Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpmuk (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 22 January 2011 (→Clearing of WP:RM backlog: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

A bot proposal from Δ

I know people will want to attack, make nasty comments but lets set those aside, As I am doing NFC enforcement I have noticed that a lot of media has a rationale but for a dab page, I have been ignoring these for the most part however I have come up with an idea and prototype code to fix them, right now it is isolated to the article = parameter of most non-free rationales, but it could be expanded to a few simi-standard hand written rationale formats. It basically checks to verify that the article specified is a dab, and that the dab points to the article where the media is being used, if it matches it replaces the link to the dab with the correct article title. I am posting here due to the fact that due to my current restrictions I cannot just post to the BRFA process and get the ball rolling. ΔT 17:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I like this idea, and I don't foresee any big issues. As long as it saves images from being CSDd by someone else, it sounds good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delta, as long as you do so in a careful, deliberate manner, I see no issue with this. — BQZip01 —  17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I was planning on a bot for the work. ΔT 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, I'd suggest leaving the bot in someone else's hands. There's already enough people still upset with you over bot-activities, no reason to give them more ammunition. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Seems helpful. I'd support it. Resolute 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Me too. — BQZip01 —  18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• This sounds like the one that would catch the majority of the problems with #10c so clearly an appropriate thing to try. I'd make sure you limit your semi-auto editors for this to just do this and have a link to something to explain what you did in case an error does pop up. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think this sounds like a great idea. I disagree with TheHandThatFeedsYou that you should leave the bot with others; open discussion here seems to be sufficient, given your restrictions. Thank you for taking this to a wide audience for a discussion. --Jayron32 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree this is the right approach, and seems reasonable. A few comments:
  1. If there is opposition to you (personally) doing it, someone else should, as it seems entirely sensible.
  2. Perhaps if you change the rationale, we should leave the old one with a "moved rationale from" template change note included (or new template indicating it's a now-moved rationale), to preserve the history more clearly in the image page side.
  3. Expanding on this - When you find 10.c violations in general, perhaps a / the bot could do some automatic investigation, by checking all the "What uses this image" pages' page move histories to see if any of those prior names match the rationale, and then fix those as well. That would seem to fix a lot of the cases that caused the negative reactions last week.

  Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Moves are something that I am not looking to address at this point yet, paso a paso, Im not really sure a rationale moved is really a needed thing, for the most part its fairly simple fixes like where the person who wrote the rationale just made a minor error in the article parameter. (in this case they forgot the (KIJHL)) When I get some more free time, Ill take a look at how big of an issue the moved page thing is. But these problems need fixed one step at a time, there is really no point in trying to make the project too complex. ΔT 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a perfectly reasonable approach. The first step you outlined and asked for comment on seems fine to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone have any real objections before I file a BRFA? ΔT 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I object. Given your contentious history (and the straight-forwardly nasty way that you opened this thread) I'd suggest that you leave everything about this to someone else. Great idea seems to be the consensus, but I'm strongly siding with THTFY. Perhaps it would be just easier for you to find something to do that doesn't involve a bot?
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Just for your information, Ive been running a bot for a good while already, Please review WP:AGF, I hid nothing in the manner that I brought the idea forward. ΔT 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

    • You might want to follow your own advice since you opened this thread with an assumption of bad faith. This is the exact problem that was spoken of last time.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Aaron Brenneman, I think you should comment on the issue, not on the editor. But since you wish to discuss about the editor, perhaps you weren't aware that Δ currently runs Δbot which helps with WP:SPI cases? Were there oppositions to Δbot before it's approved? Yes. Are there complaints about Δbot since it begins working in SPI? Nope. (For the record, we had to prepare a backup plan if Δbot does go down.) If you think what Δ's bots do are everything bad and nothing good, you're very much mistaken. OhanaUnited 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

        @OhanaUnited: Please don't link "no personal attacks" at me over such a petty slight. Overuse of the term makes it mean less when someone is actually attacked.

        @Δ: I'm not sure why you're responding to things I didn't say, that you don't run a bot at all? That you hid something? And, how am I not assuming good faith by pointing out that you have a contentious history (i.e. arbitration, etc) and that it's ongoing (i.e. 90% of this board over your last bot thread)? My straight-forward opinion is that I would prefer that you find something else to do. Everyone has opinions.
        Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

        • As they say, "Opinions are like <rears> - everybody has one." –MuZemike 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

        And why didn't you feel the need to bring this up with Delta Ohana? He started this entire thread with an assumption of bad faith, but as soon as someone calls him on it, you rush to his defence. The first thing he did was comment on other editors before he even brought up his issue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• User:FairuseBot, which I'm hoping to reactivate today, can already do this for disambiguation pages and redirects (see, for example, ). I can update it to also handle hatnote disambiguations, if people want me to. --Carnildo (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems like a far better idea for everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • A new bot is a good idea (much less work for us) I agree with The hand that feeds given your reputation delta (including the bizaare edit war I had to step into), the bot is better in someone elses hands (I want to play with the bot!)--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Clarification there, my reply was to Carnildo. I think it would be better for him to modify the existing bot which already does this.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I would much prefer that Carnildo runs this task on his bot. Titoxd 22:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to say that, after much experience, I have come to the conclusion that Δ does not have the right temperament to operate bots. This is reflected in the fact that he is under edit restrictions at the present time. He should not be approved another bot, particularly not a bot relating to images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism campaign on Today's featured articles

Starting on January 14, a vandal or a group of vandals have been excessively vandalizing Today's featured articles, starting with Calgary Hitmen and then continuing with Moons of Saturn, and I. M. Pei. Up to this point, all the vandalism edits were Scientology-related.

However, the last two TFAs, Wintjiya Napaltjarri and Unification of Germany, this vandal(s) has taken it a step further, causing massive edit summary vandalism (which are all currently RevDeleted, but if you read down, it would show some disgusting message).

This vandal(s) is exclusively abusing open proxies to vandalize TFAs, so the only option we have to far is to semi-protection. Moreover, if this persists, we may have to keep TFAs locked up for the remainder of its time on the Main Page, and pre-emptive semi-protection may also need to be considered. –MuZemike 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also discovered that some of them are from Brazil and the United States according to geolocate data. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• We'll just have to semi the articles, unless we can block more open proxies. I wonder if this is related to Access Denied (talk · contribs)? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This vandal is also hitting nearly every article linked from the leads in the TFAs. The following have also been vandalized in exactly the same way:

• Palace of Versailles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nation state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pintupi language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indigenous Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Western Desert cultural bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tjunkiya Napaltjarri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contemporary Indigenous Australian art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Haasts Bluff, Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Batik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drypoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iconography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Art Gallery of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Gallery of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Gallery of Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that this is probably not all of them, as I have not checked the others, yet. –MuZemike 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter, maybe? Although that's just a temporary solution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See filters 381-383. I seem to have blocked around 100 of his IPs in the last few days. More examples there. It's probably not worth pre-emptively semi-protecting all the articles on the front page (TFA/DYK/ITN are all targeted), but no reason not to for a short time after the fact. It can soon get pretty tedious constantly finding unblocked proxies. Block on sight - around six months on average should be sufficient. -- zzuuzz 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What about rangeblocks? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not possible (or rather not effective). HTTP proxies are scattered throughout almost every range there is, but with ProcseeBot and prompt blocking (even AntiAbuseBot has been joining in), one can soon run low on available IPs and encounter increasingly more blocks than edits. We even outblocked anontalk and his spambot once. -- zzuuzz 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies! How many times do I have to explain to everybody that you cannot rangeblock here? –MuZemike 00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was sleepy and I didn't completely read the post (my fault) or I probably went "yeah, they can't do that" and not have asked. Sleep is required. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's started up again on Sacrifice (video game) (TFA right now). I have semi-protected 4 hours; the next time I see that, I semi-protect for the remainder of the time while it's on the Main Page. –MuZemike 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They seemed to have stopped for half an hour or so before you semi'd it. I prefer to play whack-a-mole than protect if it's plausible, personally. As soon as you protected it, they moved onto the other article linked from the TFA blurb, so I've semi'd all of them for the rest of the day, as well. Could someone add "all our edits" and "are belong to us" (is that supposed to be a sentence, btw?) to the filter? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, the latter is a take off All your base are belong to us. Sounds like b-tards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this issue is a darn nasty one. I may have some information though. A site updates every minute with new proxies and that site is the one he is using! OF course, I'll find it again, but for now, don't know what to do. --Hinata talk 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout semi every ITN and TFA on the Main Page? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And then the constructive anonymous editors can't edit the pages. We can play whack-a-mole. Titoxd 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lad, A Dog (Today's featured article) Was hit by a proxy about 10 times. I guess we can play whack-a-mole (LOL) --Hinata talk 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously guys. If you guys really want to play whack-a-mole, it would be greatly appreciated if there was more help. Less than 30 watcher. Cmon guys. I mean just look at this, 69.22.172.167 (talk · contribs). Only one person was reverting them. They were vandalizing for a whopping 7 minutes. Even better, 3 different open proxies were vandalizing for 10 minutes. One person was reverting them and no one else was helping them until that person reported the problem to another admin. Elockid 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we not make the TFA article semi-protected by default, either for the 24 hours or until it drops off the recently featured list. I can understand a reluctance to do this in the long term, but at least for the next few days in the hope that the current abusers of it get bored and move on. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can manage, as long as the TFA is well watched and the filter is modified as needed to catch up. Besides, they just move onto other articles when the TFA is protected. The more obvious they are, the easier it is to find them and block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at SFD

Currently, the SFD backlog goes all the way back to November 25, with 2 older discussions still open (November 10th and October 8). Can some one please come and help out? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs

(Reposting after this was archived.)

For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Large backlog at WP:AIV. Orphan Wiki 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be all that big a backlog; the bot isn't clearing out the ones that have been blocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When the bot stops working it's almost always because someone has messed with the page's header. I've now reset it. -- zzuuzz 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The page had been backlogged for about an hour before I added that template. I merely did as I was instructed at the top of this noticeboard. (Administrative backlogs → add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page). But anyway, I won't add it again in future. Orphan Wiki 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Would that have caused the problem? The template wasn't added until 15:06; this IP had been blocked for half an hour by then, and it remained listed until I removed it manually at 15:20. </technologically clueless question> Whatever it was, I'm glad to see the bot back in action. --Moonriddengirl 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. The page had backlogged for a whole hour. That's when I added the template. Orphan Wiki 15:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not really related to what I asked. :) I'm asking if it is ordinary for the bot to leave a listing for 30 minutes after it is addressed. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure that it was your addition of the tag that caused the bot to stop delisting addressed IPs, though certainly it seemed to start working again once the tag was removed. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No. 30 minutes is definitely not normal. I think it's two things. First, thing X was added that caused the bot to stop working, and then the erroneously added tag caused it to continue to stop working even though thing X was since removed. For AIV, there's a {{noadminbacklog}} template in the header that should be changed to {{adminbacklog}}, instead of adding a new tag. I just can't figure out what thing X is. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd. When I reverted AIV to this version, which it was stuck in for 20 mins, the bot works quite normally within one or two minutes. The first problem is probably the server the bot is running on rather than the page content. T. Canens (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the source code earlier and couldn't find any reason that either of the suspect edits would break the bot. This is now really bugging me. If anyone knows the answer I'd really like to know! Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The same thing is happening today, FWIW. Titoxd 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Prods over the limit

Northwood Mall and Tallahassee Skate Park. Both are prods over the 7-day limit and in need of deletion. Anyone game? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The skate park one was also a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

User:Process Plus/Process PlusI'm sorry, but I'm at the doctor's office, so I don't have time to do what you ask. You've made a reasonable request, so there shouldn't be any problem with someone else fulfilling it. Please go to WP:AN and post a request for undeletion — simply copy/paste the following message:

"Please undelete User:Process Plus/Process Plus. Nyttend, who deleted it, says that it should be undeleted, but he doesn't have time to do everything properly, so he told me to come here and ask for help."

Hope this helps! Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) --Process Plus (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I've never seen WP:UAA as backed up as it is right now — Timneu22 · talk 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There were quite a few reports that had already been blocked, looks like the bots that usually remove them stopped working for a few hours. January 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC Close

Back in December the label "left wing" was added into to the UAF article. The addition was disputed and the matter went to both the RS and the NPOV notice boards. There was then an RfC here. The results at each of those notice boards have been disputed by those who wish to insert the label. As a warning there is a lot to read through --Snowded 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dogme language teaching

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching has been open since early November, and as far as I know, has gone through intermittent phases of transclusion and untransclusion. Could someone please close it? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA

Guess what? It's backlogged again! Admin help (and non-admin help to remove the obvious non-vios) to get it back down again would be greatly appreciated. This seems to have become my pet backlog, but I can't keep on top of it all by my lonesome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added the backlog tag, the 100 was an arbitrary number, feel free to lower it if necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

malware alerts

for the last week several times when I search i get a malware alert from google about both the[REDACTED] page and the offical author site for example I just tried to find out about barbara hamblys latest books and got an malware alert on both her[REDACTED] page and her offical website ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.96.184 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not get the same alert when searching for "barbara hamblys". Nevertheless, if the alert is originating from www.google.com you may want to contact Google regarding this, otherwise it could have something to do with your anti-vandalism or anti-spyware settings. -- œ 12:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearing of WP:RM backlog

So I've been working hard to clear the backlog on WP:RM (doubtlessly earning myself the enmity of a considerable section of wikipedia :) ). Only two articles require closure, and there is only one more article left on the backlog. I refrained from closing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally/Infobox_style#Requested_move because of ignorance of template conventions and, even though the nomination was unopposed, the nominator's other nominations were all opposed strongly. If someone knowledgeable could close this, they will have cleared the backlog. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RMs stayed open for a full 7 days yet you seem to have cleared out those from the 15th, many of which won't have been open for 7 days. Normal practice seems to be not to close RMs to they're in the backlog section, which I'm aware is a little odd as that means they're be a backlog at the start of every day, but that does guarantee they've been open seven days. I'm not advocating re-opening them, just suggest as that seems pointless, more just a comment for the future. Anyway, thanks for the doing that. Dpmuk (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, working properly RMs should start getting closed on or even before the last day. They are supposed to be closed before' going into the backlog, not after (hence term 'backlog'). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, that's slightly different from my impression of current practice even if that's what should be done, and as I'm sure you're aware current practice normally drives policy/guidelines not the other way round. Also seems to go against Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions which mentions a normal 7 day listing period. As I say it's not a bigee but different admins doing different things is likely to get confusing for all involved. Will raise this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves as that would be a more appropriate place for this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Expand" template

I just spent all of yesterday and into today removing instances of {{expand}} by hand, replacing them with other templates. I snipped out literally hundreds of them by hand. I better get a cookie for this. :D

In any event, there are now no articles using {{expand}}. Anyone want to finally delete it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by PeterSymonds. Some subpages remained, so I restored it and deleted it again. Restoration was because I can't remember how to find the link to list all subpages, except that I remember that it appears when I delete a template. Since deleting it gave me the link, I've deleted all subpages. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, more or less necessary, there are a whole bunch of Template:Expand transclusions outside of mainspace. If someone is willing to remove them all, it would be greatly appreciated. HeyMid (contribs) 21:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of them are by way of {{tl}}, and the rest are on abandoned userspace drafts. I will work on MFDing or otherwise taking care of the userspace drafts, but do the ones with {{tl}} really need to be removed, since they're just sentences mentioning the template? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The ones mentioned in my link above are all transclusions of the {{expand}} template. Is someone willing to remove the transclusions (using AWB)? HeyMid (contribs) 22:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent work TPH. The link to start with for non-mainspace stuff is here, with project space and file space probably being the more important ones. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards