Misplaced Pages

Leave the pages deleted, and move on to building an encyclopedia. Lets stop letting these pages distract us from our goals. The consensus for these pages not being appropriate was formed at WT:NOT and is described at WP:NOT. Chillum 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If consensus on how to interpret that page with regards to this issue was as clear as you make it out to be, then the last MFD for these things would have ended in delete, and this thread would not exist. But fine, I don't really care either way. My whole point was that MZM should not have deleted them in that manner, because out of process deletions generally cause more trouble than they solve. Now that they're gone, they can stay that way. If the issuse dies with the closure of this thread, I will be happily surprised.--Dycedarg ж 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean violating policy is good as long as the violating admin stops after he completed what he set out to do? Even if he completes it while his actions are still under discussion? Somehow this whole thread was completely useless if the outcome is "Who cares? They are gone now". I think the problem is not the kind of pages deleted but the way it was done. Next someone will delete articles like Misplaced Pages because they think we don't need an article about the project itself and the AN discussion will result it "Ah well, it's deleted now, let's move on". Am I the only one who is dissatisfied when legitimate complaints about policy violations end in such a result? SoWhy 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally am extremely annoyed by the manner in which the deletions were carried out. It was a gross abuse of administrative powers, and a deliberate subversion of consensus. What I meant with the above statement was that since I think the pages should have been deleted (albeit properly), if no one else cares enough to file a DRV I am certainly not going to do so and will be quite happy to avoid the ridiculously long discussion that would have resulted.--Dycedarg ж 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I see no benefit of keeping the pages concerned, I see a lot more harm in deleting them (and annoying/alienating contributors to the project) than leaving them there. I think

• they should not have been deleted out of process (the quoted MfD does not give the authority);
• they should all be undeleted promptly;
• the manner in which these deletions were carried out (and continued to be carried out while discussions took place here) is appalling and shows disrespect for the community. (Deletions continued for nearly 18 hours after the first complaint on his talk page, and 12 hours after being informed of the thread here.) Martin 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I've never really liked secret pages, the way this was executed was wrong. Had a non-admin tagged all these pages with a speedy tag, they would have been promptly declined. The discrepancy of power between admins and non-admins is disappointing to say the least. It seems that if you get the tools, it's fine for you to make up the rules as you go along. Seraphim♥ 10:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Seraphim on this. I've never been a fan of the secret page games, but I'm even less of a fan of using WP:IAR to summarily delete them without warning, discussion or consensus. There are already enough Wikipedians who think admins view themselves as above the law and capricious -- why give them more proof when there was absolutely no urgent need to delete the pages?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea

What is everyone's problem with these pages? Misplaced Pages should not be seen as a job all the time. And could notice have been given before the deletion was done so that people could express their opinions? Simply south is this a buffet? 12:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to drag out the drama for the sake of creating drama. seicer | talk | contribs 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not creating drama, i asked some simple questions and also stated that this project should not be made to be serious all the time. Simply south is this a buffet? 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really dragging it out since over 40 pages have been created again (none by me)... Hiberniantears (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, all this this "hidden page" retardedness really doesn't seem to have much of a justification. If people want to play games, then they can go load up a facebook app, as this isn't the place for it. So for what its worth, I heartily endorse the deletions...MfD 's are not needed for blatant gibberish...and hope that they continue. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although in this case, it just created more work, and either annoyed people, or gave people the opportunity to make fun of people who were annoyed. None of which contributed to building the encyclopedia. That's been my point all along. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, bad example, life isn't worth living if you can't take a break from the task at hand. Well those that don't contribute should be warned but I'm sorry; just coming along and saying, oh this doesn't contribute to WP and deleting is worse than not helping WP. A Userpage isn't contributable to the WP. Why not delete them?

Well, once the pages are gone, there won't be any more need for some to bitch about it. I'd gladly trade a little consternation and drama now in order for it to be done with. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the pages should help maintain a focus on creating a good encyclopedia. There should be no sanction for deleting them and no mass re-creation of them. Edison (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you feel we should just tacitly approve of blatant policy violation, misuse of administrative power, utter disregard for consensus, and the alienation/aggravation of over a hundred editors many of whom were longstanding editors with lots of mainspace edits under their belts, because we agree with the end result? What about when something happens like this in the future, except to a page you like? You'll argue that policy should only be violated when you happen to agree with the outcome? The whole problem with this is that the community is supposed to decide these things, consensus is supposed to reign supreme, and instead we get one administrator deleting over a hundred pages with no consensus, discussion, or warning, and falsely justifying it to those who complain by saying that it was approved by discussion when it was most certainly not. This is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, this is not how administrators are supposed to act. They are not supposed to be a police force able to arbitrarily force their will on an unwilling community because they feel like it's justified by policy.--Dycedarg ж 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT is also policy, and these secret pages were/are a violation of this policy. Count me in the group that has no issue with MzMcBride taking out the trash. Resolute 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And policy is clear that "Reasons derived from Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not" are not grounds for a unilateral/speedy deletion by an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however lets not step up on our pulpit and cast down one "policy violating heathen" in suport of other policy violating heathens. McMcBride probably should have MfDed them, however his only failure here was that he circumvented process to get to the proper outcome. Resolute 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus that these pages were/are a violation of this policy. The reason deletion policy exists is so admins can't arbitrarily delete things based on their interpretation of policy as opposed to the community's (except in the narrowly defined set of cases in the CSD categories). The belief that it's OK to blatantly disregard policy and consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the manner in which the project is supposed to operate.--Dycedarg ж 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And creating these pages under WP:NOHARM is any better? Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating the pages was not an explicit policy violation, and there's no consensus against them. Deleting them was an explicit policy violation. Quite frankly, they needed no justification in policy to create them whatsoever.--Dycedarg ж 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"His only failure was that he didn't follow policy." Yeah, can't fault him for that. Oh, wait.. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is policy, and that seems to be his rationale. Regardless of the drama surrounding his methods, the end result was right. All that is really left is for people to form up on either side of the trenches and argue ineffectively for a while. Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is your opinion. Others have different opinions. There is no consensus on this matter. But most of this thread was not about whether such pages are acceptable or not but whether an admin can go ahead and delete them outside policy. I think some people missed this and are still debating the nature of the pages when the problem is the way these deletions were done. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read this entire thread and I still can't understand what all this bollocks is about. Yes, I agree that creating secret pages is time unused improving/upgrading articles, but so is creating such a fuss about a load of rubbish. Just quit your bullshit and consider using your time more constructively instead of wasting your time.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, this reading of that past MfD is rather faulty. It did not close with a finding of "no consensus", it closed on a matter of process; the closing admin did not believe that a mass AfD on the concept itself of secret pages was proper. They should be evaluated case-by-case. Perhaps this is one of the few times where I'd see a valid WP:IAR invocation, in that bypassing MfD to delete dozens upon dozens of cruft userpsace pages for the sake of the betterment of the Misplaced Pages is actually a good thing. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that page, and the closing admin says as much. He doesn't say that the mass MFD was not proper. He said that the only consensus that existed was to get rid of the worst of the pages, and that the mass MFD was not going to accomplish that, so individual mfds should be conducted for those pages. Not that he expected individual MFDs for every single secret page out there.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a very odd and selective reading of that closure, then, as it in no way prohibits MZMcBride from looking at each page, and deleting them as a speedy. There's just no collective policy for "secret pages" to wipe them in one fell swoop, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually while personally I would not/have not created such pages I don't see the difference between these pages and signature books or this sort of thing (or is there a difference when it is primarily admins who are doing it?). I agree with this view (expressed when someone said that signing signature books did not contibute to the encyclopedia) - "Sure it does, if it contributes to a collegial atmosphere of friendliness. Snapping at people who are just being friendly doesn't improve the encyclopedia at all, as far as I can tell". So long as those who have created these pages remain primarily focused on building the encyclopedia then this sort of thing helps keep editors instead of just driving them off by unilaterally speedy deleting their pages while implying that they do not contribute to the encyclopedia. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. I keep a handful of quotes on my user page, this among them: "Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all." I support what I believe to be the traditional, prevailing view: that these pages are a problem only when they are the main or sole focus of an editor. When an editor is predominantly occupied with article editing, these auxiliary pages serve to help him de-stress and like editing at Misplaced Pages a bit more. Such functions are valuable. Now that we've past the easy part of creating the largest reference work in all of history, Misplaced Pages's stability and success depends on creating a respectful, pleasant community entirely online. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Treat each other with tolerance and goodwill. --Kizor 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me split the comment... there. I should add that a few of the arguments about the harm of secret pages seem troublesome. First is the idea that non-article-writing-related editing is harmful in and of itself by taking effort away from writing the encyclopedia. Volunteer workers donate their labor to us, and its amount is not fixed. I have trouble accepting the notion that removing and forbidding things considered fun would cause volunteers to funnel the same effort (or, indeed, more effort at all) into more productive things.
Second is the performance effect. Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance has no formal status, all it has are arguments from a developer and the ultimate authority on Wikimedia servers and software. 'As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures.' ..." '"Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases.'
Hope that helps. --Kizor 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I may interject, as a thusfar uninvolved observer, I think that we should step away from arguing the merits of the pages themselves and focus on MZMcBride's actions. There is clearly some merit to the view that this individual improperly deleted these pages outside of process. What action is going to be taken in this regard? Given prior history, I submit that this incident should be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee for disposition. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is just about flexing admin muscle... completely pointless. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And here come the "admin abuse" cries. Sigh. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What would you call deleting pages in defiance of both policy and consensus?--Dycedarg ж 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Since there was neither consensus nor policy preventing it, I probably wouldn't say much. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Since an arbitrator has already accepted opening a case on the basis of this affair, you might want to consider giving the benefit of the doubt. ;-) --Kizor 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It isn't a cry of admin abuse. I am an admin, and thus seek to protect my ability to slap around the serfs as I see fit. Also, I'm just running up my edit count so that nobody calls me a dormant admin. It is about showing contributing editors a little respect. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh goody goody!!

It seems that Mcbride removed another secret page, right here. This time it was with a different explanation ("made extra secret"). It was all done AFTER this conversation was started. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See the comment from the_ed in the above section that begins with And am I missing something and MZM's reply. –xeno (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride -MBK₀₀₄ 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking that initiative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This action seems appropriate considering the situation. --.:Alex:. 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noted my opposition there. Discussion is still taking place, arbitration seems premature. --Ali'i 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the intention of this action at arbitration? If you're forcing the matter to be heard by...authorities, that forces editors who couldn't care less about this conversation to care. I happen to think that secret pages, while somewhat benign and banal, foster in part a sense of community as well as a sense of relaxed atmosphere. Unfortunately, the editors it seems to be popular with in my experience don't really need much more relaxing. These secret pages and the barnstars that are given for finding them were at issue during an MfD of an "Awards Center" where participants became so focused on receiving awards, barnstars, and collecting other ephemera that editors cut corners severely, worked with each other to promote articles at WP:GA that they knew were not quality articles, and repeatedly nominated poorly written undersourced articles at WP:FAC, all so they could have another award. It started as so much fun, but it wasn't maintained by anyone with a voice of reason and it got out of hand.

More recently, a discussion is taking place at WT:Featured article criteria about making sources better for FAs, and I'm quite astounded at the opposition to it. It appears people just do not wish to do the work involved in getting an FA and would rather have a lowered standard. I surmise this is because they can get... more bronze stars. The mentality is connected to these secret pages. I don't have much to say about what MZMcBride did as an admin, but I'm starting to develop a well-reasoned argument why secret pages should be removed. I will participate in the discussion about getting rid of secret pages; I read the initial ArbCom notice and it is not clear right now what this will be about. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MBK004, who left the request, does point out that has no opinion on secret pages and focuses entirely on the appropriateness of taken administrator actions. His request and other edits support that statement, as does the arbitrator who's accepted the case. Again, hope that helps. --Kizor 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the secret pages bears directly on the appropriateness of MZMcBride's actions. If the pages were inappropriate, then his actions were appropriate and vice-versa. So making a judgement on the one requires making a judgement on the other. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The request for arbitration is not about the secret pages. It is about the actions of MZMcBride. If there still needs to be a discussion of secret pages, I submit that this is not the appropriate forum. Miscellany for deletion seems to be a more appropriate forum; for those who feel that MZMcBride acted legitimately in his decision to speedily delete the pages, perhaps a discussion at Criteria for Speedy Deletion to explicitely incorporate such language in the guidelines would be in order. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this "Hidden page game" section here is the appropriate forum. We have a discussion going. Assuming that MfD is not fundamentally unlike AfD, it is - alas - not a place for productive discussion, just a tool of last resort. The raised stakes make it far more polarized and less civil than WP:AN.

There is another matter. In my nerve-hit opinion, a serious one. If the secret pages go to MfD while most of them are - or just were - deleted, it is going to affect the situation, and it will be an effect achieved not by its merits but by the use of force. That is obscene. --Kizor 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Data

Secret, in closing this MFD from last year, recommended that such pages be approached on a case by case basis. Out of interest, does anyone have any information about how such pages have been treated subsequently? Is anyone aware of any subsequent individual deletion discussions? --bainer (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I grepped the deletion log for "secret" and "sekrit" in the log_comment field. Here's what I found:

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:DCFan101/Secret Page Challenge
• User:HJH Lady Renegade/Secret Page
• BB_Pacifica/realsecreatpage/myrealsecretpagenumber2/myrealsecretpagenumber3/yeahyoudidit/myrealspecialsecretpage/youwin/iamgivingyouahint/xyz/vxy/myuserpage/youronfire/stopdropandroll/Igiveup
• User:Tyw7/73f&
• User:Earthbendingmaster/Super_Secret_Page
• User:Earthbendingmaster/Secret_Page
• User:Skittlesrgood4u/Super_Secret_Page
• User talk:Skittlesrgood4u/Super_Secret_Page
• User:IXella007/Templates/Hidden_Link_Barnstar
• User talk:Sandro67/The_Secret_Page
• User:Little_Mountain_5/Secret
• User:Pokemon_Buffy_Titan/Fake-Out_Secret
• User:Meldshal42/SSSSP123
• User:Meisfunny/Ultimate Secret Page

Note: This list is in no way conclusive. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Secret go bye-bye

This is why the secret pages have to go. What a monumental waste of time. Doing away with them in no way hinders the ability of editors to socialize with each other. It just removes Misplaced Pages as a lame target of disruption in yet another way. It removes the incentive to discuss their presence, debate their deletion, and take sides about the issue. It's a game. Misplaced Pages was chosen as the board. Misplaced Pages is not a game board. It actually is an encyclopedia. People ought to chew on that for a while and think about the compatability of being an encyclopedia with being a social networking site for children. The two aren't. --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has links to similar "not MySpace"-type MfDs, that would also be appreciated (in the same vein as bainer's request above). So far I've found the following:

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Chess championship
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masky/Quests/Quest1Index
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:DoomsDay349/WikiPlomacy
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chess championship
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games
• Also of interest: meta:Wikicommunity

I'd hazard a guess that a search for terms like "games", "WP:USER", "WP:NOT" and so on would find others. Probably too many to list here, but a couple more examples might be instructive. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the entire BJADON mess, see the template at Misplaced Pages talk:Silly Things for a list. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Part of the time wasted is spent here, complaining about them. The actual time wasted by editors looking for, making, and logging into these pages is probably minimal. But fine. If you guys think it is best that these folks "just do games like that on some facebook app", then people will follow your lead. People who might have made some reasonably constructive contributions (remember that these are the folks we are discussing, not the "20 edits and they are all to a secret page crowd") might just leave if we come along and break up their fun because people think they should be editing articles. This is purely a social convention. We allow barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. We just happen to think that the "secret pages" are less desirable. We don't like them, so why should anyone else? This is fundamentally the same as far as the encyclopedia is concerned--mainspace doesn't care if your non-article edits are to a user essay about how much you like WP:AFC or a template to send cups of tea to people or on a secret page so that people will try to find it. The articles don't care. The only variable here is us. Can we step back and think that maybe we are being too intrusive? Or maybe (if that doesn't bother anyone), the lowest energy route is to do nothing for anything but the most egregious cases. This isn't a law and order problem. We won't get "more offenders" if we don't "crack down" on the misdemeanors. It's a community of human beings who all have their own kick. They all have something that keeps them here, helping us. We (as external observers) can't determine what, specifically, that is for each person. so we can't just say User:Bob doesn't like his secret page enough to leave or help us less wholeheartedly if we delete it but User:Jane does--delete bob's but not Jane's. We just have to guess. And wouldn't we rather just leave things up to Bob and Jane? Isn't that more in line with the wiki way? Protonk (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me jaded if you must, but honestly, I can't really fathom any user coming here for the "secret page games", or any user leaving solely due to the removal of said games, possessing the modicum of maturity required for worthwhile, well-written contributions. It's a tantalizing hypothetical, but in the end, it's rather like owning a car dealership and debating over whether or not to include pre-recorded loudspeaker announcements on behalf of blind people who'd be otherwise unaware of your excellent signage. Badger Drink (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we tend to find it difficult to visualize other points of view. I'm not saying that as a diss, just that it is hard for you or I to imagine someone who is sort of interested in the wiki (say, ~20 contribs a month), but also has fun w/ userspace (say, 20-30% of contribs). It's hard for me to imagine because I have ~500 edits/month, among other reasons. But the whole basis of the wiki is that we try to draw in as many disparate views and sources of effort and expertise as possible. For many people, if the barriers to participation are even a trifle, they won't do it (hence why we are successful and why citizendium is not). My point is not that those folks with secret pages are all on the margin, ready to leave at the drop of a hat. But that some probably are, and that the self-righteous feeling we gain from knowing that people aren't mucking about in userspace isn't worth a fixed typo, IMO (I guess that's where my bias comes in...). Protonk (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk. We also need to delete barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. Clearly, all of those things are demonstrations that people aren't doing their job when they come here. They were hired to write articles, and if they want to get paid, that's what they'd better do. For the same reason, I'd like to see the removal of our 'E-water Cooler', the Village Pump. That's nothing but a place for people to stand around gabbing. There's facebook for that, or they can go to the local bar after work. If editors want to get paid, they'd better be on here eight hours a day writing and nothing else. I notice raul654 was one of those wasting corporate resources in the Chess Championship linked above, and now he's an admin, so perhaps HR should reassess his file. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Help handling disruptive editor

I've been dealing with an editor who has been changing his IP address in order to evade blocks. The first two were User talk:98.180.196.203 and User talk:98.180.208.214. He has now moved on to 98.180.202.52. If another admin could help me keep an eye on this situation (and also assure that I don't get too happy with the block button), I'd appreciate it. :-) faithless () 07:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now also using 98.180.202.250. faithless () 07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to specify about what's he's doing. Is there some article, some user, something being attacked? Random IP addresses aren't clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

By this edit , he appears to be undoing merge consensus to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has had at least two AN/I threads about his activitities in 2008 (he usually tries to restore the merged/redirected article Simon Tam and Planet Express first, without discussion). User:EEMIV and I have been dealing with this editor for ages, but he is (obviously) a dynamic IP, and RFP doesn't protect redirects for longer than a month. Blocking doesn't have any long-lasting effect. – sgeureka 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have protected the redirects at Simon Tam and Planet Express (which have previously been protected for the same reason). Guy (Help!) 10:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• If the dynamic IP is within a range that could be blocked with minimal collateral, I would also suggest taking that action if this has been going on for so long. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor modified a talk page message of mine without permission

Hi. An editor modified a talk page message of mine here. I think that he did it knowing it was against Misplaced Pages policy, and there was a similar incident previously by another editor that he collaborated with. I deleted it, but it seems that some administrator action might be appropriate, for example a block. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how adding an image to a section is modifying your message. Tan | 39 17:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think this was modifying your comment, it was adding a picture to the whole section. No reason for any sanctions, I'd say. Could you provide evidence for other incidents, as you mention? --Tone 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This explains the comment. --Tone 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that wasn't the situation that I was reporting. Please check the link that I gave above, where the image is entirely in my message. Thank you.

P.S. I'm working on getting the info related to the other incident. Perhaps the resolved template is premature? After all, the resolved template was put up only 8 minutes after my first message and before I had a chance to respond to any comments. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Since he placed the image on its own line, it's not modifying your message. Perhaps he should have signed the image comment to make it clear who left it there, though. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I started the section with the following edit:

== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==

The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.

etc. ... Bob K31416 (talk) xx:xx, xx February 2009 (UTC)

Now, would someone be allowed to put an unsigned contribution like so:

== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==

How many Israelis and Gazans does it take to make a telephone call? Beats me!

The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.

etc. ... Bob K31416 (talk) xx:xx, xx February 2009 (UTC)

Now is placing a picture with caption there any different? It implicitly ascribes something to me that I didn't put there. Other editors would think that I put that image there and would hold me responsible for it in their minds if they found it offensive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't, because the image is rendered alongside the text, rather than flowed into the paragraph. I've seen this happen on Village pump threads before. If they do, you can point them to the history. Moreover, jumping straight to ANI for a minor issue best worked out at the talk page of the user in question is rather extreme. I think a better option would have been to add a caption including the username of the user who added it. Dcoetzee 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)So let me see if I'm following what happened correctly. Sean.hoyland added a picture with a caption to the beginning of the dicussion, possibly in an attempt to be humorous. You, Bob K31416, removed it, with an edit summary expressing that you felt it was a modificaton of your comments. Sean.hoyland later readded it with a caption that read "This image is endorsed by User:Sean.hoyland and no other users and especially not Bob who had no part in it's creation or placement.", a comment previous to the image that reads <!-- This image starts here and is an entirely seperate entity from the discussions that precede and follow it. --> and a comment after that reads <!-- This image ends here. Better Bob ? :) --> You have not discussed it on the Sean.hoyland's talk page or removed it since.

Sean.hoyland (who I see has not been notified of this thread), made an attempt to address your concerns after you objected. While the humor may or may not have been appropriate for the talk page of a surely contentious article, where exactly is the problem that requires admin intervention? Since you posted quite a bit more after this thread was marked as resolved, I assume you still want some kind of admin intervention.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pursuing this anymore. Thank you everyone for your responses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I opened up a discussion for a suggested change to the guidelines here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's indefinite semi protections

I have been going through WP:INDEFSEMI and lowering protections that have been in place for lengthy periods of time. I came across a few that have been in place for a minimum of six months, and in some cases upwards of twenty set by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that requested his consult before lowering, so I asked him about all of them and received a curt "No" in response. I'm here to determine whether there is consensus for the following articles to remain indefinitely semi protected, this being the encylopedia anyone can edit. –xeno (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Haim Saban
• Saban Entertainment
• Shuki Levy
• VR Troopers
  • The above four appear all appear to be related to a campaign of vandalism to these related topics around June 2007. –xeno (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Google
• Brazil
  • ^^ These two are probably high enough visibility to warrant it. –xeno (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Denny Crane unprotected by Black Kite
• Fraud unprotected by Black Kite
• William Prunier unprotected by Black Kite
• Triple H unprotected per

This is indeed the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and unless there's a compelling reason not to they should ne unprotected. In addition, "no" it not an acceptable answer to a perfectly civil and reasonable question. Ryulong needs to improve his interaction in these circumstances. RxS (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on them. This is just my opinion, and other opinions are equally valid.:

• Shuki Levy appeared to be vandalized by a single IP hopping vandal for a few months almost two years ago. Without getting into issues of stepping on toes, this is one I'd be willing to unprotect and watch list, ready to deal with vandalism if it starts up again.
• Saban Entertainment had sporadic IP vandalism, again almost two years ago, mostly from a single IP. I would have declined to semi-protect in the first place, instead dealing with the IP editor directly. I think an unprotect is in order here.
• VR Troopers had a number of productive IP edits in the months before the block, with only two days of IP vandalism right before the block that happened 20 months ago. IMO, the block protect shouldn't have been for more than a week.

No time to properly review the others right now.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• No reason for William Prunier to stay protected that I can see - bit of socking 8 months ago. Unprotected this one and watchlisted it. Will have a look at the others when I have time. Black Kite 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Google should probably stay protected. Other than that, I don't know. J.delanoy_adds 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil looks like a good candidate for staying protected. Triple H got Gr*wped in 2007 and has been protected since. I have unprotected and watchlisted Fraud - this was one IP vandal in 2007. Black Kite 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In these cases (Brazil and Google) ideally I would like to try unprotected and if the vandalism is too much then semi protect with an expiry (3, 6, 12 months, but not indef). –xeno (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Denny Crane - same as Fraud. Would appreciate some more input on the others. Black Kite 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The first four all seem to be related, and I would hazard a guess that the vandal from 2007 has moved on by now. –xeno (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do find it gets tiresome with alot of articles continually reverting vandals - ghost, lion, vampire and schizophrenia and whales for some reason - Blue Whale are some I have indef semi'ed in the past. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The worst ones on my watchlist are penguins (understandable) and deserts (huh?) Hesperian 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against semi-protection in cases of exhausting vandalism, I just feel that expiries should always be set. Some of the articles I unprotected were that way since 2006 (I believe, before expiries were available, but nonetheless...). –xeno (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, they are not all vandals Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested indef semi-protection on one article (which was granted after going through 11 rounds of semi-protection in 10 months in 2007) and I indefinitely semi-protected Big Mac after watching it get vandalized into unrecognizability in just a few days by IP editors. Oh yes, I also indef'd Joe Biden and Queer, which should stay semi-protected for (at least) four years and permanently, respectively. Horologium (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The first four pages (Shuki Levy, Haim Saban, Saban Entertainment, and VR Troopers) have been the target of a single IP hopping abuser who pops up occasionally to vandalize these and several other articles. These are the only ones that I would prefer remain semiprotected because

1. Two of them are BLPs that attract vandalism we do not want
2. And the vandalism that is introduced into the articles to begin with is BLP sensitive.

Also, I didn't have a hell of a lot of time to respond to xeno earlier.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to keep a close eye on these articles (including a separate watchlist), and if the issues you mention re-occur, I'm fine with re-protecting for a definite period of time. Would that be ok? –xeno (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I really do not think unprotection is a good choice for these pages. If, by some chance, there's an IP editor who wants to edit the pages and they show up and go to the talk page, then maybe it's time for unprotection. Unprotecting just because it's been protected for a long time in my opinion is not a good reason to unprotect sensitive BLPs, especially when it's been determined that they have been vandalized in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, ok the BLPs I'll concede if you insist, and I think Google, Brazil are high enough visibility to require it as well. Can we let VR Troopers (and possibly Saban Entertainment) off the hook to see how it goes? Old shows like that are something I could see a knowledgable IP dropping in an improvement or two quickly if required, but not so important that it would cause them to visit the talk page. (This is how I used to edit as an IP) –xeno (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

we have consistently refused to adopt a policy to semiprotect all BLPs, in favor of devising other ways of dealing with the problem, and I see no reason why these should be more sensitive than the general run. anyway, the only possible way to find out is to unprotect, and see. Otherwise, you'll never be able to tell. DGG (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree 100%. There are other methods of dealing with BLP issues than indefinite semi protection. Also, we must remember that this is a wiki and one that anyone can edit. Protection is simply here to protect articles from imminent harm, and unless the articles in question are still in harms way than protection no longer has a purpose and ultimately is going against the statement of principles. I am in support of all of them being unprotected, even including Google. I mean, we can always reprotect it. Tiptoety 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the continued semi-protection of Saban, Levy, and Prunier. I understand that proactive semi-protection of vulnerable BLPs has been consistently rejected (disclaimer: I think this is nuts), but once articles are shown to be vulnerable, the least we could do (not literally) is reactively semi-protect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swifter blocking of IP ranges would be more effective as this can at least potentially prevent the vandal from creating accounts with which to circumvent the semi-protection and manipulate admins into disrupting the article more than the vandals themselves would have by applying full protection (of what might actually be the vandal's preferred version—there could be a reverse-psychology element to this, who knows… ). Anyway I'm tempted to add an obligatory rant about flaggedrevs. — CharlotteWebb 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A tremendous number of articles get disrupted once every year or two. Some more often--many school articles here get disrupted several times a term, & the disruption often involve BLP violations. Should we semi them all indefinitely? (usually when I encounter this I semi for a week, and if repeated, for the rest of the term--not years on end) Similarly for popular media figures and well known politicians. Those are the sort of articles where beginners often start is a useful way. I too favored semi protecting all blps as simpler than flagged revisions. But that approach was rejected. so if we semi permanently, it should be only the ones that are known to be very frequently and disruptively edited. DGG (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information: The fair-use rationale in a picture used in the Triple H article was "vandalized" earlier today. Oceanh (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

So it looks like we're down to discussing Haim Saban, Saban Entertainment, Shuki Levy, VR Troopers. I'm of the opinion that they should all be unprotected. Unfortunately, WP:PROTECT is not as clear as I'd like on this, but my take on it is that these were temporary disruptions by a single or small group of individuals. I've added all four to my watchlist so I can help with any vandalism, and I'm willing to temporarily protect them myself if future vandalism makes it necessary. Believe me, I get as sick as anyone about dealing with vandalism. I've been playing whack-a-mole for a week with a meatpuppet farm that has me tearing my hair out. But one of the founding principles of wikipedia is that you don't have to sign up for an account to edit, so to me that means vandalism must be really persistent for indef semi-protection to be justified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If these pages get unprotected, then they'll be hit by the vandalism. This user's been active since 2006. And everytime I block one of the ranges on the ISP he uses, he finds a new ISP. He hasn't shown up for a few weeks now, but he consistently returns and the few pages I do have protected does not stop him from vandalizing others. I am simply chosing pages that are the least watched or the ones that he hits the hardest. If you look at the history of Haim Saban, it goes back a lot to where this user was on his first ISP causing trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So let's try unprotection on VR Troopers and Saban Entertainment and they can act as a honeypot, if the vandal doesn't return we can unprotect the other two. A single repeat vandal does not justify locking out non-autoconfirmed accounts. As someone pointed out above VR Troopers was actually benefitting from some positive IP contributions prior to your protection. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the protection from VR Troopers and Saban Entertainment. I've already watchlisted these and can pounce on vandalism, and Xeno has indicated a willingness to do the same. If the experiment fails and they eventually need protection again, then everyone will be convinced Ryūlóng was right. If the experiment succeeds, then unprotecting was a good thing. Win-win situation.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Attack site

www.theduchyofeffenhauer.com. Owner (Tony Sayles) or more likely Mike Sales is indef blocked (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tom_Sayle). See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#COMPLAINT. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are no links in mainspace, and the IP is blocked by Gwen Gale as evading another block. What else needs doing? Guy (Help!) 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist as spam? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it being spammed? --Carnildo (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre, that complaint on Wales' talk page. §FreeRangeFrog 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the guy is not playing with a full deck, to put it as charitably as one can. Read the website - it's a mixture of an unsophisticated scam and outright delusion. I do not think English is his first language, either. Much of what he writes is barely comprehensible. As abuse goes this is low-level and appears well-contained, so I don't see what further action is required other than "watchful waiting", a process in which I am sure Kittybrewster will be a willing participant. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The header of this section is practically an engraved invitation for me to dig up the WP:BADSITES dead horse again, but I can't see how anybody would apply this concept in any way to the site in question... it's got a small caption about how the author thinks Misplaced Pages is suppressing them, but how does that make it an "attack site"? It's too incoherent to really communicate anything, other than that apparently somebody is claiming to have a title of nobility over an allegedly sovereign nation, whose location isn't even actually mentioned in the site. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So don't, because your input is utterly unnecessary and counter-productive, everything that needs doing had already been done, and you will only stir up unnecessary drama and make yourself look even more like a mission poster into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Er - that last comment seems very aggressive JzG - was that really necessary? Exxolon (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably as unnecessary as Dan's trolling, I will admit. Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh-no-he-di-int!!! Badger Drink (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI re soapboxing banned editor

Just for reference, there's a bit of activity regarding User:Posturewriter at present. This banned editor lost access to his/her talk page due to soapboxing, and shortly thereafter popped up with an IP, 203.87.117.105, at Editors Assistance asking for some of his/her combatants to be blocked. A couple of editors informed him/her that it would be best to go through ArbCom if an unblock was desired, but the point was missed. Another editor has released the talk page block on the main account and warned that future disruption and soapboxing outside of a block review request would respond with another lockdown. Since that outlet is now available, I've blocked the IP for a couple weeks anon-only (happy to have comments on the appropriateness of this). I'd suggest that editors keep an eye on the talk pages the IP was engaging, in case the point is missed again. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good job. I archived the EA request. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So far, no unblock request or talk page abuse at User talk:Posturewriter. Ho hum. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about adoptions

I was just wondering, can you be adopted by more than one user? Is there any limitation to how many people can adopt a single user?

Please reply on my talk page.

Axmann8 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. –xeno (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial related vandalism

Note the bigotry fueled vandalism discussed here on the "Committee for the Open Debate on the Holocaust". At first I undid edits changing Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist on Arthur Butz and Jürgen Graf, however given that thread, nothing is left to the imagination. User:68.12.36.69 has already got into hot water and been blocked multiple times - User:68.13.242.42 continues the pattern and geolocates to the same place. I have therefore blocked the latter for two weeks. WilliamH (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem prudent to assume they're probably the same person. Left a brief note for this last IP; here's hoping it doesn't fall on deaf ears. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus is, is that the term is Holocaust denier, not revisionist. This has been discussed repeatedly, at the Holocaust denial talk page for instance. Good faith is clearly not the intent here, and they have as much chance at changing a 5 year long consensus as they do, um, explaining why millions of Jews vanished during the war. WilliamH (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't mistake my politeness for permissiveness -- apologies if I come across that way. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all Luna, thanks for your help. WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Esasus removing PROD tags from articles

Thanks for telling me what I already knew. §FreeRangeFrog 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See , , , . The only "source" he added to all of these was a link to a forum, which I'm sure he knows is hardly WP:RS. Two of these were already AfD'ed and deleted (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 Worf Music Awards). I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems Esasus wants to make everyone waste their time and energy by forcing these to go to AfD, where they will surely be deleted anyway. I'm not sure why. Can the rest of these not be deleted simply on the basis of the closed AfD? I don't have a problem with rescuing articles, on the contrary, but this seems to border on the disruptive. §FreeRangeFrog 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If they've been AFD'd and the content is identical or substantially similar they can be {{db-repost}}'d. Exxolon (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, in this case they haven't. The addition of these to another afd wasn't handled ideally. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone can remove a prod for any reason, good faith or bad. It's difficult to say that the AfD tag applies to these articles too, as these articles didn't have "this article is being discussed for deletion" tags added to them. I guess the closing admin didn't feel comfortable with deleting the related articles, and while all those opining for delete make comments that strongly suggest they'd be in favour of deleting them all, not one actually says "delete them all" or the like. AfD voters can be vexingly unclear, sometimes. I think you should bulk afd the remainders, link to the old discussion in the new one, and link to the new discussion in the talk page of the old. I'd guess that the remainders will get SNOWed, but you never know. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the proposed deletion tags for the "Worf Music Awards" because I do not agree that the articles should be deleted without discussion (as is my right). The Worf Music Awards have been around since 2002, and, in my opinion, is a notable award. It is not my intent to "make everyone waste their time and energy" (as stated by "User:FreeRangeFrog"), and it is unverifiable speculation that these articles will be "deleted anyway" if they go to AfD. Esasus (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since they have been deleted, clearly not... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oooh, WP:NFT - a blast from the past, those gentler days when people were just that bit less viciously determined to get their new thing on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I need help on...

An article, which is considered "Good Articl" but says a lot of lies. Britney Spears's Article says that she is a soprano, i create this section on it discussion and nobody answers me. So, i need an administrator hel to change every lie which says the article, cuz wikipedia is always true. Thanks!. --190.29.158.79 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not need an administrator to edit the page. It is semi-protected which means any auto-confirmed user may edit the article. Please read WP:Signup for details about the benefits of creating an account on Misplaced Pages. Also if you can find a reliable reference for your claims, then feel free to change it. If you want, I will change this for you, but first you need to find a reliable reference supporting your claims. Jerry teps (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes; there is no apparent need for Admin intervention here just yet; you probably need to discuss your changes on the Talk page if other editors are reverting your edits. --Rodhullandemu 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear we do a poor job of advertising Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests. MBisanz 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since {{editsemiprotected}} is explicitly mentioned in the information seen by anons when they click "view source", it seems like this one probably didn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

History merge

Can someone merge the history of Gary Locke (politician) to Gary Locke? The history seems to have gotten lost in a tangle of moves and redirects, also involving Gary Locke (disambiguation). Right now Gary Locke, the main article, does not have its complete history, which needs to be fixed. 140.247.155.54 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Keegan 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

disruptive editor

User:Daedalus969has been very disruptive attacking other editors for no reason i think he should be blocked for a period of 24 hours to cool downI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just posted at AIV, but the above user I Am The Hollaback Boy (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of banned user The Hollabck Girl and is only here to disrupt and taunt . His report here is further evidence of that. Can some admin help clean this up, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is, I think, the uber-Plaxico. //roux   08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i think we should give daedulus some slack and instead block that annoying day walker and while you're at it why not me btw whats a plaxicoI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee block of Chergles

The Arbitration Committee has announced that it has blocked Chergles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of already banned user Archtransit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For more information, please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Block of User:Chergles.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Azxten

User:Azxten is here mostly to promote his site, renewable-energy-future.com. See his contribs. We can deal with that. I think my removals of this link have frustrated him now, because he's just started looking through my contribs and he is reverting my removals of other people's spam links. Would someone have a word with him before this gets out of control? Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From azxten:

Right, I add content to articles and then reference my site which is where the content came from. Apparently the content is good enough to stay but my reference is against the rules. That is completely stupid in my opinion. Oh well, wikipedia can do without my help.. I'm just annoyed that the content I've contributed will stay even if I don't. I read the "rule" links that I'm sent about why my site isn't a reliable source but it says right in the reliable source page that a reliable source is only needed if the content is likely to be challenged which none of mine is.

What a great community. I build content for you, you remove my reference to where it came from, link me to a rule that I didn't violate when you read the specifics, then I break another "3 edits" rule when trying to point out I haven't broken the rule and so now I can't edit anymore. THEN I'm told to use the "discussion" page, hey maybe you should have told me that before I made 3 edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azxten (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 February 2009

You appear to have misunderstood WP:V. When it states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; what it means is that content that is unlikely to be challenged does not require a source. If a source is used, then it should meet the WP:RS guidelines. If you are correct, and none of your content is likely to be challenged, then no source reference is needed.

On your contributions to Misplaced Pages, all edit windows clearly state "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL", and all article windows include links to WP:COPYRIGHT. By editing Misplaced Pages, you release your contributions under that license. Just because you later decide to leave Misplaced Pages does not mean that you can take your contributions with you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

request help in moving page

hello,

can someone please take a look into Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen/Naming#Province_of_Bolzano.2FBozen? A vote has taken place there to move Province of Bolzano-Bozen to Province of Bolzano/Bozen. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are probably going to want to add a request to WP:RM and they will take it from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 20:21

Is this appropriate ?

I check newpages for vandalism and what not and during my patrol I saw something rather odd:

SemBubenny moved the contents of this talk page to SemBubenny/ar2 | here. No problem there. Stuff is moved all the time. It was the next move that caught my I. He then proceeds to delete the contents of his talk page here. Now, if there's nothing wrong with this, feel free to delete this, dimsiss this, whatever, but I thought we weren't to delete the contents of our page, except in really unusual cases (death threats..etc....). Like I said, if I'm wrong, just dismiss this and leave a brief note here or on my page - just so I know and don't bug you again. Thanks — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A user can delete the contents of their talk page at will, except for current block notices, IIRC. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, editors may blank their own talk pages more or less at will, but deletion is highly inappropriate and rarely permissible. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dang I was temporarily confusing blanking with deleting. It's been a long day... – ukexpat (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to sound melodramatic but deleting one's own talk page seems like abuse of the tools to me. To clarify: I think this user should undelete the page before someone else does. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad an admin came out and said it before I had to! DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what User:Manhattan Samurai did to evade scrutiny? Moved tpage to another page, blanked, tagged with {{db-author}}? //roux   22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. It was deleted along with a bunch of my other user subpages. - 7-bubёn >t 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Cancel DRAM-CON one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you make User:Mikkalai and User talk:Mikkalai into redirects to your current name for clarity? Also, there is something very odd going on with the revision histories of those pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This account has right to vanish. - 7-bubёn >t 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a rename, not an RTV. If it was an RTV then your old contributions wouldn't shew under your current name. DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was a RTV, then he wouldn't have a new name: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity." (bolded in the WP:RTV page, not by me). It continues with "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." Fram (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also User talk:Mikkalai/ar1 should be undeleted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was moved to User talk:SemBubenny/ar1 due to name change. - 7-bubёn >t 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then there is a hell of a lot of history missing from it - and attempts to look at the history produce database errors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Page histories returning SQL errors

For any Talk pages in any namespaces, I am seeing the following message when trying to view the page histories:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list' (10.0.6.22)".

Any idea what's up? Is this affecting everyone else? --Dynaflow babble 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's actually all histories (modified header). –xeno (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to know it's not just me ... and bad at the same time. --Dynaflow babble 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Page histories

I can not view page histories anymore:

Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list'

Is it just me? — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Look up there ^^^ a bit. Black Kite 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

History page has disappeared for Preston University

I don't know how it happened but the history page has disappeared for the Preston University article. I would really appreciate someone's assitance on this. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be functional again...  GARDEN  22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the explanation: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#DB error --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's all fixed now; apparently a fix to disable slow tag search, whatever that is, broke the page history. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well to whoever fixed it, THANK YOU! TallMagic (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Request administrative assistance with whitelist request for Lyrikline.org page for Chirikure Chirikure

Lyrikline.org is globally blacklisted, there is a history of it at User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org. Whether or not this is proper and necessary is not the question raised here. Rather, I have requested a specific whitelisting for a link to the Lyrikline.org page for Chirikure Chirikure. The page hosts audio of the poet reading his work, text of some selected poetry, and translations into a number of languages (including English). The page is at:

www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d

The current discussion of the whitelisting is at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure, and this is a permanent link to the present state of the section.

I have asked for a close so that I can proceed. I have jumped through every hoop raised. The proposed external link has been proposed, 16 February, in Talk for the article, having suggested Lyrikline.org for general consideration at Portal_talk:Literature, at Portal talk:Poetry on February 13, and on WP:WikiProject Poetry on February 16. There has been no response to any of these comments; the pages are generally inactive.

I am requesting administrative assistance to whitelist the site or the specific page for en.wikipedia. Blacklist administrators are busy, some may feel that they have a conflict of interest, and there is some natural inertia. The additions to the whitelist page are described in the discussion, reviewed by Lustiger seth. Regex expressions are given for both whitelisting the whole site or just the specific link. (In addition to adding those links to the file, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, the addition should be logged, the file shows the log location at its head.) Editing the blacklist and whitelist files is dangerous, caution should be exercised.

Note that the original "linkspamming" came from a user at de.wikipedia, who stopped before the site was blacklisted, and actually started removing links once he realized they were unwelcome. De.wikipedia has whitelisted the entire site, and, according to Lustiger seth, an administrator here and on de.wikipedia, there has been no problem. It seems unlikely to me that an external link to Lyrikline.org would be harmful for any poet hosted there for whom we have an article, in general the link would be valuable, not merely harmless or linkfarm-y. The pages meet WP:EL, easily. The various arguments that have been raised are addressed in the discussion on the whitelist page.

To show the ultimate significance, User:Abd/Lyrikline poets shows a list of poets hosted on Lyrikline, wikified so that blue links will show what articles we have (with the exact spelling, we almost certainly have more articles than this). There are over 600 poets that are hosted on Lyrikline, and being hosted there is prima facie evidence of notability, and I consider Lyrikline.org to be a reliable source. If the whole site is whitelisted, I would monitor links to lyrikline.org; it was an agreement by a user to do this on de.wikipedia that removed the remaining objections to whitelisting there.

Please consider assisting by providing a decision on the whitelist page and by implementing, at least, the single whitelisting, or, for minimum fuss (do I have to do this for every single link? With a few hundred or more?), the whole site. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• In what way is this not forum shopping? There is an open request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, and apart from the fact that people seem to disagree with your wanting to remove blacklisting of the site in general I don't see any reason why you would need to canvass another venue. I also note that you seem to be repeating (again) your version of events without noting that others have reviewed and rejected your take on it; you give a strong impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to say nothing of WP:DEADHORSE here. Looking at your user space, it seems to be full of essays saying how everybody else is wrong about things and you (alone) are right. I understand that you are sympathetic to and have become friendly with the Lyrikline webmaster, who is understandably keen to get blacklisting removed, but your requests for this have been rejected due to past spamming and polling every venue under the sun, as you did with lenr-canr previously, is simply not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, how is this not forum shopping? But thank you for bringing these problems up here to a wider attention. You requested whitelisting, several editors and admins have responded to that. Similar for de-listing on meta. It was strongly suggested to you that you should contact the appropriate wikiprojects for that. You did that, but, until now, they don't seem to be impressed by your request. You strongly suggest how editors that do comment are not looking at the evidence properly, though you strongly indicate that you don't know the full evidence (as you indicated, because you don't know where to look). However, you fail to ask nicely what proof there is, but you first suggest that the blacklisting was a '... total error ...'. And for every editor that comments or is involved in some form of blacklisting you say or suggest that they did not evaluate the full evidence ("Grounds for the block, Ed?"). That goes for JzG on newenergytimes.com and lenr-carn.org, it goes for User:A. B. on uofa.edu (and you saw there what happened yesterday; For single articles it is indeed possible to keep an eye, if it is the full scale and there are no people ready and willing to keep an eye, blacklisting is the only solution to keep spammers out (for now, where is the abuse filter), wikipedia is a spam heaven), and for User:Hu12, User:MER-C, User:EdJohnston and me on lyrikline.org. For lyrikline specifically, the specific link you are wanting to add is an external link, not an unreplaceable and highly necessery reference to source otherwise unsourceable information. There is no hurry for that (and hence no reason to comment here); for the whole domain, the link was coi-cross-wiki-spammed with disregard of local policies and guidelines, and though the links are all marginally on topic, a) on some wikis there were sometimes directly better pages that could be linked (linking to a german version of the page on a Farsi wiki version while there is a Farsi version available), b) other pages that should be linked and got ignored while links that are inappropriate were added (adding a German version of page A to a Russian wiki, where there is not Russion version of page A, but there are Russian versions of page B, C and D which were not added), and c) sometimes all links on a certain wikis were almost fully inappropriate (linking a German page to a wiki in a Brahmi language, while there are no pages in that Brahmi language anywhere, even the English wikipedia guidelines suggest that other language links should be avoided, unless they are the best .. and which are the best is better discussed first, then just blatantly added). In all the cases where you have your essays or discussions, the link was blacklisted because editors edited in disregard of policies and guidelines (which are written by many editors, admins and non-admins), and I think the de-blacklisting of ufoa.edu has shown how persistent spammers are. Moreover, the ones that are active on blacklisting and have the knowledge to see what is going on, on a regular basis clean and warn and ignore the request, it is not a light decision with incomplete or inappropriate proof that makes us blacklist. The page regarding uofa.edu was for 20 minutes difficult to control, and I don't think it is over. Imagine to do that on a large number of articles! The mop is here, but the taps on the wall are not there for nothing! Appropriately closing them keeps the dirty water out. And when you have some people with a bucket, or sufficient floorcloth, and maybe even a couple of moppers as well, you can consider opening some dirty taps.

If you want to forumshop and to help, consider finding manpower, and then release the floodgates slowly .. you are right, blacklisters should not be the ones to decline whitelisting requests or de-blacklisting requests (though they should at the very least comment on the why), but as there is still a lack of manpower there (with sufficient knowledge to evaluate all sides of the situation), that is all we have (and suggesting that the ones that do comment do not evaluate properly, again, does not help your cause). --Dirk Beetstra 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Misplaced Pages Page - Number of Articles

I, Axmann8, as a user of Misplaced Pages with multiple edits pursuant to the GFDL, move that the main Misplaced Pages page, that displays all of the current languages of Misplaced Pages, be reflected to show that there are "2,761,000" articles on the English Misplaced Pages.

The reason is thusly: Currently, both the Netherlands and Portugese versions of Misplaced Pages display their article count to the nearest 1,000th, not the nearest 10,000th.

The English Misplaced Pages should be reflected to count the aditional 1,000 articles, as 1,000 articles, even though minute in comparison to the upwards 2 million articles currently on the English Misplaced Pages, is still significant enough for the change.

Respectfully submitted,

-Axmann8 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please propose this at Talk:Main Page. Administrators don't have a specific role in determining content. Mark this as resolved when you have started a thread there. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

People at the English Misplaced Pages have no control over what happens on the main Misplaced Pages page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, if you want to discuss changing the portal page at http://www.wikipedia.org, English wikipedia is not the place to do it. You want to take this up on Meta. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick request