review

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a couple of disputes, first over the notability of this article and then about the number of images (50+) in the article. I removed them twice, restored by an anonymous user twice. Yukichigai (talk · contribs) concurs with the anonymous users and restores the image. A Man In Black (talk · contribs) (per my request to look over the article) also removes the images. The war escalated today with a near 3RR violation. AMIB reverted back to the non-images version and and then protected the page. I would like a neutral admin to review this situation and decide whether it should be protected or not and if an admin should protect the page he/she is involved in. Hbdragon88 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see AMIB protecting his own version of article, which is not acceptable. But, I couldn't agree more with what he did there. Fair use is a non-negotiable policy on Misplaced Pages. However, AMIB should have got an un-involved administrator to protect the page, and should not have used the roll-back tool to remove contentious edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Csetneki lace

Csetneki lace is a copyvio of http://www.csetnekicsipke.hu/indexen.htm. How do I proceed with this? Lmblackjack21 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion ({{db-copyvio}}). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Maintenance > Copyright violations > {{copyvio}} and attach to page in question. Now done. (aeropagitica) 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden (talk · contribs) and WP:STALK

User:Oden is doing useful and unthankful job of enforcing our increasingly more strict policies of the fair use image by patrolling old images. It is a delicate task there it is critical to explain users that how their images that were celebrated catch just a few months ago now are considered shameful policy violations. Obviously, the users should receive all the explanations over the policy changes, be encouraged to find the free equivalents of the fair use, there should be an honest dialog over their reasons while the free images are unsuitable for the articles. The most important the users should not feel that tagging of their images is a sort of a personal harassment or a vendetta. I am not sure Oden is doing a right thing in this respect. He has chosen to patrol the fair use images based on the uploader. Often he has a disagreement with a user, then "review" all his her image over years. As a result the uploader feels harassed and persecuted even if Oden's claims are valid. From the point of view of stimulating the search for free images mass tagging of images by a single uploader are counterproductive: if tagging one..two images per week stimulate users to find free substitutes or releasing the images under free copyright licenses, mass tagging just lead to apathy.

Oden was many times warned by different admins not to violate WP:STALK and to be more thoughtful about user's feelings see , , , , , , , , , . I have counted at least five different admins and two prolific users in good standing. Still after all this warnings he behaves exactly the same. E.g. after a mild personal attack from . Oden within minutes started tagging Kuban's images: , , , , . He never had any ineterest in Kuban images. I wish to apply WP:AGF but it is difficult not to see the usage of copyright issues as a weapon in a personal conflict, the thing a few admins including me specifically asked Oden not to do. Very similar methods are used by Oden in his personal conflict with Irpen. Irpen is not a problem user out of hundreds of the images he uploaded only a couple were found wrong but he does not take the stalking lightly. I specifically asked Oden to leave irpen's upload log along. Still after all these warnings Oden is still bragging about searching this log .

Guys, Oden is a very hardworking user and I do not want to block him, but the warnings do not have any effects so far. Can somebody talk with him and persuade him to change his modus operandi? Alex Bakharev 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Following a trail of contributions to find more violations is not stalking, in my opinion. Again, IMO, it is pure and simple that Oden is not in the wrong here; generally, people who breach WP:FU once do it again,and so looking back through a user's log is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. It seems, well, silly that you would consider blocking someone for it. Jimbo Wales and WMF take a dim view on bad FU images, and so should we - it doesn't matter how you find them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. If it appears to Irpen/Kuban/whoever as though they are being stalked, this will probably be because Irpen/Kuban/whoever is repeatedly uploading unfree images in breach of WP:FU. Proto::► 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment.As I've said before, Oden is one of the relatively moderate folks in the anti fair-use group. But it does seem more than a bit disruptive to specifically target the uploads of individual editors as he appears to be doing. Daniel: Jimbo's opinion on the matter is just another opinion. Jimbo himself has said that trying to support something with "Jimbo said" isn't a fair argument. The argument here isn't about bad fair use images but in how people are going about tagging them, and Machiavellian tactics aren't going to help promote goodwill and community in Misplaced Pages. It's rude and disruptive. Proto: By this logic, then if the police go and beat someone with truncheons and haul him off to jail, that automatically makes him guilty of crimes. It's not proper in a modern society to assume that if someone is punished, it automatically means that person was guilty. And regardless of whether an editor has uploaded fair use images, WP:AGF asks that we assume good faith, which you're not advocating. As has been mentioned many times and subsequently pooh-poohed by folks who want to implement RfU, a category page with an automatic list of all fair use images should be created and then whoever wants to go throug them can do so one by one. This would eliminate this semi-wikistalking thing, and if nothing else, would give the RfU taggers an out when someone complains about their image being tagged. Instead, folks seem to insist on doing it the hard way, making people angry, making them feel stalked and persecuted, causing disruption and seriously affecting efficiency and community. I don't know why this is, but it's very backward. TheQuandry 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you consider uploading fair use images after they have been removed and deleted because of breach of fair use to be vandalism, then there is no problem with his actions. When you find someone adding inappropriate external links to articles in your watchlist you usually check the user's contributions to see what else he has been doing. While I do not like "revenges" (in example, removing images because the editor who uploaded them has a conflict with you), if the images are correctly removed according to existing policy and the contributor reinserts them, he is also disrupting Misplaced Pages. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

TheQuandry: Are you aware that WMF/Jimbo may decide to step in and reform this process to reduce the number of FU breaches, as a Foundation edict? I was speaking to him yesterday about it, and if he does this, then his opinion does matter, very much so. It actually matters more than anyone else's, really. Daniel.Bryant 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel: If/when WMF and Jimbo step in and make an executive decision, then I suppose there will be no more room for debate. Until then, Jimbo has only shared his viewpoint and Jimbo himself has said many many times that it's not proper to invoke him like that. And as of this moment, neither Jimbo nor WMF have made a Foundation edict. TheQuandry 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It's possible to stalk by making edits that would be perfectly reasonable under other circumstances, but which are being used to target and punish certain users. I'm not making any claims about this case, but just pointing out that if, for example, I were to be in conflict with ReyBrujo, and then trawled through his edits, correcting all his typing errors, placing (perfectly justified) wikify, cleanup, etc., templates on articles he'd created, and so on, I'd be behaving badly. My edits would be being made, not with the intention of improving Misplaced Pages, though they might do that, but with the primary purpose of harrassing ReyBrujo. This has been (rightly in my view) condemned as wikistalking in the past. It's not always easy to distinguish from the perfectly proper business of following up a problem user's edits to tidy up after her — though when it follows immediately upon an attack in either direction, it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
2. As I said, I have no real view about oden with regard to the stalking charge — but he has often carried out his purge of fair-use images insensitively and out of process, removing images from articles with vague edit summaries, and no previous warning message about the replacement of such images with properly licensed replacements, etc. He seems to have started taking his job personally, and that usually leads to problems. I don't think that he should be blocked or anything like that, but he does need to be talked to, and persuaded to slow down and behave towards other editors with proper consideration, and within Wikipdia policies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden's actions are definitively not stalking as per the letter or spirit of that policy. If a contributor doesn't understand image policy, it's likely that they've uploaded other images incorrectly and thus reasonable to go through their contribution history and take the appropriate action. Image tagging is quite thankless work, yet essential to the project both legally and in the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Alex, I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden, who has done nothing wrong, imho. It's neither rude nor disruptive to correct users who violate Misplaced Pages's image policies. If they upload 100 images incorrectly, then all of them should be dealt with in as polite a manner as possible. Oden should use appropriate edit summaries and notify users, but he doesn't necessarily have to "slow down" (i.e. only tag one inappropriate image per user per day). Savidan 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you either ignored or dismissed what I said about stalking. Also, why do you think that "slow down" means only tagging one image a day? The point is that his lack of courtesy and proper explanation of his actions is probably the result of trying to do too much; if he slowed down, he'd have time to do things in a way that didn't put people's backs up.

In response to what was said in response to a previous discussion of this, I probably am a little out of date concerning the hysteria with which this issue is treated in Misplaced Pages now. Perhaps the hysteria is justified by the U.S. obsession with litigation, I don't know.* Still, the idea that, for example, an image that depicts the subject of an article is inappropriate for an encyclopædia, being "merely decorative", is so at odds with every encyclopædia that I've ever seen that I wonder if those involved have lost sight of what we're supposed to be doing, at least in their explanations of their actions.

*The Nac Mac Feegle bear swords that glow blue in the vicinity of lawyers... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Defcon indicator is not working properly...

Right now, Zsinj's and Herostratus's versions of the WikiDefcon are stuck on level 1, and the info wont change either. Could someone go over and take a look at it? Cheers! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While you were typing that, I reverted vandalism on User:Zsinj/Wdefcon. I'll just go and check Herostratus' version... --ais523 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. As Template:Wdefcon is sprotected, maybe it's worth a semi on some of the more popular pages to be transcluded on it? --ais523 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Afd2

Could someone please fix {{afd2}} per my editprotected request there? It's broken at the moment, and messing up newly-created AfDs. --ais523 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed now; thanks, crzrussian! --ais523 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Can somone please give a hand at WP:AIV Rettetast 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rettetast 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the history of PAIN

It seems to me that the history of WP:PAIN ought to be kept for those who link to diffs regarding the page. I don't personally have a particular use for the history, but it seems it could be useful in some way sometime in the future. Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it was my understanding the page will just get redirected. Agathoclea 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the outcome when the discussion was first closed, but it was reopened and the final decision was simply Shut down. --Edokter (Talk) 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore the edit history and protect - I suspect that at least one diff in there may be used in an upcoming Arbitration case (possibly), and even so, like what WP:EA did is best. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why protect it? Is there any reason non-admins should be unable to make edits? Picaroon 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To stop people posting there accidentally? Once it's finalised, there is no further need to edit it. Daniel.Bryant 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• What precisely is the need to restore an archive of accusations of nastiness, especially given the strong majority in the MFD that wanted it deleted? The arbcom can view the deleted history if they need it (which I seriously doubt, and which I wouldn't assume unless an arbiter actually says so). People wanted the ruleset kept in history so they could learn from what didn't work out, not the archives of accusations. Likewise, with Esperanza, the most troubling bits were the membership roster and the hierarchy, both of which were deleted and salted. >Radiant< 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion should be used to archive things. Seriously. Please can someone nag a developer to get a clear verdict on whether the deleted pages part of the database should really be used as an archive. On a wider issue, admins seem to use deleted pages as a way to hide things that shouldn't be viewed in public. Isn't that what the ability to delete or oversight items from a page history was meant to do? If there is a need to have protected archives, where page history is preserved but only viewable by admins, then that should be requested from the developers. Carcharoth 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not at all saying that deletion should be used to archive things (but rather, that it is fallacious to claim it should be kept because the arbcom might hypothetically at some point need to see it). I am saying that the outcome of the MFD debate was to archive the process, and delete the archive of accusations. >Radiant< 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User TheOnlyChoice

Take a look here. Special:Contributions/TheOnlyChoice Hardly and edits and most are nominating articles for deletion. Also advertising AFDs. The use of detailed edit summaries in each edit suggests experience on other accounts. Anomo 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

block review - unauthorised bot

A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as notified on WP:AIV was running an unauthorised interwikibot. I blocked indef with a talkpage message to place an unblock request, once the bot is shut down. Agathoclea 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More socks in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California?

See this for an example of DP121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits. In fact those and some on the talk page are all of his edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That's Ericsaindon2 who was just community banned somewhere on WP:ANI or here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive CSD backlog

Can a bunch of admins stick their heads in at CAT:CSD and take a wack at some speedy deletions? We're facing 415+ images and articles right now. Metros232 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

170 or so now. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist

This template needs fixing, but is protected. It's currently not resizing images. See Bruce Springsteen for an example of the problem. exolon 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will talk with people around. Note that by default it uses the 250px size, so removing the size works. I am not sure if this behaviour is on purpose (so that everyone leaves that field blank) or not; I will ask. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforced Wikibreak?

I'm not quite sure if this is where I ask this question. Oh well. Anyway, I feel that I need an enforced Wikibreak to get me away from wikipedia to write a paper. However, it has been clear that Misplaced Pages frowns on block-enforced Wikibreaks. Is there any other alternative? (Or am I wrong about block-enforced Wikibreaks?) NOTE: If this is in the wrong place, please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance, PTO 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer is what you're looking for. Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't read the talk page :) Arjun 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and fade out for the rest of the month. :D. Cheers, PTO 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have noticed a loophole for potential vandalism (involving categories). It would seem a good idea not to say what it is in public (I think I have email enabled). roundhouse 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably several such loopholes. Your discretion is creditable. By all means email me your idea if you think I can help and you think it's important, but I may not get back to you straight away as I am {{busy}} just now. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

squidwardblock for review.

See here Agathoclea 11:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No-brainer. Curiously, the article this user nominated for deletion appears to have been attacked by Squidward. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - that brings us to this comment, but I have no idea where that editor got the IP-Information from to compare. Agathoclea 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Qatar autoblocked?

The Qatar IP address is requesting unblock. It's not blocked directly. If it really is autoblocked, why isn't it on the autoblock exemption list yet? – Gurch 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Qatar was vandalizing yesterday. I know I didn't block them, but it's possible some sort of blocking activity took place during the (North American) daytime.

Atlant 14:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've seen Qatar launch some vicious personal attacks. And I'm not sure it understands WP:RS either. --Cyde Weys 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I released the autoblock. Friday blocked a vandal account who happened to be editing from Qatar. Syrthiss 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How do we go about getting it on the autoblock exemption list? It's already on the list of "sensitive IP addresses", I'm surprised it wasn't added yet – Gurch 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That I don't know. :( Syrthiss 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins can do it by editing MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist. --ais523 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now that's certainly a sensible solution; how come nobody told us earlier? --Cyde Weys 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Billionaire bandits - a case of international murder and fraud?

This article alerted me to these edits of the articles:Patokh Chodiev, Alferon Management, Alexander Mashkevich, and Alijan Ibragimov. I reverted to the best referenced versions, but have not double checked the actual items cited. WAS 4.250 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user . 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with oversight remove the diff that was just posted?

Someone thought it would be a good idea to do a minor update, and throw the name, phone#, email address etcetera into the summary. Trying to slip it through I guess. SirFozzie 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Husnock on continued investigations into my activities

Gang, there are apparently a lot of pages with my name on it and a continued investigation into my activities. I want nothing further to do with this site. I also haven't edited since December but there is a tremendous amount of people who have posted that I am active under various names and ip addresses. None of this is true. There is also hounding going on of various users who are living in the same part of the world where I was in December. One user has been targeted and flat out harassed with accusations of being a sockpuppet. This needs to stop and those who are doing it should offer their sincere apologies since these are innocent people who either wanted to help me or were totally uninvolved. I am leaving Misplaced Pages to devote myself to professional publications. It was a good site, but there were simply too many people with hidden agendas and there appears to be a growing segment who want to harass and threaten rather than edit and help. Goodbye and best to everyone. -Husnock 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)