We got three OTRS complaints in a row, about an hour ago, about obscene images (one said "a vagina" others were vague) on three unrelated film articles. No sign on the articles or [[Template:Infobox Film]] of recent edits which would explain it.
Anyone know what's going on?
(also asked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden... )
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
On Dec 14, 2007 8:21 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We got three OTRS complaints in a row, about an hour ago, about obscene images (one said "a vagina" others were vague) on three unrelated film articles. No sign on the articles or [[Template:Infobox Film]] of recent edits which would explain it.
Anyone know what's going on?
(also asked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden... )
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks. I will handle the OTRS tix.
-george
On Dec 14, 2007 5:28 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
On Dec 14, 2007 8:21 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We got three OTRS complaints in a row, about an hour ago, about obscene images (one said "a vagina" others were vague) on three unrelated film articles. No sign on the articles or [[Template:Infobox Film]] of recent edits which would explain it.
Anyone know what's going on?
(also asked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden... )
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
I mentioned in the ani thread that I've been adapting a lot of templates to Wikinfo, and have found some that should be protected but are not. I've been reporting them to RPP as I find them.
I almost started another RfA so that I could protect them on the fly myself, interrupting my work flow a lot less, but then I came to my senses.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 7:04 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
I see no reason not to. Anything that has the potential for transcluding vandalism all over hell and back, and isn't currently being worked on by an editor who has requested unprotection, should be protected. Common sense.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Question:
When a template calls on another template, and that second template, calls on a third, and so forth, do all of those subs appear on the transclusion list to the article the first template is used on?
For example, there are conversion templates that call on /range and /dim templates, and the /range and /dim templates call on a /calc template, which provides the actual number to use to make the conversion. I have found some /calcs unprotected, which seems to make it very easy for someone to screw up the numbers that get displayed in articles.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 2:04 PM, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason not to. Anything that has the potential for transcluding vandalism all over hell and back, and isn't currently being worked on by an editor who has requested unprotection, should be protected. Common sense.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com > wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template. The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nevermind, answered my own question, they do.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 2:11 PM, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
Question:
When a template calls on another template, and that second template, calls on a third, and so forth, do all of those subs appear on the transclusion list to the article the first template is used on?
For example, there are conversion templates that call on /range and /dim templates, and the /range and /dim templates call on a /calc template, which provides the actual number to use to make the conversion. I have found some /calcs unprotected, which seems to make it very easy for someone to screw up the numbers that get displayed in articles.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 2:04 PM, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason not to. Anything that has the potential for transcluding vandalism all over hell and back, and isn't currently being worked on by an editor who has requested unprotection, should be protected. Common sense.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com > wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com > wrote:
It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that
template.
The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting heavily used templates...
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
...right. All 375 of them used more than 12,000 times are now solidly protected, which is at least a start. This is going to require heavy work, though - the most-linked-to templates pages maxes out at a thousand, and there's a lot more vulnerable ones than that.
Hum. Thoughts?
(Unrelatedly, I have just noticed we have 12,000 images tagged with {{Non-free comic}}... gotta love that 'minimal use of non-free material'!)
Andrew Gray wrote:
(Unrelatedly, I have just noticed we have 12,000 images tagged with {{Non-free comic}}... gotta love that 'minimal use of non-free material'!)
Considering there's not really any way to show readers a picture of a copyrighted fictional character without fair use of some sort that may well _be_ close to "minimal" - I can easily imagine that there enough thousands of articles about comic books and comic book characters that this would account for only two or three images per article in total.
On 12/16/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
The reason is that trustworthy, non-admin editors then can't edit them. As such a person, I find it frustrating that I can't touch many of these templates. Yes, I can call for an admin. But wikis are founded on a low effort to participation model.
Which is to say: yes, you should protect them. But we should work on a model to define trustworthy, non-admin editors. And if occasionally, a supposedly trustworthy non-admin goes berserk and sprays vaginas everywhere, it's not the end of the world.
Steve