Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 06:21, 9 September 2007 (→My Observations: welcome back). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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


    Current issues

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren opened

    An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

    (Empty comment for archiving reasons) Fram 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BetacommandBot

    Can anyone see a reason that BetacommandBot tagged Image:Eden logo.gif‎? It states what article it's fair use in, has a logo fair use raitonale, proper licensing, a source, etc.. — Moe ε 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you ask the bot owner? --ElKevbo 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It did the same thing to Image:CrystalTokyo.jpg. Everything seems exactly right. --Masamage ♫ 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot did this to a lot of images... it was blocked and now is turned off. Maybe he'll fix it before it runs again? --W.marsh 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably because neither of you used the word "rationale" in the section title or something silly like that. You just wrote "Fair use for ...", not "Fair use rationale for ...". Jackaranga 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this too. Just yesterday, Betacommand tagged an image I uploaded. It had a fair use rationale, but it just didn't use the template. I was wondering what was up, but clearly it's something, and it wasn't just me. Does it tag every image not using the fair use template? Those are the only ones with which I've had a problem.  hmwith  talk 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the tags from yesterday have been reverted. there was an error. βcommand 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who approved this task? This seems like something a bot is blatantly incapable of performing in a non-disastrous way. --W.marsh 03:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Im scrambling around at the moment, Ive got discussions on at least 3 pages, As soon as a complaint as raised I shut the bot off, less than 2 minutes after it was posted. Im trying to figure out what broke, Ill report more when I figure out what happened. (sorry for the problems)βcommand 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this Bot is a steady target of complaints, & Betacommand is making a good faith effort to respond to these complaints, why not centralize all comments or complaints at the Bot's talk page? Or simplify these matters at one page everyone can agree on? -- llywrch 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed by edit to temporarily suspend I6 over this. Beyond the apparent bot malfunction there has been some serious discussion about whether a written rationale should be required and whether it is appropriate to speedily delete legacy images for lack of rationale, given that the prior arguments that the Wikimedia Foundation was requiring us to do that turned out to be untrue. Further, as I've pointed out for some time but never made a formal case for because we seemed to have an informal truce on the matter, the bot is not approved to be doing this kind of tagging. The logical place for the conversation would be had at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Wikidemo 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, good luck. As I recall the foundation even said they never intended to require a specific rational for stuff like album covers, where it would always be the same rationale anyway... but people chose to keep the image hoops firmly in place. --W.marsh 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I6 should not be suspended as the bot has been reverted. βcommand 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jebus, marsh, considering the massive amounts of edits BCB does, I'm betting it has a much lower error rate than most bots on Wikipedia. This little incident is nothing. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why is there a daily thread about it here? I ran a bot that made 30,000+ edits and it never got mentioned on AN or AN/I once. I realize people love the fact that this bot helps delete fair use images, but that doesn't mean people can't report errors or ask questions about it. No one ever answered my question, by the way. --W.marsh 12:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that any CDS should be suspended due to being mis-placed on a page. If any admin, before deleting an I6 image, makes sure that it is, in fact, I6 deletable, then we shouldn't run into problems. Od Mishehu 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This may be a stupid question, but since when did we allow bots to make hundreds of edits per minute? --- RockMFR 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since developers intervened in the CydeBot situation. (See Cydebot Block from WP:BOWN archives.) As long as the bot checks maxlag and has a bot flag (to avoid recent changes flooding), it should be fine. GracenotesT § 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5. Elapsed time from request to approval was 5 hours; we've had a lot more, and more mixed WP:AN and WP:ANI commentary since the approval than is logged there. GRBerry 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked again

    This does not belong in articles.

    I'm a programmer too and I understand quite clealy that no software can be bug-free, but the amount of problems with this bot is ridiculous. I blocked it for messing up galleries and using self-referential images for templates intended for mainspace. MaxSem 17:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    you know, letting me know there is a problem would have been enough. per WP:NFCC non-free images can only be used in the mainspace. removing it from the template is 100% correct. as for the galleries I was un aware of that. please unblock and TALK instead of BLOCK. βcommand 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think BC is right about template not using FU images, even if they are only meant for the article space. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But a template is meant to be transcluded into the main space. What's the difference, in terms of fair use rights, if an image gets onto a page via a template versus via directly inserting it or subst-ing the template? To us, it's a technical difference, but to the outside world (i.e. attorneys who get paid $300/hour), they wouldn't know or care how the images are getting onto pages. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    our policy clearly states that Non-free content can only be used in the mainspace. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to look this up, and you're right -- per Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#Fair_use_images_in_non-userbox_templates, fair use images aren't allowed in templates at all, because someone could transclude a template onto a user page or somewhere else where the fair use image shouldn't be allowed. The More You Know... --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see WP:NFCC#9 βcommand 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    By the same token, why can't the bot just let people know there is a problem with something in their userspace and let them fix it? A gentle notification will be received better than a robotic edit that messes up pages, just like a note that the bot is misbehaving would be received better than a block of the bot. --W.marsh 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    W.marsh, that has been tried with very little success, as it stands BCBot is reverted a lot anyway even when I show the user the policy and I then remove, the user just adds it back. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beta, the issue was not removing it from the template, the issue was that the bot added a self-referential image to replace it - which is a Bad Thing. Could you please program the bot so that when it removes fair use images from templates, it actually removes them, as opposed to replacing them with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? Picaroon (t) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    not a problem ill do that. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a technical fix: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||This is only shown in mainspace.}}? (No, I'm not seriously proposing this as a solution to the issue at hand, but the possibilities certainly are intriguing....) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will help BCBot and the others who do the removals to not only answer questions but fix whatever else might happens. I am also going to remove some instances from the articles right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocked

    Since this issue is under discussion here I've unblocked the bot. Chick Bowen 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like some people experienced in local copyright laws, both here and on commons, to look through this article, everything in this template and related images for non-free content violations and possible copyvios such as this one. It's a lot, and I neither have the time nor the knowledge of the various copyright laws concerned. MER-C 11:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed many flags on the commons are tagged as PD-Self also, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.", which is absolutely incorrect, as the flag either is in the public domain already or it is not. Making a verbatim copy of it doesn't make the author the copyright holder. It seems though to be a case of "don't ask don't tell". Jackaranga 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That article probably should not exist. Not only does it use non-free content in an excessive way, but it makes out to be more of a picture book than an encyclopedic article. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    encyclopedia can and should contain pages of illustrations--even paper encyclopedias have done so ever since the capability became available. Th only relevant question is copyright. DGG (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have convinced me that it has encyclopedic value, though I would like to see some more text content to go with it. I agree that copyright is an issue, but so are our own non-free content requirements such as WP:NFCC#3a which says we should use as few non-free images as possible. I suppose though it could be argued that due to the subject of the article they are all needed. I am not sure. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Encouraging edit-wars

    User Rjecina started Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board and now he encourages croat users to join and help each other in edit wars. See [1], [2]. Paulcicero 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be nipped in the bud. It's a sad fact that national "notice boards" have been used for organised POV pushing in many other cases, but we shouldn't stand by watching how yet another such monster gets organised. Somebody should very clearly tell this user they and their addressees will incur long blocks if they continue with votestacking practices like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The line between certain WikiProjects/"Noticeboards" and organized POV-pushing has often been blurry, but this is clearly well over that line. MastCell Talk 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the editor should be pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia where the editor does not appear to be a participant. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [50px-W] lacks alt text, affects all disambiguation pages

    This graphic is missing an alt text. Affects all disambiguation pages. 

    $ w3m -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free |head
Jump to: navigation, search
[50px-W]
Look up Free in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

    Jidanni 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me, but where are you getting this from?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You seem to be referring to the Wiktionary logo image in {{Wiktionary}}. However, that image does have an alt="" attribute, which should hide it from non-graphical browsers. If this does not work in w3m, I'd suggest that's their bug, not ours. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the user is referring not to the Wiktionary logo, but to Image:Disambig gray.svg (thus "all disambiguation pages are affected"). The source code has an empty alt tag for that image (in addition to the wiktionary logo). I do not believe this is w3m's fault because it shows up in our source code. If this was my personal site, this would be an easy fix, but since I don't know the process of editing the source here (contact the developers?), I can't be of much more help. Whatever the fix, I'd be curious to see the process and results so I can enhance my knowledge. -Andrew c [talk] 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, the code is 

     <span><a href="/wiki/Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png" class= "image"
 title="Wiktionary-logo-en.png"><img alt="" src=
 "/media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Wiktionary-logo-en.png/50px-Wiktionary-logo-en.png"
 width="50" height="54" border="0" /></a></span>

    and I'll ask a w3m person take a look. (<span> wasted). Jidanni 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually - he asked me - I maintain lynx. Lynx does not show the "50px-" (it shows an unnamed link, e.g., "[LINK]") which can be suppressed Tedickey 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal on the loose

    Recently a vandal named "Darth Vader is your father" recently has created sock puppets. He CLAIMS he has a dynamic IP and will use it so he can create a bunch of socks. His usernames often go by the theme "The road to a zillion usernames" and "The road to a trillion usernames" and such. They often attack other admins. Be on the lookout for these accounts. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darth Vader is your Father —Preceding unsigned comment added by JetLover (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Romanianization 'see also' section

    Resolved

    Please someone put back those links[3] as I don't want to break the three revert rule. I stated my case at User:Tankred's and User:Dahn's talk page, but I got no answer. I tried to ask questions on the article's talk page too, but it somehow won't display them.
    Romanianization is a form of discrimination connected to the Treaty of Trianon just like the links that I'd like to provide. I think they should be included there, so the reader gets an idea of the whole concept. Squash Racket 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. Try bringing your concerns to the article's talk page instead of addressing individual editors. Also, if necessary to get more opinions, you can always file a WP:RfC. Even if you know you are right, edit warring isn't going to get you anywhere. Raise consensus for your changes if they are reverted. Consider WP:BRD. -Andrew c [talk] 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you, tried to bring it to the article's talk page, but it won't display it (see page history), I don't know why is that. Squash Racket 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a fault in the page coding. I've fixed it, and the talk page is now editable. DrKiernan 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see. If they didn't answer on their own talk pages even though they were online, why would they on the article's page? But technically it's possible now. Squash Racket 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about missing the part about the page not loading correctly, I'm glad DrKiernan fixed it. As for those users, wikipedia is more than 2 users. If they don't reply to you on the talk page, and others agree with your changes, then you on your way to having consensus to include the content. It is their loss if they don't participate.-Andrew c [talk] 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd user edits

    See Charlotte Hatherley (talk · contribs). How should this be dealt with? Girolamo Savonarola 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for inappropriate username: see Charlotte Hatherley. ~Eliz81(C) 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DatingTraining

    DatingTraining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating spam articles, such as Ebay store, etc. her/his userpage is also an advertisement. I suggest mediation? Block? Help me. What should we do? World Arachny 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already slapped a {{db-spam}} tag on the user page -- pure coincidence, I didn't see this notice before I did -- which is what ought to be done to all spam disguised as user pages. And yeah, it looks like, based on the talk page warnings, to be solely for creating spam, and should probably be blocked forthwith. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the link turns red while I'm typing the above: fast work, that. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this problem when I was here, and I need some feedback quickly, especially if someone is vandalizing. Thanks, Laleena 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is coming from User:Kornfan71/AAAAAAHeader. What is the problem? Are you seeing it somewhere else? It looks like it is just that user's decoration. -Wknight94 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The offending page is User:Kornfan71/AAAAAAHeader. The user has used CSS absolute positioning to place an image, Image:AAAAAA.png behind the logo. As long as it isn't used outside of the userspace, I personally don't have a problem with it (see the history of bouncy ball for an example of someone doing something similar in the main namespace).-Andrew c [talk] 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, looking into the source of the image, I'm not comfortable with the part of the copydown license at unencyclopedia that says "the individual pixels may be a copyright violation", and would be curious to see if their license was compatible here.-Andrew c [talk] 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone please explain what all those AAAAAA strings mean? --Aarktica 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AAAAAAAAA!. --Vary | Talk 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, more or less nothing. -- Vary | Talk 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a point here? Perhaps an inside joke that is considered inappropriate? --Aarktica 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bad joke about the same level as the spam song. Just a cultural meme that is indeed an inside joke. I think it is harmless. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, why is this even being discussed? Am I missing the part of the joke that makes it controversial? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The image may be under the default NC license that all of uncyclopedia is under.... however, I'm not sure. The license tag makes it exceptionally unclear. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikirage

    Looking for a likely article in need of your admin services? Wikirage is the latest and greatest Wikipedia data mining tool. This tool lists the pages in Wikipedia which are receiving the most edits per unique editor over various periods of time, such as over the last hour. With such fast editing, rollbacks, 3RRs, valdalism, etc. are likely. This site seems like a good, constantly updated watch list. There is a write up here. -- Jreferee (Talk) 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Drop a word by the Signpost? DurovaCharge! 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. Also, W3ace developed the tool in case anyone to thank him. He's been discouraged by Wikipedia (see this), but thinks that Wikipedia "can serve as an fantastic way to study human nature and how the non-tech world interacts with Social powered media." A little WikiLove may help get this talented person back into contributing to the Encyclopedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit wars on Main Page templates

    What should be done to discourage edit wars on the Main Page templates? This used to happen when non-free images appeared in Wikipedia:Today's featured article, but that happens less often now that some people try and spot such images before they reach the main page, but it still happens with borderline In the news entries. At the moment, there is a slow-moving edit war with people using admin tools on the protected Template:In the news to add and remove the Luciano Pavarotti entry. What is the best way to discourage this? The normal procedure of removing stuff and discussing before replacing, doesn't work well here. By the time the discussion is concluded, the "recently updated" criterion for In the news items might no longer apply if the event took place a week ago. Also, the Luciano Pavarotti article is now recieving a lot of attention, with fair-use images being tagged for deletion, and various clean-up tags being placed on the page. While this is good in one sense, it would be nice if such clean-up actually took place, rather than having thousands of readers viewing the article with clean-up tags all over it. Carcharoth 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My Observations

    As most of you are well aware, I recently revoked my sysop permission. Today I asked for it back. Why so soon you ask? It was all part of a test, an experiment if you will. I wanted to view Wikipedia as an established contributor who was a non-admin. I must say that the English Wikipedia is doing a tremendously shitty job.

    1. People Fight Alot: Do you really realize how many hours of people's time is wasted daily by the petty in-fighting? There are dozens upon dozens of complaints across the various noticeboards daily, which are fought, argued and debated. However, everyone is a complete jerk. They say and cite policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NLT and yet they do not abide by those same policies they're so willing to chuck at others. Administrators are especially bad at this, consistently telling a non-administrator to please not use personal attacks, and yet subtly attacking the person back at them.
    2. Administrators are Elitist Bastards: I don't care what anyone says, the vast majority of administrators are pompous overbearing control freaks. They run around with this attitude that having +sysop is some sort of right, priviledge, or a permission to bully, harras and generally act like a dick, thinking they can get away with it. There IS a cabal, and it makes sneaky back-door decisions such as deletions, vote stacking, blocks, trying to force editors into 3RR, page protections, et cetera almost daily.
    3. Copyright IS a problem: Dear lord, dear lord...the English Wikipedia as a whole should be admonished for their lack of effort in fixing copyright problems. This attitude that "We'll fix it later" absolutely must stop, post-haste. The general public is sheltered from this stuff, but OTRS gets constant requests saying "You guys stole my content." In addition, the overuse of Fairuse images is absolutely astonishing. Almost every article with images has at least one fairuse image. The endless justifications for putting screenshots from every anime, TV show, movie ever is a terribly misguided idea which must also be rectified.
    4. Quality IS a problem: If nothing else, OTRS has shown me what a bad job we do at sourcing our BLPs and removing the libelous statements. People assume that unless is shows up on the noticeboard, or someone visibly complains on-wiki, the issues must be ok. I mean, we have the BLP policy, and it's clearly noted on each talkpage, things must be ok. Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. Out of the 98 e-mails sitting in the info-en queue on OTRS, 77 of them are due to quality issues. Assuming those complaints are all legitimate (and from personal experience, most are), that means 78.5% of the issues we face are due to quality.

    I realize at least one person is going to reply with {{sofixit}}. That's just it, I'm going to. I realize I'm guilty of the first two items just as much as most of the people who will reply to this thread, but that's beside the point. I am now making it my mission to fix these problems, as the Board and general editing populace has shown no interest in doing so. Please help me.

    All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a shame that you've undermined your passionate message by using lashings of hyperbole. So, the "majority of administrators are pompous overbearing control freaks"? That's untrue and unfair. So, instead of me discussing the worthy sentiments of your message, I've already started picking it apart for accuracy, which is exactly what you don't want as a response. Sigh. --Dweller 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is entirely accurate to paint so many with the same brush. That being said, yes these problems do exist. The reason for the first 2 is just the human condition. The second 2 are due to lazyness, especially the copyright issues. But worse, I have seen admins return unverified information after it was challenged, and stop users from enforcing copyrights due to their own insistence on their correctness. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Dweller I think there may be more truth to the observer's analyses than many would care to admit. Somehow, he managed to tap into the frustruations of many regular editors. Does it seem hostile? Yes. Is it real? Well, it is perception — make of that what you will. That said, I do believe that he truly cares about the matter, and means no disrespect.
    As you noted, the knives might come out soon; he dared to offer a rather biting criticism of the class he seeks to rejoin. --Aarktica 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame, but to respond, he states things as fact, rather than perception. I don't disagree that we can do more in many of the areas he highlights. But I thoroughly disagree with the overstatements. A toned down version of this, made into an essay might help move things forward. --Dweller 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, saying we're "pompous overbearing control freaks" then telling us to fix all the problems associated with Wikipedia is pretty silly. I've deleted probably thousands of copyright violations (check my logs if you doubt that). A lot of people do their parts but there are 2 million articles and we're a ragtag band of volunteers trying to run the... 8th or whatever, most popular website in the world. Expecting perfection is a recipe for frustration. --W.marsh 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Demon, you can't think about your point #2 without your point #3; it is the resistance to copyright responsibility, in large part, that has created the perceived gap between admins and non-admins. Chick Bowen 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am now making it my mission to fix these problems"
    ^demon, I respect your mission, and would like to say "join the club", but let's be realistic and rational here - it'll take a lot of work to whip the non-human problems into shape. As for the human ones, no level of complaints will completely deflate an average human's ego, for Wikipedia at least - the best we can do is to take action as needed for each situation as it comes, and respect the five pillars. Of course there's a lot of complete shit going on, but we can't magically become perfect one day. Let's work towards these things like we always have: kill copyvio on sight, work out the little legal bits inherent to our operation as best as possible, and most of all just try to be friendly and keep morale up. I know I've done things which assume a position of authority through my adminship, but I try to use that authority, when called upon, to push towards what's best for the encyclopedia in the end run. If we're going to aim for the lofty goal which the Foundation attempts to achieve, we need to be optimistic. Perhaps, to shove a square peg into a round hole, we are also pushing in some ways for a Wiki-Community 1.0 as well as for a Wikipedia 1.0 . Let's get to solving the problem, rather than glorifying it. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, ^demon, you, from time to time, go too far in making it your mission to fix the problems. I've experienced you deleting images without warrant... which is understandable if you are an image patroller. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. However, I've also seen you archive many comments without responding. If one wants people to know more about copyright, I think one should educate them. If a user asks, "Why was my image deleted?" Tell them why! =) They probably want to learn, as they just don't know any better. And, if you go through the comments, you might actually realize that you could have made a mistake or two, as no one is perfect. =)  hmwith  talk 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with 1 & 2 but not necessarily 3 & 4. But yeah, many (or most, or nearly all) admins are hypocrites (and a lot of worse things) - including me probably... ugen64 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Administrators are Elitist Bastards" — yeah, what a stupid, pointless conversation this is. No point in even bothering to refute you, you've discredited yourself. It's incredibly hypocritical to lament all of the fighting we have, then go on to take an extremely cheap shot that certainly isn't helpful. --Cyde Weys 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting essay. I think it's strange how admins are treated and behave anymore. In personal or content disputes, admins are almost always given a longer chain. I don't think it used to be this way. There used to be a higher proportion of admins; I think that kept elitism in check. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Glad to have you back, demon. El_C 06:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking for IP 213.232.79.146

    Please could someone extend the anon-only block on IP 213.232.79.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 1 year to indefinite.

    It is a fixed IP address used as a proxy by a large number of public library users.

    There has been a lot of vandalism from that address. Whenever it happens, people leave warning messages, and these run a significant risk of reaching innocent users instead, who maybe know nothing about the internals of the project. Okay, so it says:

    If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

    but this is of little relevance to the great many users who are not interested in editing anyway, and just want to read articles. Presumably those who use the site in a purely read-only fashion are the large, though silent, majority of visitors (stats, anyone?) Showing such people pages and pages of warnings is not good PR for the project.

    There have been a series of blocks in the past, and all that happens is that whenever the block expires, the cycle begins again. There is no reason to believe that this pattern will change. I believe that it is much better to have the address permanently anon-blocked, as this will enable the User Talk page to be kept free of further warnings.

    More generally, I think that where persistent vandalism is found to originate from shared IP addresses, these addresses should be anon-blocked indefintely and any warnings archived, as the pattern of repeated short-term blocks and lots of warning messages doesn't work well -- and causes more work too.

    Thank you.

    Boghandel 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrel children (2nd nomination)

    This AfD has been open since 8/26. Could an admin look into it, please? Thanks. --UsaSatsui 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    checkY done. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gratzie. --UsaSatsui 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationalist edit warring and noticeboards

    Please review these edits of mine: [4] and [5]. As far as I'm concerned, having sections on noticeboards for editors of nationality X inviting editors of this nationality to join in with nationalist edit war Y is a spectacularly bad idea. The nationalist cancer is quite bad enough on Wikipedia without this sort of shit making it worse. Moreschi Talk 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch. WP:MfD, anyone? These noticeboards seem to have been around for awhile (the Serbian one, anyway) with very few participants, and their main use seems to be to provide us with canonical violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS... At most, there should be a "Balkans noticeboard" or something which would transcend specific nationalistic identities. Of course, even that would probably be a disaster. MastCell Talk 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my thinking it is better to leave this in today situation. Why ?? If you block or delete this notice boards nothing will change because they are living important (example:article for deletion) messages on local community portals. For example I will show this: "Трг/Архива Serbophobia" . If you take this words with copy/paste and put it in google you will recieve 2 hits on serbian wiki community portal ..Rjecina 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreschi -> well said, this labelling of people by their nationality (both subject of articles and editors) is a poison that is much too prevalent. Anyone would think we were operating in South Africa, where your worth depended entirely on which community you came from. PalestineRemembered 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dmcdevit and moving images to the commons

    • Is this user using a bot on his normal account contribs? And is this permitted ?
    • Also is as regards the template and the project for moving PD images to the commons, is this not trying to resolve the problem by the wrong end ? If a bot can just say all PD images should go to the commons, then why does wikipedia allow users to upload images with a PD license ? As it is now a bot is going to have to make thousands upon thousands of edits, for ever and ever. It is extremely basic logic that if you want to empty an entity you have to block the entrance first, or the task will be never ending. The system on the French wikipedia, is better: if an image is PD it gets tagged as a possible candidate for the commons and then if a user would like to use it on the English wikipedia for example, he just clicks a link, and a script transfers the image across to the commons.

    Why go to the trouble of creating all sorts of PD templates, if they shouldn't be used anyway ? Sorry if I am ranting a bit, the objective of making all PD images easily searchable is commendable, but this is the wrong way of going about it. Also it makes it harder for wikipedia users to watch their images and check for vandalism. For example PD maps of obscure subjects could easily be POV modified for example by Serbian and Russian nationalists (as often happens to articles) without anyone noticing for a long time, because the image would be on nobody's watchlist. To empty a sink you have to turn off the tap! Jackaranga 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandalism argument is entirely bogus, in my opinion; it becomes watched on Commons instead of here (and I'd gather that their RC log fills up slower than ours, making vandalism a bit more likely to be caught immediately); I've seen plenty of images on my watchlist just sit for hours on end before I caught the vandalism (ie: it happened right after I went to bed, and I see it at some point the next day), so you can't say that images being kept on Wikipedia are mystically imbued with the inability to be vandalized (not saying you specifically are, but that's the tone that several anti-Commons arguments tend to have). You can still keep images in your watchlist, even if they don't exist here, which means you can watch to see if people have uploaded a local copy of a Commons-residing image (though I don't think new users can do that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea I can watch deleted pages too, I just like to be able to watch the images I uploaded though, and see if anyone uploaded a new version (this wouldn't show if they uploaded a new version on the commons). My main question was though, why try to empty wikipedia of PD images without first stopping people from uploading them ? It will just never end, if a supermarket is trying to close for example, they must first close the entrance, before trying to get people out. Also as the vandalism thing goes, if you look at Image:United States Australia Locator.png for example, someone replaced the USA by Australia and nobody noticed until I reverted it back after 4 days, and yet everyone (hopefully) knows where the USA and Australia are. This will be even worse with more obscure subjects if the original creator can't watch his images anymore. Wikipedia encourages me to upload images as PD, and it's users now tell me I shouldn't have. Just remove the PD option from the image upload page, or make it redirect me to the commons, then I can at least add the page to my commons watchlist. Also I don't think Image:Kuwait-Iraq barrier.png qualifies to go to the commons, the policy says "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.", yet I have a short explanation about it, on the image page, it's not a huge explanation but there is no point in me rewriting the whole article. Jackaranga 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the upload form, it says "If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), please upload it to Wikimedia Commons where it will automatically become available to all projects." I understand it would be easier to force users to go to the commons, but moving the files isn't that much of a hassle, and it seems "nicer" to not force users to get an account elsewhere after they just got one here. But you are right, maybe one day we will redirect users to the commons. Next, I'm not sure why the Iraw/Kuwait map wouldn't be appropriate for the commons. And third, if you are uploading a lot of images, and interested in keeping track of their versions, you could consider getting an account with Wikimedia Commons. There you can watch pages, and upload new files.-Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you for the answers, sorry if I was a bit reactionary. Jackaranga 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, but why was this reported to the administrators' noticeboard, instead of, say, asking me if you had any questions? What I'm doing is simply normal practice; let me know if you want to know more about Commons and stuff. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blocked properly

    Resolved

    Hi. Following the report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chaosdevil101 removed no fair rationale tag using sockpuppet again, it was decided that User:Chaosdevil101 would be blocked and a block notice was placed on the user's talk page but accoding to the block log, the user has not been blocked. Could an admin please take a look. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, a block does not show up in the log - until you try and block, whereupon you are advised that the editor is indef blocked. I will drop a line to the blocking admin User:John Reaves to see if the log can be updated. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into it. Tbo 157talk 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed odd. I don't know why it isn't showing up. -- John Reaves 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always good when two admins agree... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into this. If the user is blocked then im sure the log wouldnt bother anyone.Tbo 157talk 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've seen admins discuss this before. In that case, someone unblocked and then reblocked. The block log then reflected the editor's blocked status. Can the admin(s) involved please check to see if this has been filed as a bug? --ElKevbo 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a longstanding bug which has been discussed before, where sometimes the block shows up here but not here. If a user has been blocked it always shows up in the Ipblocklist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try unblocking and reblocking with the original message. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BOT shut off

    See User_talk:OsamaKBOT. Complaints are mounting higher about this not functioning properly. Operator does not seem responsive. Please advise/take appropriate action as I do not know what that is in such a case.Rlevse 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not familiar enough with the bot to tell, but if it truly is malfunctioning, block it. -- John Reaves 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot isn't malfunctioning. The most common complaint seems to be "there was already a rationale - why did the bot add another tag?" But if you look at the images they are talking about, you will see that the images contained fair use tags but no source, and the fair use templates clearly state that a source is required for fair use images. Therefore, the duplicated templates (i.e. "fair use" template & "no source" template) are perfectly appropriate. ugen64 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not totally accurate. It tagged some of mine as needing a source when they had one.Rlevse 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is an example of what Rlevse is talking about.-Andrew c [talk] 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified OsamaK of this discussion. The bot is not currently operating, so there's no point in blocking it now. Please just compile the appropriate changes that need to be made and make sure the operator is aware of them. Chick Bowen 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. Is there any problem with last 1000 edits ;). I think not. People ask me ("I have taken this photo, what do I do" and "How would I recall the specific web site almost 2 years ago?" and other question, look at my replies in their users talk). Thanks all.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As recently as two days ago there have been. I know that for a fact. Also, your attitude that your bot doesn't make mistakes and your often refusal to address concerns is not helping your case. If your bot continues to misbehave it will get blocked.Rlevse 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, any bot makes mistakes should be block for 12 hour at most without "Automatic block", I talk about many mistakes not one or two ;). Have a nice day.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We're discussing this matter over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Another bot problem. The logos tagged for deletion from Sept. 5-7 include many of the most prominent companies in America, on articles that are several years old, where there is no legitimate question about the logo's source or appropriateness for the article. Many of these, if not most, are not even copyrighted. The initial feedback, which I support, is that it's a bad idea to be tagging old logos and other comparable images that are self-sourcing, and that these should not be deleted until we figure out how to add the proper sourcing data. The issue isn't errors so much as the disruption to the articles from purging a large number of old image files that are otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia. We'll probably ask that deletions be suspended on these and that the bots not go after large groups of legacy images without further discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that they have been here so long makes it more urgent to give them proper fair use rationals or remove them. If they get deleted it is not as though they cannot be gotten again. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the bot is using the wrong tag too. [6] That needs a no rationale tag, not a no source tag. Alpta 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least the version of that image I see does not have a source - where did we obtain the image from? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    C:CSD (not a rant, and it's good news)

    I have uploaded a screenshot of C:CSD completely empty, Image:Empty CSD.jpg. No image categories, no images, no articles. And best, I did relatively little work. Maybe the rant did have some effect on C:CSD. I hope so. Maxim(talk) 12:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it's because you are a relatively new admin, but I've seen CSD completely empty lots of times. Majorly (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still plenty to be done. GDonato (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Famous last words... x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Learning about notability

    When is an article not notable? I wrote an article which seems like a decent article but some people want it deleted. I am not arguing the merits of the article here (so I won't name it) but wanted some advice about learning what is notable.

    I'm not trying to pick on other article but some articles are notable for some reason? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Zoller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundag%C3%A5rd_%28newspaper%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Sawtelle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ragsdale Mrs.EasterBunny 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people). Conscious 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my deletion of Urban blight

    I speedily deleted Urban blight as a copyright violation. It was also little more than a dictionary definition. I know that this is an important topic that can lead to a government seizing affected properties due to eminent domain, so we need an article here. Unfortunately, I tried to paraprase the definition and could not come up with something satisfactory. Could someone please review this speedy deletion? Jesse Viviano 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan to remove spoilers from article space and place them in project space

    Can we get some more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Here's what we'll try? (Not here, there.) I am concerned at the "solution," cutting spoilers out of articles and putting them on subpages of the wikiproject, The Hybrid (talk · contribs) is planning on implementing on wrestling articles, based on a "concensus" of project members. I think a consensus of the community at large should be required for this change. Picaroon (t) 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lui clemente

    Please check this user's uploads. It's been uploaded as PD but it obviously isn't (they're all logos). --Howard the Duck 06:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=156642000"