Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List unusable[edit]

I was trying to add DJ Moon to the list of protected titles; and I can't because it contains hidden DVD keys which trigger the spam filter. (They should probably either be removed, or moved to a separate page.) - Mike Rosoft 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They should not be moved to a separate page, because they could not be added to that separate page. I would suggest creatin a Protected titles/May 2007/List/Active (or something like that) and add further protected titles there. --Iamunknown 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can still add entries if you edit the sections that don't contain the DVD key (rather than the whole page). WjBscribe 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add an "only allowed on" feature, such as the Bad Image list has, to the spam whitelist. Alternately, we could make admins immune to the blacklist. Prodego talk 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The latter is not a good idea, many admins inadvertently set it off, which helps get the link removed. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved everything off to its own list, however steps need to be made to WP:BEANS it down.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright mess[edit]

In searching through stuff I cam across Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état and noticed it had been created by Davidcannon (talk · contribs) with the edit summary: "(moved from another article)". Since the article was not defined I deleted it as a GFDL violation. (There's no correct attribution in the history to the original contributors - so it is a copyviolation.) I then posted a not on the user's talk page.

However, dong a what links here on the deleted article, I discovered a host of Fiji related articles that, on random sampling, seemed to have been created by the same user using similar unattributed copyright violating moves. Has some careful person got time to follow up on this? The user himself seems to have a long standing and current panache for bad uploads and copyright problems and may need a bit of cluestick (although, frankly, it may be beyond that). Anyway, I've no time to deal with this, so obliged if some other careful people can do the detective work from here.--Docg 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting material generated for Wikipedia and released under the GFDL simply because a complete history has not been maintained seems to be overkill. The GFDL requires credit for five (5) authors; if that's present, I don't think it should be deleted simply because of an improper and regretable cut-and-paste move. Though I agree that liberal application of a clue-stick would be nice.- Nunh-huh 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. The articles I looked at ALL the principal creators had been eradicated. That does violate the GFDL as well as basic common sense.--Docg 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I do understand. The GFDL doesn't specify "principal creators", just five contributors. It may violate common sense, but it doesn't violate the GFDL. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it says "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five)". Now if the principle authors, or most of them contributed BEFORE the unsourced copy and paste, then the GFDL is violated. I think in most of the cases I'm referring to that is the case.--Docg 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We'll, I see no benefit in deleting material that was clearly relased under the GFDL because of what amounts to a bookkeeping error. These particular atricles may not be worth saving, but it seems a bad rule to adopt, considering that the meaning of "principal" (and for that matter, what constitutes a valid history) is open to our interpretation. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of articles potentially involved, I wasn't necessarily suggesting deletions. Perhaps a note attached to a nul edit? I'll leave it to your disgression.--Docg 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of that would fully satisfy all would be a comprehensive database search to find the original, and either link to it or notate it or merge the history, depending on where it's foudn. Which I think would have to be done from a database dump offline, lest servers be overloaded. My discretion is already satisfied :), I'm just offering an option (one that I don't have the means or computing power to perform). - Nunh-huh 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

David Cannon wrote a large proportion of the material on Fiji in Wikipedia himself. The article in question was split off from another article (Investigations since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état) which has no authors apart from David Cannon himself. That article was itself split from Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, with an appropriate edit summary saying so, and that earlier article does not appear at that point to have had any substantial editors other than David Cannon. While Cannon should have included an edit summary naming the article split from in the creation of Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, it seems to be a minor error and the GFDL has not been breached.

I think deletion of the article before discussing it with Cannon was unnecessary. We're not dealing with a newbie here, but with an administrator who has been on Wikipedia much longer than either of us.-gadfium 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also have notified David Cannon about this discussion. I've now done so.-gadfium 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I've reversed the deletion for now. But some note needs put into the history noting where the article originated. I have notified him of the problem. This was not meant to be a discussion - but an appeal for another admin to take on this problem. It only became a discussion because someone started arguing.--Docg 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussing isn't "arguing"! - Nunh-huh 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a sign you should do more 'detective work' before deleting in the future? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicer blocking messages for TOR, please?[edit]

If some of us are going to hardblock proxies, which may affect editors who have broken no rule except Wikipedia:No open proxies, could we please use nicer blocking messages? I'm getting kind of tired of being told that TOR is a "serious security problem" by Proxy blocker's blocking messages. TOR is an excellent security feature, the exact opposite of a serious security problem.

Something like, "You appear to be using TOR, an open proxy. We've blocked it due to a high volume of vandalism. Our apologies if you have in fact come here to make constructive edits. : (" would be a lot nicer to read, even if I still have to wait 10 minutes for TOR to rotate to an exit node that isn't hardblocked.

And how I am getting autoblocked by a user who doesn't exist, anyway?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The proxy blocker was disabled ages go, IIRC. // Pilotguy radar contact 00:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The proxy blocker might have been disabled, but the hardblocks remain. : ( Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
So you're asking for an admin, or group of admins, to unblock all TOR proxies and re-block them just to give them a nicer message? Corvus cornix 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly changing the block message will affect all the blocks. Possibly. We can't unblock them anyway, it is impossible for anyone but a developer. Prodego talk 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing the message to mention vandalism would be misleading, because we don't block them for vandalism, we block them simply for being anonymous or open proxies. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But why do we block open proxies, bainer?
Corvus cornix, it would be nice if you softblocked them all, considering the systemic bias problems caused by blocking China. However, since I don't think there is actually community consensus about whether TOR should be softblocked or hardblocked, a nicer blocking message would be good.
I can't block anybody, not being an admin. Corvus cornix 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I got one autoblocking message that kept saying it would expire at the current time.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Prodego, why would TOR exit nodes, which could cease to be TOR exit nodes at any time (TOR is a volunteer network), be indefinitely blocked without regular administrators having the ability to unblock them? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the blockings by User:Proxy blocker, which used to be run by the servers to automatically block proxies. These can't be unblocked by an admin. As for why, I don't know, I assume that it ran when we weren't a huge project, and it wouldn't matter if a few extra IPs were blocked. Prodego talk 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, thanks for telling me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?[edit]

I ask that an admin. look into the archiving that was done by User:Leuko at Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine. User:Leuko archived material that was actively commented on less than 48 hours ago and contains recent and relevant information with regard to the talk page and its article. It was my understanding that material should only be archived after it has been inactive for quite some time. Please review this action for inappropriate use of the archiving function. Thanks. 67.177.149.119 04:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have now cleared the backlog of (largely bogus) edit requests on that article, anyone who wants to archive the talk page is welcome to do so. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It still makes me shudder whenever I read the case. bibliomaniac15 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations on the main page[edit]

I am concerned about the copyright status of the following pics that appear in an article that is on the main page today.

All these pics(there are more) have no information about the source of the pics except the assertions of the uploaders themselves. For example, one pic is taken from some calendar and there is no evidence(link, email... nothing) that the people who made the calendar have released it on public domain. And yet, the uploader simply asserts that he has got permission from them. If he has got permission, I believe he would have to forward it to the concerned authorities on wikipedia to endorse. And in such cases, a copy of the email would have to be made available(if i am right). Nothing of that sort is seen here.

The situation is the same with the other pics too. Just blanket assertions and nothing else. For example - "This pic was taken in 1892 by Mr. X" - no evidence to show that it indeed is a reproduction of the 1892 foto clicked by Mr.X(if there indeed was such a photo). No link, no reference to some book from where it might have been scanned.. NOTHING.

All pics however, have been released on free licenses. I have been demanding proper source information be put up in the last few days but I have been continually reverted by a user whose reverts, handwaving and stonewalling border on vandalism. I have once again tagged it asking for sources and unless something is forthcoming, I shall remove the offending pics from the page. Wikipedia is no place for copyright violations. Chances are that, I may have been reverted yet again even as I finish writing this message here. Sarvagnya 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been targeting Tamil people and History of Tamil Nadu articles and has been tagging the articles as well as images in my opinion maliciously. This disruptive behaviour has been reported [1]. The images in question have been through a [Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags previous round of examination] and have been found to have appropriate licenses.
Sarvagna has also been maliciously tagging images even with appropriate licenses such as Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg, Image:Nallur.jpg and Image:EttayapuramPalaceRemains.jpg. His intent is plain and clear for all to see. Disruption. Parthi talk/contribs 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a Commons issue. Chick Bowen 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hot air and handwaving again. Conspiracy theories too. Of the above three he's mentioned, only the last two were errors of judgement and I corrected myself once it was pointed out. And as is abundantly clear to anyone who can read English, I'm not even complaining about those two. I'd like to see some source information on the ones that I've mentioned above or I reserve my right to remove copyvio. Sarvagnya 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The copyright status of all images comes from the uploaders' assertions. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, perhaps you should assume good faith? (The Hathigumpha photo looks pretty old to me, and appears to be the same photo referenced here. The only issue is the image from JAINA.) Phony Saint 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Copyrights dont come merely from uploaders' assertions. For example, if you are claiming that you're uploading what a friend gave you, then Wikipedia requires that you present some proof that the friend has indeed given you permission. I believe, there is a whole bunch of people working on those alone. Similar to the ones who check the flickr copyright issues. I have seen similarly sourced pics with a link where the email from the friend(or some such) permission is displayed. I just cant remember where I saw it though. Sarvagnya 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Hathigumpa photo is copyright of the British library. The website clearly says so. See this.
Excerpt from the page - ...The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programs and scripts) of this website is copyright © The British Library, unless otherwise stated (adjacent to or within the content) as belonging to other specified copyright holders. The content of this website can be accessed, printed and downloaded in an unaltered form, with copyright acknowledged, on a temporary basis for personal study and non-commercial use. Written permission must be obtained from the British Library for any other use, including... Sarvagnya 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Collect Briton is an archive. Materials taken from the site has a water mark. The said photo does not have a watermark. Therefore it was not taken from the website. Parthi talk/contribs 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If it was not taken from that website, then it is blatant copyvio. The copyright is with British Library and somebody plagiarised it and you plagiarised it from them. How cool. Sarvagnya 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And if it wasnt taken from that site? Then where the hell was it taken from? Did William Cornish come back from the dead and give you his copy? Source please. Pleeese. Sarvagnya 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Plagiarized it? Copyrights expire 70 years after the copyright holder's death, and Cornish has been dead since 1925. [2] Owning the actual photo isn't the same as owning the copyright. Phony Saint 05:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The British library is in the European union and most certainly know the copyright rules. If they say it belongs to them and they own the copyright, I'd believe them because they are a reliable source. If they knew the copyright had expired, why would they bother to put up copyright warnings on their site. Sarvagnya 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not how corporations actually work. Of course they're going to claim blanket copyright on all of their images. That's the simplest way to do it. It's up to you to figure out on a case-by-case basis whether some works are actually still under copyright. They're making a good amount of money off of continuing to sell rights and reprints off of old pics, even if they happen to be in the public domain (it's not illegal to sell PD images). So if they made it obvious that the images are PD, they'd be cutting into their own profits, not something they're liable to do! Thus, corporations are never a good source on the copyright status of their own works. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) The images are in the public domain once the individual who originally produced it has been dead for at least 70 years. The British library may have a copyright on that one particular copy of the image (the use of the watermark) but the one we have on the commons must come from a different source such that there is no watermark and it is in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the version on the commons is much sharper than that at the British library site, so they cannot be under the same copyright. But, again, copyright issues for images uploaded to the commons should be brought up in the correct forum on the Wikimedia Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Cite[edit]

Several of the citations Special:Cite is producing contain a period after "May", which isn't an abbreviation. --zenohockey 02:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Prodego talk 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to revert my change, it seems the fix is no longer working. Prodego talk 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

{{notorphan}}[edit]

this template along with its redirects violates our WP:NONFREE image policy, users wiki-link to images from the mainspace but don't actually use the images in any articles. according to the NONFREE policy we either have to display the image in accordance with the Fair use laws or delete the image. This template violates the terms of policy. We need to do something but what? (use the images, Delete the template, leave as is and risk a law suite?) Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks problematic to me. I would suggest proposing the template for deletion. If no one can come up with a good reason why it is in keeping with WP:NONFREE (none spring to my mind) it can then be deleted. Images tagged with it can be tagged as orphaned non free content and deleted after the requisit time. WjBscribe 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, propose it for deletion. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Its on TfD now. [3] Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a horrible misunderstanding and conflation of our non-free content policy with copyright law. The requirement to transclude is a policy choice, not a legal necessity. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was only a law issue. It is a combination of Fair Use law and our policy. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedies again[edit]

Currently approaching 750 items. Anyone for a little late-night nuking? MER-C 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

on it. alphachimp 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I just took out a little over 150 articles, but there's still a lot left (over 500). Most are images... alphachimp 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most are imageless image pages. Someone with a faster connection than I should just blitz through them. Chick Bowen 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Block log vs. Blocked IP addresses and usernames[edit]

Why is the block on Gatorphat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appearing in [4], but not [5]? It has caused confusion with this unblock requests. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A technical glitch of some sort. You might want to post this at WP:VPT, since the devs read that. Prodego talk 12:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
When there is a conflict, Special:Ipblocklist is the accurate record. Also, there are time when unblocking an editor from their block log doesn't seem to work; if that happens, unblock from Special:Ipblocklist. Thatcher131 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Special:Ipblocklist is the more accurate. That is what the bot at AIV uses. Sometimes it removes a user and no block and be seen in the block log, but the block can be seen at Special:Ipblocklist. This is because logs sometimes lag behind, or other glitches can occur to them, but the Ipblocklist checks the status of the block itself. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiMan53 block review[edit]

I have blocked WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 31 hours due to multiple disruptions over the last few weeks such as misuses of vandal proof, using {{helpme}} for every little question (mostly dealing with his user space and signature) and numerous other off-task behaviors that are not balanced by positive contributions to the project. This is the straw that broke the camel's back today as he taunted a blocked user, something that only encourages more disruption from vandals. He was warned a week ago by me here to shape up, so this should come as no surprise to him. I post this here for community review, Metros232 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Taunting vandals is disruptive, the user had a history of disruptive behavior, the user was warned about disruption. Looks like you got all your ducks in a row. Seems to be a good block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

From the mailing list[edit]

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs

This last may well include some urgent problems. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated editing by Editore99 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Appears to be using a semi-automated or automated editing tool to remove date linking and convert measurements to metric system, about 150 edits today. This is causing some objections on their user page. TimVickers 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is not fully automatic - if you look at special:contributions/Editore99 the timing is erratic. If it was a bot, I'd think the edits would be made on a more regular timescale than 17:00, 17:02, 17:07, 17:09, and 17:10 for example. So it's semiautomatic or manual. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it might be AWB, modified from the source not to require approval. Look at this edit for example, where 2 additional changes were made other then date delinking. Prodego talk 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While some of the edits seem to be helpful, I'm quite concerned about some. He seems to be changing "horsepower" to "power." Although its not SI, when referring to cars, I believe horsepower is preferred. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked him for the time being based on the concerns here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
More precisely (or not), you've blocked him indefinitely for the time being. (Er, excuse me while I think that one through.) There are some that are concerned about your methods of editting being too fast and automated. I'm not one of them. Are his edits for better or worse? If they're for worse, is this pointed out to him, and if so how is it taken? I looked at two or three of his diffs, perhaps atypical ones, and thought they were improvements. -- Hoary 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The content of his edits is not an issue. The fact that he's using an unapproved version of AWB or may be a semi-automated bot is—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous. AWB is released under the GPL, and modifications are allowed (and, regardless, we don't police whether users use software correctly per the license). Semi-automated bots are also allowed as the editor has to directly approve each edit. Block him if you feel he is disruptive, not for "using an unapproved version of AWB". 67.54.238.233 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
FWI, indefinite != infinite. It is often used that way, but in this instance the block is until the user explains what is going on. Prodego talk 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think an indef block is out of place. I think a proper procedure would be: Warn (this was done); If violation continues - give a 24h block; If violation still continues without attempt to explain - indef block. Od Mishehu 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not understanding any of the admin niceties, and have no comment on those. Just if this guy is going through and mass-replacing Angstroms with nanometers that is serious mischief seems highly inappropriate. (Since Angstroms are a very-well-understood convention in the world of protein structures). This suggests obliviousness to the actual usage. Also replacing micron with micrometer is bizarre and ultra-pedantic. Whatever the decision about which blocks are technically appropriate, and what flavor of AWB is allowed, this needs an explanation before his semi-automated editing continues. EdJohnston 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC - how to get on[edit]

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

Questions? There's a talk page link there - David Gerard 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Chick Bowen 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection javascript[edit]

Just linking this here on the off chance someone might find it useful.</spam> – Steel 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Andiamstillhere and FfopoPreteP[edit]

I don't know if this makes a difference, but here goes. Both of these users have been blocked as vandalism-only accounts recently, and both were using TOR. I know because I am also using TOR, and I received autoblock messages about these editors. Anyway, they both seem to favour the same offensive word.

Andiamstillhere is already believed to be a sockpuppet of Soiamhere, and FfopoPreteP is already believed to be a sockpuppet of Peter1PopoffNill. Could we label them all as sockpuppets of one of those accounts?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose spammers[edit]

Spam account at Alexandrab (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been detected, please lend a hand to ensure the dirty work of this person (or persons) has been reversed. Thanks! RFerreira 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Probable copyright infingements[edit]

If someone more skilled at finding image sources could have a look at the uploads by User:Littledaniel 93, that would be great. He's uploaded several images in the last few months, all tagged as "PD-Self". A number of these were directly taken from [Diggiloo.net The Diggiloo Thrush], while others are screencaps of TV shows which I can't trace reliably. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Any TV screenshot is definitely not PD-self. If they are used in articles, they should be tagged as {{Non-free television screenshot}} and if not, tagged for deletion with {{subst:orfud}}. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Roger. I'll get onto that. There's one small image he's uploaded which is almost certainly not his work either, but I can't make head or tail of what it is and thus what it needs to be tagged as. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It... appears to be a female abdomen with some unusual clothing and a big glowing sphere over the belly button. The article it's used in explains it somewhat. I presume this one is probably also cropped from a screenshot or a promo image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Freaking confused[edit]

Admins, see this. I deleted the page after looking at the history and deciding that virtually the whole article and its revisions were a copyvio from the university's website. The earliest revisions of what I saw were from October 2006. However, it had already been deleted three other times beginning on April 27th of this year, according to the deletion log, and it had never been undeleted. On top of that, it appears that the first deleted revision is a page move. How did the history get so messed up? I've been gone a day or two, is the database glitching badly? Grandmasterka 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was moved, then a new page was created over the redirect. I don't see anything wrong there. Prodego talk 12:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah (duh). I'm talking more about the phantom history that I (re-)deleted. Grandmasterka 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm not an admin myself and can't check this out, it would seem to me that the following process took place:
  1. Some page was moved. Call the original name "X".
  2. New content was placed in "X", over the redirect.
  3. The article Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad was deleted.
  4. Someone moved page "X" to Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.
This would explain what you report having happenned, and the software working correctly. Od Mishehu 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:P.B. Pilhet[edit]

What is up with this users page. All the information ("This page was last modified..." etc) at the bottom is missing. If you look at the history and click on "compare selected version" you don't get a comparison, you get the user page. It was vanadlised but it's hard to tell if you can't see the difference. If you choose the current version and the last version on the list of 50 you can see some of the differences in the page but at the bottom (instead of the top) and underneath the user page. Strange. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all there, but masked by the outer div. Tom Harrison Talk 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's this myspace-esque line of html that's the problem: <div style=" position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0px;>. MER-C 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A way to work around such "invisible diffs" is to manually append "&diffonly=1" to the URL, like this. Alternatively, you can go to Special:Preferences and check "Don't show page content below diffs" under the "Misc" tab. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemetism template protected[edit]

This template Template:Antisemitism is a part of today's featured article and should be unprotected. Featured articles are never supposed to be protected. The Parsnip! 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale behind not protecting the Featured Article doesn't extend to all templates used on it, and in fact there are good reasons to protect these templates for easier detection and reversal of vandalism on the TFA. Kusma (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Password cracker to be run over admin accounts shortly[edit]

With Jiang's account being compromised and abused, an admin check is considered a good idea. Brion will be running a password cracker over the en:wp admin usernames after checking his morning mail. If you want to keep your admin bit and know, deep in your heart, that your password is a bit rubbish, I strongly suggest changing it. Hint: if it shows up in Google, it's a rubbish password - David Gerard 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misread that as "go type your password into the friendly textbox at www.google.com right now and make sure". —Cryptic 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, type it into the search box at http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/ instead. I've set up a, uh, phishing detector there. Yes, that's right. You can trust me - David Gerard 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Security --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy[edit]

Please edit and discuss. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a schoolblock...[edit]

"We've had wikipedia vandalism originating from within our school's network. Rather than risk a block of the entire network, I'd like to request a schoolblock so that only people with accounts on wikipedia can edit. How can I go about that? Jpellino 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC) "You can request an 'anon-only' block at the admin's noticeboard if it's not an emergency..."

I'd like that done, please. What more do I need to do? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpellino (talkcontribs)

We need to know the IP that belongs to the school.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Request for Approval appeal[edit]

Hi - could anybody interested please take a look at this appeal of the close of a BRFA. Please read the archived discussion on the page for the background to the task, and make your opinion known in the !appeal! section :). I plan to close the discussion when a consensus emerges, or when an appropraitwe period of time elapses. Thanks, Martinp23 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another bad admin[edit]

See [6]. Ha ha, let me guess, WP:DENY? The Evil Spartan 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice request on User:76.5.105.107[edit]

Hi there. This user was listed on AIV last night and I blocked them for 48h and reverted their edits. I then read some more of the vandalism and extended the block to a week. However, I was wondering if an even longer block was called for or if I should try to report this to the service provider? What do people think I should do with this? Thanks for advice. TimVickers 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i just read his "comment" on Murri. talk about offensive content... (no admin, but i'd extend :D )--TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite naughty, but this IP has only two day's worth of edits, and we have no indication that he/she/it will return after this first block. If this should happen again, though, I'd support a month block and then six months without a second thought. Rklawton 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest against a longer first-time block. Everyone should be given a second chance, and that soo sooner rather than later. Further down the line, if the determination persists, a much harsher block has to be the order. --soum (0_o) 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it at that. Thanks. TimVickers 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Checking back, the user does not seem to be in a positive frame of mind diff. I've extended the block. TimVickers 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As a frequent WP:AN lurker, I find this user's comments hilarious! 86.152.76.231 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

EMERGENCY DESYSOPPING Main page deleted[edit]


Six double redirects need fixing.[edit]

Resolved
  1. Talk:HDDVD Night
  2. Talk:HD DVD encryption controversy
  3. Talk:HD DVD encryption key
  4. Talk:HD DVD Encryption key
  5. Talk:HD DVD encryption Key
  6. Talk:Hd dvd key

My bot can't fix these itself as it's fully protected. Thanks, Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed with bomb threat warning[edit]

Resolved: The information regarding this threat has been passed on by several editors to administration at Canyon Middle School, The FBI, and Alameda County Sheriffs Department for follow up. No further action is needed. --ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I just blocked an account b/c the edit said "BOMB THREAT AT CANYON MIDDLE SCHOOL IN CASTRO VALLEY ON 5/08/07" Here's the diff: [7]. While this is probably nothing but a student at this school venting, to be on the safe side we need to contact the local authorities in Hayward California about this. I'm 2 minutes from having to log off, so can someone contact the authorities in that area? If no one is willing to do this, I'll try doing it when I get a chance in an hour or so, but the sooner the better. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid kid whose education will be ruined by decent adults covering their arses. I can't tell who's worse... 86.152.76.231 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not over-react here, anybody ever see If? If one is planning a catastrophe this is a daft place to announce it, as nothing is ever decided here without 6 weeks of discussion. This is daft adolescent, attention seeking kid behaviour. He just needs a kick up the ass and told to grow up. Just block the account without comment and ignore Giano 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A bomb threat is a bomb threat. Needs to be reported to the Authorities. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

well report it then, don't debate it. Giano 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree that it's just some kid being silly, but in the interests of playing it safe I emailed the following to the principal and 2 vice principals of the school:
Some person, using a computer registered to the Castro Valley Unified School District:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.163.233.254
edited Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in which they posted what could be considered a crude bomb threat against Canyon Middle School for May 8th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lard&diff=prev&oldid=129046940
This is probably just immature behavior, but in the interest of playing it safe I thought it best to pass this info along.
—dgiestc 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the links to the Federal Bureau of Investigation via their Tips Submission Form. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens (or fails to happen), you did the right thing. Rklawton 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if we just tossed it as a childish prank and woke up tomorrow with an incident on CNN... I think I'd have to do more than throw up. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. I just called the sheriff's department in that county to inform them (I was told they were the ones responsible for this situation). Figured it couldn't hurt to pursue multiple routes to inform people. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's pretty well covered.... Meanwhile in California... ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It was good to report it. Threats are threats. We might guess and believe it's just a juvenile prank, but... you never know. It doesn't hurt us to send the report, and might just do some good (even if it is only teaching someone a lesson in online responsibility). --Ali'i 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with a detective there and he said they'd look into it. When I told him it was probably nothing, he said that with the world like it is today, you never know so they have to check everything out. --Alabamaboy 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian caste system[edit]

I accidentally renamed the article Hindu Caste System and found out I was incorrect in believing the system was restricted to Hindus. I am unable to move it back to Indian Caste System. Little help? Chantoke 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ Arjun 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pick strong passwords![edit]

Please, for the love of god, if you have a weak password, like, say, "password", change it now! Your unwillingness to learn a more difficult password puts the site at risk to catastrophes such as what happened today with User:AndyZ. Additionally, bugzilla:9816 has been committed; if you have any suggestions for how to improve the security of the site, please make them there. Thanks! AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pick a password that is 8+ characters, combination of letters, numbers, lowercase and upercase, not in any specific order that could be found easily in a dictionary. Make a phonetic phrase out of it, sort of like "North East South West is (Never Eat Shredded Wheat". Clear cache and cookies often. Do not edit from public computers. Don't download toolbars. Run updated virus and malware scans. If you choose to have your browser remember your password, password protect your PC and have it auto-logout after a few minutes of inactivity, or require the password manager to ask for a master password upon reopening the browser (firefox has this capability). Outside of that, I can't really think of any. Most of this should be common sense though. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, include punctuation in your passwords. That adds even more security. --Cyde Weys 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't force users to do that, unless the software forces it. Humans will always prefer the cheapest alternative, so people will continue to choose "123456" as password. The software should make it harder. With some friends we solved that in a small site by adding a 1 second delay for every failed attempt per ip, however that forces the server to keep a connection open for much longer than needed (making it easier to launch DDOS attacks). You cannot autoblock, because someone with AOL ip could generate a bit of chaos. Nor you can make the information public for administrators to decide whether an attack is taking place. And don't even think about blocking the account for 24 hours, anyone could then get any account (like Jimbo's) blocked by throwing five or six passwords. Forcing users to change passwords would not work for inactive accounts, and sending a mail to the account owner is useless if the attack is effective. Captchas are not a bad solution if you don't care about usability, and sums are a joke. So, the only viable alternative is to modify the software to request a strong password. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, you know, users could be on their own for the most part. If they fail to choose a strong password, and they get owned, then I guess that's their problem. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, if an admin account gets owned, it is everyone's problem. —Centrxtalk • 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What I was saying it's the individual's responsibility. If an admin and freaking retarded enough to have something like "password" or "1234" as your password, then that person has more problems than worrying about getting hijacked. Now, if a steward or Bureaucrat had a tool to check the strength of a password before granting sysop status at the close of a RfA, then that would be sweet, but until then, it's up to the editor. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt his password was "password", we have only the usurpers word for that. I think it is more likely that the usurper changed the password to "password". If it really was "password" then it would have been guessed years ago. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Any chance we can make an essay page out of this? bibliomaniac15 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd volunteer to write one. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I started one at Wikipedia:Don't leave your fly open. It still needs some work, but I need to get to bed here soon. ReviewCASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, User:Mark logged in into AndyZ account, changed the password and removed the email. Since I doubt he cracked the account to gain access, either AndyZ's password was indeed "password", or it was something else, and the vandal cracked it and changed it to "password". -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I believe I'm going to get a password cracker running that will periodically attempt to crack all admins' passwords on enwiki. If I'm able to guess one with the cracker, I'll send an e-mail to the admin asking them to change it to something stronger and/or ask a steward to desysop the account until the password is changed. This is what is done on most public ssh servers, so I think it's perfectly legitimate to do in this case. Better that I find out a password than someone else with the intent of using the account maliciously. Of course if there are objections to my doing this, I'll be glad to listen to them, and this will hopefully become unnecessary if we can just modify MediaWiki to require users to select stronger passwords as I suggest in the bug I filed above. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm able to guess one with the cracker, I'll send an e-mail to the admin asking them to change it to something stronger. Uh-huh, I'm sure you will... -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if my intent was really to hijack admin accounts, it would not be that difficult to do, nor would it be for just about anyone to do (in fact, it's already happened twice, and this is just the tip of the iceberg). Luckily, however, this is not my intent, though surely there are those out there who just haven't gotten the idea yet. If you don't believe me, then I'm sorry, and I suggest you pick a strong password for yourself. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest something like this too. Just make sure to obtain permission from WMF to be running this on their servers first. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course I would, although I do have to note that with our current level of security, no one would be the wiser if I did that without first getting permission. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehehehe, yeah :) This is a terrible idea, that should be done only locally (as in, a dumb terminal connected to the server through LAN) by an real administrator (as in, a developer), through an automatic program without logs. And even then, it would be really questionable. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, on the CS servers for my school and on my webserver, we run password crackers frequently that automatically lock any accounts whose passwords can be guessed. There, of course, we have access to the hashes and are able to build a rainbow table to check, so it's much more efficient, but the same principle applies. My point, perhaps my WP:POINT, is that if I can guess anyone's password, so could just about anyone else, and that needs to be prevented. I'd rather I guess someone's password before someone with more malicious intent does. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of using a secure password over an unencrypted connection. The password does not need to be brute-forced, just intercepted. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That would require someone to be between you and the servers sniffing for you. If the password is simply weak, anyone in the world at any time can crack it. Obviously, having a strong password is not perfect security, but the lack of an encrypted connection does not suddenly mean we should make our passwords be three-letter dictionary words. —Centrxtalk • 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't most of this come down to "don't do really stupid things", which presumably we expect admins to know anyway? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor am I going to go through the trouble of picking a quote I like, converting it to an acronym (to give the appearance of random letters), capitalising the first letter of every sentence or some other capitalisation pattern (which gives me two character types), and adding numbers and symbols (which gives me four character types), just for some password that is going to be sent over an unencrypted connection anyway. Well, at least a partially unencrypted connection, between the TOR exit node and the Wikimedia servers, which is really just as bad as between one's computer and the Wikimedia servers except the program keeps switching exit nodes, which might be either good or bad. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There is definitely some truth to this; however, I think the probability of someone sniffing the transmission of your password is likely much lower than someone brute-forcing your "123" password. The first step, I think, is toward preventing the brute-force attack. Then we move on to the more difficult-to-accomplish attacks, such as third-party packet sniffing. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't access bugzilla from where I am. What's the bug listed? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Recommended article (sorry if it's already been linked): http://www.schneier.com/essay-148.html htom 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Has my password been cracked?[edit]

I received this notice on my watchlist page, but it did not elaborate, so I have come here for more info:

  • "Important! For your own security, please choose a secure password. See password strength or this guide for help in choosing a strong password."

Does this mean my password has been cracked? Do you try to crack the passwords on non-admins? Or is this a message just broadcast to everyone, and not specific to me or my password?--Africangenesis 07:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, see MediaWiki:Watchdetail, everybody sees that. John Reaves (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanx, I've seen some systems that run password crackers before notifications such as this.--Africangenesis 07:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issue[edit]

See [8]. Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal seems to want to latch onto any article which challenges orthodox opinion in any way, and claim it for its own. Some votestacking is in evidence. Plenty of examples of capricious inclusions are cited, but essentially anything which currently lacks an explanation seems to be fair game, which of course exploits the fact that, for example, when an overloaded plane with defective electrics vanishes, the disappearance is officially unexplained until the wreckage is found and investigated (NC16002 disappearance) Nothing terribly paranormal about a dodgy DC3 going missing, and nothing remarkable about it not being found back in 1948. That which is unexplained is very often easily explicable, although of course there is a tendency for some people to discount any mundane explanation when something more exciting is on offer. It's no coincidence that the number of unidentified flying objects has declined sharply since we got much better at identifying them... Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're just worried they'll be writing articles about the mysterious appeal of the RWD volvos next. 86.152.76.231 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this a while back at the Megalith article. This seems to be a growing problem with some Wikiprojects trying to "claim" articles. I don't really know how to explain why this is happening... but I'll stop now before someone claims this post for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal.--Isotope23 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther Martin vandalism[edit]

For the past three hours the Luther Martin article read as one of the following:

  • "he was a ho in his house maybe a slut"
  • "veggies r gay"
  • blank

We need to be more vigilant about checking up on articles such as these, and if we cannot then they need to be protected, stat. Burntsauce 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, veggies are gay. Luigi30 (Taλk) 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you meant r. --ElKevbo 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that these vegatables have homosexual relations with vegetables of the same gender? I refuse to believe that my broccoli has become subject to the homosexual agenda or recruited by deviants of the ultra-liberal intellagentsia. We must notify the Produce Majority and Focus on the Farm immediately! -Mask? 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Blame NASA! They taught your broccoli how to fuck in space, and we all know homosexuality is the next natural step from there :D. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's deceased at least, which means it isn't the end of the world as we know it (compared to, say, the controversy surrounding Simbad and Kenneth Lay). BLP is already bad enough with some 160,000 articles – covering deceased invidiuals would be even more nightmarish, I imagine. Are you suggesint semiprotection on all biographies? hbdragon88 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if he's dead, there are still standards to adhere to. For instance, I corrected "he was a ho in his house maybe a slut" to "He was a sex worker in his house. He may also have been a slut". Herostratus 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. That's "Some critics say he was a sex worker in his house, while supporters assert he may have been a slut." - Nunh-huh 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Avoid weasel words and cite sources: "Thomas Jefferson said he was a sex worker in his house,[1] while Samuel Chase asserted he may have been a slut."[2] Phony Saint 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not believe a blue superscript "1" qualifies as a reliable source. hbdragon88 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh relax, we're having a bit of fun because they've blown this out of proportion. It didnt need a noticeboard post. Just revert and move on. Besides, if we didn't poke fun at it, you'd have a bunch of people asking for these 5 minutes of their lives back after reading a somewhat pointless AN thread. Pick one :) -Mask? 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I misread the article title as Martin Luther which added a whole new dimension.The champion of mediaeval church reform being 'a slut'??Well they didn't mention that in religious history... Lemon martini 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Namespace[edit]

There is discussion at this page about the goal and scope of the HELP namespace. Should it contain technical help? Or any kind of how-to? Or something in between? I was wondering if some of the oldbies around here know of any discussion on the topic when the namespace was first created? >Radiant< 08:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Willy on wheels[edit]

User:Lungszeague moves pages. – Alensha talk 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that administrators and other prominent users should move-protect their userpages and talkpages. There is no reason that these pages would ever be moved (unless the user actually changed his or her username), except for pagemove vandalism. Newyorkbrad 14:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Mine is protected in Hungarian WP. It would make sense if user pages couldn't be moved. – Alensha talk 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Did mine as well, and we should probably move-protect pages of users that are subject to it too. There's really no legitimate reason for anyone to move a userpage except a crat changing a name, and they can override the protection anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam[edit]

Anons constantly and without stopping keep adding commercial links to Brač... I've requested semi-protection but my request was denied (as per not jeopardized). --PaxEquilibrium 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dax Flame[edit]

While doing a search on this name, I came across this user account. I've already removed the link to the YouTube blog, but I left the personal information. WP:CHILD is unclear as to whether or not the information should be removed, so I've decided to leave it up to an administrator. It's also unclear if this is the "real" Dax Flame (I won't even get into whether or not that's a real personality) or if it's a hoax account, but there are no substantial contributions from this user. M (talk contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Block - if it is him, he'll receive a lot of abuse. If it isn't him, it'd be someone impersonating an internet celebrity. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

@wikimedia.org e-mail addresses for admins[edit]

A possible security measure for admin accounts is to only allow @wikimedia.org, or @wikipedia.org e-mails to be registered for admins. So if someone cracks the account, they won't be able to change the e-mail to something that fits their need. Of course, someone would have to give out the @wikimedia.org e-mails, I don't know who to talk to about that. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an option could be added to the preferences to "Disable e-mail password change". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Except they can crack the email account if it has the same password as the user account, which, though not a smart thing to do, is likely to happen. Prodego talk 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd be shocked how many people use the same password for everything. In any case though, I do think the suggestion to disable e-mail change is a good one--such that your e-mail can only be changed if you confirm an e-mail sent to your previous account. Naturally this provides only very minimal security, though, and most established users will have no problem proving their identity to the devs to recover their account. I have always been curious about the @wikimedia.org e-mail addresses; I believe in order to get one you have to be somehow involved in foundation-level activities (i.e., member of the COMCOM or of the board, etc.), and I have no idea who to talk to to even ask for one. It would seem wise for, for instance, OTRS and unblock-en-l volunteers to be offered one, as well as perhaps all admins. The only problem there is that the e-mail address shows affiliation with the foundation, which I believe is what they want to avoid. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A better way would be to make sure that you make a throaway email account or something, one that nobody knows. Making it a @wikimedia.org address would make it at least somewhat more obvious which email account to crack – i.e. I'd imagine that AmiDaniel would be AmiDaniel at wikimedia dot org. hbdragon88 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but then you couldn't check to see if osmeone had been fiddling around lately. If it's supported, forward email from that throwaway to your main one. I use Yahoo Mail Plus and have AddressGuard, which allows me to create throwaways that will always be deposited into my main mailbox. hbdragon88 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that admins could have a @wikimedia e-mail account. To my best knowledge nearly none of them do. >Radiant< 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
They're not as far as I know, I was suggesting offering the option. John Reaves (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with using the wikipedia mail. I agree with using throwaway accounts, or at least non-wikipedia accounts like yahoo.com. That is much more secure, and just as easy for an individual to set up for themselves. And it is a much better and easier way to be secure, since password reminders can always go there. --Sm8900 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New namespace[edit]

The developers have recently created a new namespace Table: (Special:Prefixindex/Table: Special:Prefixindex/Table talk:), apparently to implement step 1 of this proposal. This is just a for-everyone's-information post. --ais523 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be helpful. Here's our first table: Table:Climate in Middle East cities, this was split out of the main article into a separate page, to clean-up the markup in the main article. It's really not an article, but meant to be a table. New namespace is perfect for it. --Aude (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed, problem was that somebody put it down as {{:Table:Climate in Middle East cities}} rather than {{Table:Climate in Middle East cities}} on the Middle East page. --tjstrf talk 22:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist please[edit]

I just reverted an anon's addition on Mario Batali claiming that he had died; it was up for about two hours before I randomly stumbled into it - hopefully it won't turn into another Sinbad or Dave Grohl. The anon also tried to off Robert Iler, but was reverted there as well. This doesn't appear to be a recurring thing, but could folks pop these on their watchlists, just in case? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If in doubt, delete the bad revision. I did that for a couple of article with Sinbad copycat crap. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite news template[edit]

Can someone please check Template:Cite news? I think that the latest change, while well-intentioned, has screwed up a huge number of citations and editing is fully protected. Please see the bottom of Template talk:Cite news for more details. GabrielF 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I see, removing italics does not "break" the template in a way that makes it completely unusable. I guess it is better to contact the users who discussed the change and tell them about the issue, but it is not as, if suddenly, all citations disappeared or have been broken. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Child issue[edit]

A 12 year old User:Ahoskinson_95 has posted his email addresses on a main page article AJ_Hoskinson-Delay that he has created about himself as a user page with a redirect from namespace. I started to try to fix things with a speedy and by moving his messages to namespace before realizing the email and age issue and that problem was beyond me.--Slp1 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied the article under A7, so the information has been hidden from regular users. I'll try to get the affected revisions oversighted. Sean William 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy work!--Slp1 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if somebody could give this kid a clue. All of his edits are vanity or copyvio. I've deleted all of his images and listed Sherry Hoskinson at AfD. Chick Bowen 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong[edit]

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

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Shatt al-Arab[edit]

Requested move:

I take the unusual step of listing this move request here (in addition to the normal listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves) in an attempt to get as many experienced editors involved as possible, in the hope of avoiding the problems of the previous move request (which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007).

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive81#Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab.

I believe the issue to be a simple, straight-forward case of reflecting the common English usage clearly exemplified by the examples of usage. I encourage (ok, beg :-) everyone to take at least a quick look at the issue.

Best regards, Ev 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're cross-posting this same partisan message on multiple talk pages "begging" other Wikipedians to support your position in a dispute. If you're simply looking for neutral feedback, you should be stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about, and not try to sway people's opinion by a partisan message advocating your position. --Mardavich 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I only informed about the move request in three different forums:
  1. Wikipedia:Requested moves (diff.)
  2. Here, at this Administrators' noticeboard.
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab (diff.)
Those three forums are "neutral", and my intention in posting there was just trying to get other neutral editors involved in the discussion. I hope that a wider participation will allow us to archieve a clear consensus one way or the other.
In my message I made my position on the issue very clear, but I only begged people to "take a look at the issue", not to share my opinion or to support my view on it.
Of course, if the administrators decide here that those messages constitute canvassing, I will reduce them to a simpler announcement. - Best regards, Ev 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on this move request. - Ev 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Once more, I encourage everyone to take a look at this move request and give his/her opinion on the issue. - Ev 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, I remember everyone that comments at this move request will be most welcome :-) Ev 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop advertising the move request. People will do so on their own accord. —210physicq (c) 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, stopped :-) I'm sorry if my previous posts looked somewhat "pushy". - Best regards, Ev 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ev is being very disruptive by constantly filling the discussion page with his pervasive and often annoying commentary, and he feels the need to respond to every little comment that anyone makes that doesn't conform to his POV, and his POV is very obvious here. I suggest to admins to tell this guy to tone it down and stop disrupting the discussion and allow people to comment without this one person constantly intruding and disrupting the flow of discussion. Ev is very, very motivated, and he should probably step away from the discussion since he has already made more than enough commentary. Its enough already. His behaviour is totally disruptive. Khorshid 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Khorshid, it sounds like you've made your mind up about Ev, especially by the "annoying" comment. Doesn't sound much like you have a neutral POV either. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed[edit]

Administrator Alex Bakharev has closed the discussion as "no consensus" (i.e. keep at "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab"). I have asked him to reconsider that decision, since I do believe that a clear consensus has been reached in favour of moving the article to "Shatt al-Arab".

Yes, the raw numbers show 14 users wanting to keep the article name as "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" (with 6 of them even contemplating using "Arvandrud" for the title), and only 8 users wanting to change the article's title to "Shatt al-Arab".

But all the arguments expounded to mantain the name "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or use "Arvandrud" (and I do mean all, without a single exception) disregard or blatantly contradict our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines (see details in my message to Alex Bakharev).

On the other hand, all arguments given to change the name to "Shatt al-Arab" reflect our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines (which ask us to simply reflect common English usage, which in this case clearly is "Shatt al-Arab").

So, in the end, the discussion has not been about how our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines apply to this article, but about whether they should apply or not. About whether the article should be named in accordance to policy or following the personal wishes of Iranian editors.

  • If the discussion was a vote on whether or not to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result is a clear lack of consensus for the application: 14 editors voted to disregard policy, and only 8 editors voted to follow policy.
  • If the discussion was about how to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result was a clear, unanimous consensus for "Shatt al-Arab".

So, for the issue of naming articles, how relevant is our naming convention policy and its associated guidelines ? As far as move requests are concerned, can consensus be defined as a majority of editors supporting one name, even for reasons that blatantly contradict our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines ? Or is consensus a general agreement among editors on how our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines apply to a specific article ?

I believe it's the latter, but, of course, I could be wrong; in which case I would like to be corrected.

Comments by other administrators will be very much appreciated. - Best regards, Ev 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See also: #At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?. -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: discussion is taking place below, in the #At what point do guidelines trump straw polling? section. - Ev 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Alex Bakharev, while maintaining his original evaluation of the discussion, has agreed to have his decision reviewed by another administrator. - Best regards, Ev 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New opinions on this unsolved issue will be most welcomed at the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?[edit]

In regards to the (latest) move request at Talk:Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab: at what point will we adhere to our naming conventions, instead of being tied to the outcome of a straw poll? Evidence that Shatt al-Arab is the most common name for "the waterway" was provided up the wazoo. The WP:NCON table. Google search. Google Scholar search. Google Print search. A look at The New York Times. A look at the The Guardian. On and on and on. Shatt al-Arab unequivocally came out front. And yet... the article still remains because the straw poll advocated the current name due to historic reasons (is that one of our naming guidelines?) and because the names are transliterations of foreign terms (hmm...). No counter-evidence to the "common name" principle provided. If this can conclusively be solved for Sea of Japan and Persian Gulf and other bodies of water (and landforms, even) with contested names, why must we resort to bean-counting here? At what point do guidelines trump straw polling? -- tariqabjotu 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See also the "Requested move to Shatt al-Arab" section above. - Ev 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since both sides appear to make credible arguments that their version follows the conventions in one way or another, that's not going to get sorted here. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but where exactly do you see such an argument on the "Arvandrud" side? Fut.Perf. ¤ 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know where I would put it, having never heard of Arvandrud before. Is anyone claiming that the name Arvandrud is used in English sources anything like as much as Shatt al-Arab?

Are there any other disputed articles under slashed titles? This is Danzig/Gdansk all over again. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, while I'd personally object to the slashed solution for Shatt al-Arab, I'm myself partly responsible for a superficially similar slashed solution at Imia/Kardak, the only other such case I know. The difference is that at Imia/Kardak (a tiny islet disputed between Greece and Turkey) nobody has ever proposed an argument that either of the two names is more common; all discussion that has ever taken place on that article was in terms of if and how the naming would imply endorsement of the one or other side's sovereignty claims. In this case, I doubt there really is any "common name" in English at all, because nobody ever talks about that islet in English outside of the context of the sovereignty dispute, and then it's typically referred to with both names. Fut.Perf. ¤ 12:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions are just that, conventions; they're described in guidelines, and are provided to establish a 'baseline' so we have generally consistent names across Wikipedia and don't have to hash out every little word. They can be ignored, though, if there's some compelling reason to do so in a specific case... the guidelines couldn't possibly foresee every little issue that might arise with regards to naming. --Aquillion 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true in principle, but the whole point about the Shatt al-Arab case is that there is no such compelling reason. The only argument for "Arvandrud" is "we like it better, we want our name, and we have the numerical power to push it through one poll after another." Nothing else has ever been brought forward. Fut.Perf. 08:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an oversimplification of the situation, and a veiled attack against many editors. There are several compelling reasons, all of which have been outlined in the article's discussion page. For starters, neither Arvand Rud or Shatt al-Arab are English names, both are local names which are used in English to varying degrees. WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.". --Mardavich 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have listed and commented all arguments made for using "Arvandrud" (including the two Mardavich mentions above) in my message to Alex Bakharev. Not a single one reflects our current naming conventions policy, its associated guidelines & what I understand to be common Wikipedia practice. - Ev 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it; but this is a content dispute, many people disagree with your rational and interpretation of guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I respect your obvious commitment to your POV, but there obviously is no consensus on this issue. --Mardavich 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no disagreement about how to interpret the guidelines, but about whether Wikipedia policy & guidelines should apply to the article or not.
Let's remember that the naming conventions policy states that "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." That is policy. And it has been cleary demostrated that what English speakers would most easily recognize is "Shatt al-Arab."
Finally, I'm commited to the POV that article's titles should follow our current naming conventions policy & its associated guidelines. I'm also commited to the POV of justice & equality: if the article on the Shatt al-Arab is exempted from following policy, then so should all other articles, allowing Arab editors to have "Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf", Albanian editors to have "Kosova/Kosovo", Polish editors to have "River Oder/Odra", Argentinian editors to have "Falkland Islands/Malvinas", Korean edtors to have "East Sea/Sea of Japan", etc, etc, etc... - Best regards, Ev 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You're making many false analogies there. Sea of Japan etc...are English names of international bodies of water, they're English names well established in English language, that's not the case with our dispute which deals with a local body of water with two local names, under the sovereignty of two countries with naming rights to it under the United Nations' decree. Different circumstances require different approaches. And you are indeed interpreting the guidelines, let's remember that the WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed" which applies to this case because the editors have clearly been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name, as is evident by this very discussion.--Mardavich 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations for Mardavich for spotting a weakness on WP:NC! But that refers to a few exceptions; it is not a general license to ignore the rest of the policy. There may well be no English usage of Imia or Kardak; but there is enormous and uniform English use of Shatt al-Arab. (In addition to its other problems, Arvand is itself ambiguous; it means the Tigris, or even the Orontes, as well as the estuary. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Slashed names are a bad idea from another point of view - the second item in the slash is being interpreted by the software as a subpage of the first item. Thus we actually have a page called Shatt al-Arab as a subpage of Arvandrud. Not optimal. -- ChrisO 00:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Pmanderson, that is a part of the same policy you are invoking to support your position, we can't pick and choose what parts of the policy to follow and what to ignore. Amazingly, you just unilaterally edited WP:NC and changed the policy all by yourself to suit your position, which proves how the policies are subjective, and can be interpreted and changed in the middle of a content dispute to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold. --Mardavich 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Um... this is not about continuing the discussion regarding the move request; do that on the talk page. This is about when it is okay to usurp straw poll results in favor of following guidelines. In this case, we have one side (Shatt al-Arab) pointing to WP:NC(CN). There is another side (Arvandrud) saying that Iranians came up with a name first (with no policy suggesting this means anything in naming articles). There is yet another side (Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab) with the "we can't decide" mantra mentioned above. That last side is misinterpreting that line of the guideline. The idea is that if Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are not sufficient in breaking the stalemate (which is so far not the case here), just keep things as they are. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by voting for the status quo simply because you think a decision cannot be made based on guidelines and policies (and I repeat, based on guidelines and policies). -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're interpreting the guidelines based on your reading of it, there is nothing there about "breaking the stalemate" or such, the guideline clearly says "when editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus..." which is clearly the case here. --Mardavich 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
<- (removing indent) I'll respond to you on your talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
“For starters, neither Arvand Rud or Shatt al-Arab are English names, both are local names which are used in English to varying degrees.” LOL!! We certainly must award Mardavich the award for “Understatement of the Year”! His “varying degrees” are quite extreme, to say the least: As has been amply illustrated in the course of the debate on the article talk page, “Shatt al-Arab” is the name used among English-speakers almost exclusively, while “Arvand River” or “Arvandrud” is occasionally added as a parenthetical note to identify the name the Iranians give to the waterway. “Shatt al-Arab” is the name taught in American, British and Commonwealth schools; it essentially is the English-language name for it – English has a long history of adopting foreign names for its own use. The English-speaking world adopted “Shatt al-Arab” as the name it uses for the river, just as it adopted “Persian Gulf” for the body of water it empties into.
Wikipedia’s WP:NC policy directs editors considering proper names to use for place to refer to WP:PLACES and WP:NCGN. WP:PLACES states, “Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.” WP:NCGN states quite clearly in its very first point, “The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always.” (Emphasis in the original.)
Unfortunately, we have here an attempt to use a straw poll – an essay – as a means to end-run policy to push a POV. Straw polls do not “trump” policies; as WP:Straw poll points out, “A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.”
Tariqabjotu raises a valid issue, however, WP:AN is probably not the right forum to address this. In fact, we should really take the issue back to the article’s talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's simply not true. To say that “Shatt al-Arab is the name used among English-speakers almost exclusively" is an exaggeration and of course, not true. "Arvand River", which is one of the English varieties of Arvand Rud, generates 36,500 google hits by itself. Anyways, I accepted your new compromise proposal on the article’s talk page, lets continue the discussion there. --Mardavich 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That search uses raw www.google.com, and includes Wikipedia and its mirrors - another self-fulfilling prophecy. Several of the guidelines involved warn against raw google searches for this reason; there are also other reasons. This is also a classic example of WP:BIGNUMBER; "Shatt al-Arab" gets 288,000 hits in the equivalent search. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The test's are Stochastic ! I still think the tests does not show the "English usage": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to show one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only stochastic and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy! When both words are not English , then how can someone determine which one is more prevalent in English ?! --Alborz Fallah 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried finding mention of Arvandrud and its various different spellings on US and British government websites and there was little if any evidence that the Farsi name is commonly used, while Shatt al-Arab turned up lots of results. Someone else did the same for the New York Times and the London Times and came to the same conclusion. This is not about Google hits, but the official useage of names for the waterway in the English speaking world and Arvandrud is simply not used. Alborz Fallah is trying to focus on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. It is true that Google tests on their own are not enough, but this evidence is confirmed by other sources. As for Shatt al-Arab not being English, I would argue that it has been adopted as the name for the waterway by English speakers and is therefore the proper English name (another example is the use of the French name Nuremburg for the German city Nurnberg - Nuremburg has never been French, but the French name has been adopted by the English in the same way as the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab has been adopted by the English).--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the conclusion here? Could admins advise on the following points? 1. Is it OK to have slashed title? 2. Do Wikipedia rules over-rule majority votes on a talk page? 3. Is the title Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab in breach of Wikipedia rules? The buck must stop with someone here. Does anyone have answers? Or should this debate continue ad nauseum?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by User:Pmanderson, a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands which is the case here - so the issue is not as clear-cut as some of the proponents here pretend. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English, especially when the name is not English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Wikipedia should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature, Madras generates 17 times more results than Chennai in google books and other major publications that are used to determine common usage according to the guidelines. The fact that books.google.com overwhelmingly favors Madras over Chennai or Danzig over Gdansk, proves how unreliable the criteria prescribed in these guidelines is. So as another another administrator pointed out, the guidelines couldn't possibly foresee every little issue that might arise with regards to naming. --Mardavich 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have heard your opinion. I want the opinion of an admin on the three questions I have listed above (which you have not actually answered, but have chosen to repeat statements you made before). This is, after all, the reason why the topic was raised here - to get an admin's opinion on the rules and guidelines, not to enforce an editorial judgement.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I did answer your question, guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense. --Mardavich 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be suggesting that the guidelines/rules should be dropped whenever a straw poll contradicts them. I'd like an admin's opinion on this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (and would be a very lousy one :-) but, to get the ball rolling...
1. It is not OK to have a slashed title when it's not what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, because it's confussing, it doesn't make linking to those articles easy and second nature (WP:NC), and it is misread by the software as "Page/Subpage" (ChrisO above).
2. Wikipedia policies and its associated guidelines do over-rule majority votes for arguments that contradict or fully disregard the said policies & guidelines. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
3. The title "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" is in breach of the naming conventions policy and the associated guidelines on commomn names, geographic names & using English. Not to mention common Wikipedia practice and the primary rule for naming rivers with multiple names suggested by the WikiProject Rivers.
Best regards, Ev 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it that admins don't have an answer to my straight-forward questions on policy, which I posted here two days ago.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite what some people appear to think, Admins don't interpret or create policy -- except as far as any Wikipedian can do so. As someone noted above, this really isn't the place to ask for clarification of policy about content -- except where it involves questionable behavior. I could offer you my opinion on these questions as Just Another Wikipedian, but I doubt that it will help resolve this matter. I'd encourage you to find another forum to solicit input about this matter. -- llywrch 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:CommonsDelinker[edit]

Hi, User:CommonsDelinker was blocked indefinately earlier[9] by User:Matt Crypto. I wrote an advice for unblocking on his talk page[10], but from his edits I see that he may not appear for another 10-36 hours on the wiki. Siebrand 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI this was because CommonsDelinker, a bot that delinks to images on Commons under certain circumstances, made a mistake at Cryptography and ended up replacing one commons image with another commons image, only that image name actually existed on :en, and the file there was not similar (i've since repaired the file problem; the image that was inserted was Image:Enigma_(Diablo_II).jpg, as opposed to Image:Enigma.jpg). I would unblock, but Siebrand's response was that the bot checks for that and he doesn't know what went wrong, and I just get nervous about unblocking a buggy bot when the bug hasn't been found. Other opinions? Mangojuicetalk 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
When I looked, it seemed that the "old" image had been flagged on Commons as a duplicated version of the "new" image: what actually did the bot do that was wrong? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What it did wrong was not skip the replace because there was a file with the same name here on en.wp. It replaced the image anyway and thus a handful of articles ended up with an incorrect image. Siebrand 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I probably confused you by fixing it. The bot replaced en:Image:Nsa-enigma.jpg (a commons image) with en:Image:Enigma.jpg, which at the time contained the image now at en:Image:Enigma_(Diablo_II).jpg. Matt_crypto reverted the change. I later re-uploaded the image formerly at en:Image:Enigma.jpg to its new location and deleted the old one (a bit rouge, I suppose, but the file history there showed a history of some confusion over that title, and I didn't think anyone would mind). Mangojuicetalk 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only assume that CheckUsage delivered incorrent information. The bot needs work, but so far my inquiries for cooperation from an experienced Python/Pywikipediabot programmer has remained unanswered. Anyway, it's your wiki and CommonsDelinker is providing a service (with its occasional fault, obviously) that you choose to allow or deny. My intention was to make you aware of the block so that a possibly more informed decision could be made. Cheers! Siebrand 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally unwilling to unblock the bot without assurances that the bug has been fixed, but I'm quite happy to be overruled if other admins believe the benefits to outweigh the risk. — Matt Crypto 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, there are definitely a lot more ways that the benefits outweigh the risks. This is only one problem and and the bot does a lot of good things for the project. Blocking it indefinitely for a small reason such as this is not a very good course of action in my opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely the benefits outweigh the risk. The bot is quite useful in saving a number of individuals a lot of time, in superseding images that are being replaced. bastique 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think the benifits don't outweight the risk you are free to try manualy orphaning images deleted from commons.Geni 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I could tell you that you are equally free to manually check the bot's edits to make sure it doesn't break any more articles, but I don't really see the need for a bad-tempered exchange over this. *grin* If we generally think CommonsDelinker's hiccup is a minor problem, then fine, let's unblock it. But our policy is that "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation if they are...messing up articles", and I personally think that caution is a wise approach with bot malfunctions. — Matt Crypto 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If a bot does a useful function, it is inevitable that it will make the occasional mistake. Where the mistake appears to be a one off, and where the benefit clearly outweighs the risk, then a friendly note to the operator should explain why the issue occured. Does CheckUage use toolserver data? In which case, that would probably explain some of the problem. Of course, if a bot is making a page unusable, or is repeatedly abusing a single page, or group of pages, then there is absolutely no reason not to block, and doing so is in fact encouraged (obviously at admin discretion). Martinp23 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is, I doubt it queries the English Wikipedia for every picture. The problem is, I don't see how the replication lag (to those who don't know: the toolserver English Wikipedia data is lagging behind by over a month) could've affected made this happen, then again, I don't know if the picture (under it's old name, Image:Enigma.jpg) uploaded recently (was it?). By the way, I am, of course, all for the unblocking of CommonsDelinker since if this happens once in a *very very* long while and is caught by someone and there are no red links, it's better than if there are many many red links and this doesn't ever happen. Yonatan talk 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any warning when one attempts to locally upload an image with the same title as a commons image. If not, there should be. — CharlotteWebb 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such warning as far as I know, and yes, there should be a warning (or even better, block the upload, because we should enforce free content, either upload to another name, or use the free alternative). Commons names are usually much better than Wikipedia images. By the way, I agree that the bot should be unblocked, unless someone begins unlinking the images until the bot is fixed. -- ReyBrujo 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think that's enough input. I've unblocked the bot, this seems to have been an isolated glitch. If the problem recurs, maybe we should be more cautious next time. Mangojuicetalk 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't let you upload an image with the same name:
Upload warning
A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name.
However, this does not happen when the local upload is done first. --NE2 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That is cool. We need a bot in every Wikipedia adding a special tag, say {{shadow}}, to warn that the current image, uploaded locally, is shadowing a file in Wikimedia Commons. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Although this thread is now moving a bit from it's original topic, you do have an important point. Although there is a huge replication lag, there is some insight in so called 'Commons Clash' images. There's even a tool that will help you in determining all the images that are candidates for speedy deletion or renaming, called CommonsClash. I have added some links on Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons#Tools a few weeks ago. Backlogs were about 32.000 images mid April. If you think you need a project related to images, this might be the project for you :-). Siebrand 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cfd binding?[edit]

This Cfd resulted in a delete (even if not a very strong one). Apparently, the creator of those categories now understands that as a license to just rename the affected categories. Is that an acceptable way to proceed in such a case? --Latebird 06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No. I'll drop him a note. >Radiant< 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Still trying to clarify fair-use rationales - please comment/edit[edit]

I have created a page in my userspace at User:ESkog/Rationales, which I plan to use in edit summaries, attempting to clarify the proper use of fair-use rationales, which seems to confuse many users. Please feel free to edit, and add to the "good examples" sections. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


http://commons.wikimedia.org/[edit]

Whare do I find this page in http://commons.wikimedia.org

--Jessicamegansmith 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Is that what you meant? howcheng {chat} 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

The owners of http://www.celebritythegame.com claim ownership of the name "Celebrity" as a game, and are publishers of a packaged version. In as much as I can find any sources provably about the game they mainly discuss the rules (as if it were a long-standing parlour game) and do not mention this publisher. I don't mind linking to the publisher, but I can't see how the claim of ownership holds up. More importantly, I am having real trouble finding non-trivial sources about it, I can't prove or disprove the claim of ownership, and the article clearly violates WP:NOT a howto or game guide - it is a set of rules for a game, not a discussion of the game. I can't find any significant discussion of the game, only rules. The OTRS complainant will, I think, be unhappy about the rules being on Wikipedia (hard to sell what's free for download) but that may be irrelevant. I honestly have no idea what to do for the best here. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All (Free/GFDL) Images Need to Be Transferred to Commons[edit]

How do I start a vote/movement in order to move all images to Commons? This requires that any images uploaded must have the person sign up for an account at commons. Any support/criticism is well respected. Real96 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons does not accept fair use imagery. Also, why would we want to push our users to upload their free imagery to a failed project? Matthew 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Awful idea. No fair use images. Unless you want to modify the very nature of commons. The Evil Spartan 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A "failed project"? You cannot reject reality and substitute your own. --Cyde Weys 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) This means, free images...(i.e. GFDL images). Not, non-free images. Real96 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Matt, 1.) Reduce server overloads on Wikipedia 2.) Reduce image backlogs on Wikipedia 3.) Have images easily to search with Tango's Mayflower, etc.Real96 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just can't consider it feasible. I truly consider commons a failed project, primarily because I believe it's run badly and secondly because the foundation is incapable of making a clear statement on copyright, so we could end up having a ton of images deleted from commons.... that would end up having to be uploaded back here. Matthew 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons has way over 1M images. I wasn't aware that was a typical failure criterion. But then I'm biased, I think Commons is swell. On the other hand I don't think we want to push ALL images there, only the ones that have free licenses and clear provenance information. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons will not, under any circumstances, accept fair-use images. That's Foundation-level policy, so you'd have to talk to them about changing that. In terms of free images, well, if you see one that needs moving, move it! Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(1) You realise it's the same set of servers? (2) Moving the backlogs elsewhere doesn't actually fix them. --