Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MacGyverMagic (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 1 April 2005 (→‎Wikipedia Has Been Hacked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

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

    Tasks

    Wikipedia:Cleaning department

    This seems to have falled into desuetude; I organized it a bit and added a whole bunch of things (CfD, TfD, etc) to bring it somewhat up-to-date. I then went through this page (and the archives), and added all the things listed here. (I was tempted to copy signups from here to that page, but I thought I'd better let people sign up on their own steam! :-) Anyway, if people could go look at it, and i) add things I missed, and ii) sign up for things (especially if you are already doing them, so we know what's covered, and what's not), that woule be great. Thanks! Noel (talk) 22:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Requested Moves (WP:RM)

    I know there is an endless list of tasks for the admins to do but I'd just like to make note that WP:RM is starting to build up a bit of a backlog. I usually do the moves but can't right now because the servers are running too slowly for me. Would be good if anyone could take a look and do a couple. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 16:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


    General

    Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace

    I have run into this massive list of VfD votes in the Template namespace, listed at Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace. I am curious if everything thing here can be moved to the subpages for VfD, as I don't know what was the decision regarding to move these pages or not. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    FWIW, I agree they ought to be moved out. I don't know why they are done this way, perhaps Netoholic can shed light on the thinking of why they were left in the Template: space. (And we could delete all those redirects from Mediawiki:, too...) Noel (talk) 13:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Moving them under VfD causes a problem in those cases where the subpage already exists. Also, we don't know how complete the current list Netoholic compiled is. I suggest someone runs a SQL query to determine completeness before we decide whether to move them or not. I agree that the redirects from MediaWiki: should be deleted, they are nothing but cruft. jni 09:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    If you want to be sure of completeness you can just use Special:Allpages. Goplat 18:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    The list was created to have a way of finding those votes. Oftentimes, a long-deleted page will be re-created, and someone will think "wasn't that a VFD?". They check for a sub-page, but find nothing. Moving these out of the template namespace (and deleting all the leftover redirects in MediaWiki namespace as well) is a great idea. It is a huge project though, which is why I made the page in the first place. I was hoping that I'd be able to get started on it, but my admin nom failed at the time, so I guess it's up to you all. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    Deleting all these Mediawiki redirects without a bot is going to be basically infeasible - there are scads of them. Noel (talk) 14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    There were also a small number of Mediawiki talk: redirects associated with VfD- votes; I've dealt with them (but there are still tons of redirs there associated with templates, sigh). Noel (talk) 18:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion

    A new guide for VFD is being written. I highly recommend that all administrators review this guide -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources

    I've made a new proposed policy. Not sure if I'm going about it the right way. Anyway, it's Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. I recommend all admins view this as if it gets approved it's going to make admining and content disputes a lot more easy to resolve. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Page move bugs

    Somehow, Mikkalai's move of List of English words of Russian origin to Words of Russian derivation caused all of the editing history to be lost except for the most recent edit, mine. Contrary to what the history now says, I am not the sole contributor to that article. Is there any way to fix this? Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

    More page move bugs

    Numanuma moved to Numa Numa with loss of history. Also, what links to Numa Numa looks weird now. Mikkalai 01:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Hm, looks fine to me. Also, it is at Numa numa now. When I fixed a copy/paste move yesterday, I noticed that page histories do not seem to update immediately after a move. (When I deleted a page, moved the original there, and then checked the history, I got shown the history of the deleted page.) It only updated to the history of the moved page when I switched from "last 50" to "last 100" changes. Can it be that this whole business with histories being left behind is just a caching issue? Lupo 07:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Several times, doing a history merge, I have noticed a wierd bug, which may be related. I delete X-new, move X-old to X-new, and then undelete X-new, and the undelete succeeds. But then the history doesn't show the X-old versions, just the X-new ones! Waiting (I tried up to half an hour on one article), and/or flushing the cache with "&action=flush" doesn't help. However, make a gratuitous edit, and all of a sudden the old versions appear! (I guess I really ought to file a bug report about this, too busy, though...) Noel (talk) 15:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, this does seem to be some sort of "cached copy of the history not getting updated properly". I have now seen the same sort of behaviour Lupo mentioned - when the history after a restore isn't what you expect, select one of the other history lengths, and it shows up correct. Making a gratuitous edit brings the history back correctly too. Sounds like it's correct in the master database, but history copies cached in various places aren't getting updated correctly. Doing any one of a number of things causes the caches copies of the history to be flushed, and the master (which is correct) to be looked at. Will definitely have to file a bug report on this (if someone else hasn't done so already). Noel (talk) 02:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Oh wierd - this bug is provoked not just by undeletes, but in other circumstances too. Check out this version of the history, and compare it with this version. Notice the two missing versions in there? All I did was a save (albeit while the system was loaded). Wierd.... Noel (talk) 20:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, I seem to have editing this page since then, so the wierdness is no longer visible. But at one point the "normal" history link was missing the two most recent non-current versons (i.e. the two ones before the then-current version). Noel (talk) 20:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Another history missing

    Okay, so I'm a new admin as of late yesterday. I got a request from a user I've worked with to undo a page move for W.A.C. Bennett. The page was moved to a longer, less common name (William Andrew Cecil Bennett), and the user could not move it back because the shorter name had two items in the edit history. After a little bit of looking around for policies/procedures, it seemed to me that the resolution would be to do a delete on the requested destination and then move from the longer name to the shorter name. The delete worked without incident, but then I guess I tried to do the move a little too soon because I got the usual conflict message. After a few seconds, I was able to do the move, but the edit history doesn't seem to be there from the page's longer name. The longer name's history only shows my move. Did I miss a step? AdThanksVance. slambo 16:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

    So either someone fixed the history or it was just a server cache that needed purging, but the history appears to be in the correct place now. slambo 18:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

    Cut and paste move repair holding pen

    There is currently a problem with deleting older articles, which sometimes makes it impossible to fix cut and paste moves.

    I have created Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen as a place to hold articles waiting for this problem to be fixed (so their histories can be merged). (I debated created a category for them as well, but decided not too - there no good reason I can think of for gunking up their histories.)

    I have linked to it from Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves; if there's anyplace else it should be linked from, please do so.

    If you run across more of these situations, please add them to the list there. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Admin log

    Apparently the decision of a bureaucrat to promote me to admin on 48/12/1 has aroused a little controversy Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Tony_Sidaway_RFA. I think it's in the spirit of a Wiki to keep activities open, so I have decided to keep an account of all administrative activity I carry out, in wikified form. Comments on individual items are invited--it's a list so you can just add a comment as a bullet point to the item you're commenting on. Anything major should of course be taken to this noticeboard or WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR. The log is User:Tony Sidaway/Admin log --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    There's always the Wikipedia log page for you, which shows all blocks, protects and deletes you do. Noel (talk) 14:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    My page is basically just a wikified version of that--so that I and others can add comments. It will also survive a software upgrade--the last one we had, in late December, seems to have trashed the logs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The software upgrade didn't trash the logs; it created them. Before, the logs were automatically-edited wiki pages (Wikipedia:Deletion log, Wikipedia:Block log, etc.) and all the old history is still available there. The combined log is a feature of MW 1.4. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 14:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Excellent. I need some of that information badly for my history of clitoris in the Dr Zen arbcom case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Speedy deletions of "already in Wiktionary" articles

    In a laudable effort to clean up Category:Move to Wiktionary, a number of articles have been marked with the speedy deletion tags. However, some of these articles have long since expanded beyond dictionary entries (e.g. realm, a type 1 disambiguation article currently listed in CAT:CSD for being "in Wiktionary") and in others the transwikification process simply wasn't done properly, and speedily deleting the article will render the edit history (required for transwikification) inaccessible. I urge any administrators on speedy deletion patrol to be cautious about deleting these articles, and to hold off deleting them until things are sorted out at Category talk:Move to Wiktionary. Uncle G 19:01, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

    Comment on categorization

    Your feedback is requested on a bold proposal to make categorization more stable and consistent, at Wikipedia:Categorization policy. Specifically, the idea is to disallow normal users from adding or renaming categories, and instead work from a 'request new category' page to ensure all categories are consistent in name and organization. Radiant_* 13:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

    How to Heal Traumas

    Copy and paste to Waking the Tiger, reverse the redirection. HTHT has a Vfd and option to Redirect to Waking the Tiger. I would like rewrite WTT. I am not an administrator. If the new WTT is still horrible please feel free to delete altogether, anyway it deserves to be treated as a totally new issue(WTT as candidate for deletion ). --Jondel 09:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    What is going on here? All of the votes were to delete, not to redirect to a new name. And what happened to the VfD header? RickK 09:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Is this sorted out now? Noel (talk) 13:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    No. Both articles should be deleted. Jondel is trying to circumvent the VfD process for an article with 10 clear delete votes by changing the name of the article and removing the VfD header. RickK 22:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

    query about blocked users

    Do they see the "you have new messages" notice?Geni 10:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Would you like someone to block you so you can find out? :-) (Momentarily, of course! :-) Noel (talk) 14:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, blocked users see the notice. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:32, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

    wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote

    For those of you who haven't seen this yet, I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote (and also wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals) and remind you to put your voice in there so we can get the whole amendment thing over with. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:33, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

    Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship

    Please weigh in on your opinions regarding this proposed procedure for de-Adminning. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

    Revert bug?

    I noticed lately that when I try to revert back more than one edit (say, when two acts of vandalism occur back to back), that my automated revert will only go back back one revision (example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stony_Brook_University&action=history. On 00:33 21 Mar 2005 I tried to revert to the last edit by 68.195.88.148, and failed). Has anybody seen this, or am I out of my mind? – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I don't understand. Do you think the rollback button has AI? How would it know you wanted to rollback to 68.195.88.148 and not to 205.188.116.70? silsor 05:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should clarify. Not by the rollback button. It was so that when I would compare two revisions, I would click the rollback link and the later revision would be reverted to the earlier revision. This no longer seems to be so. Rather, it will revert the the earliest revision that is not by me. Sorry about the confusion. – ClockworkSoul 05:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The rollback link removes all changes by the last person to edit the page. silsor 06:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    I've tried to do that before; it forces you to do a manual rv on that kind of vandalism. It'd be a great feature to have (I think), why make a request in [bugzilla.wikipedia.org bugzilla]? -Frazzydee|✍ 01:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Oops, meant http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org, it can be so picky sometimes :P -Frazzydee|✍ 23:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Rollback failed

    While trying to roll back several edits made by a vandal, I ran into this situation:

    Rollback failed

    There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again.

    Any idea why this is happening? RickK 07:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

    You're not using AOL, are you? --Carnildo 08:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Um, yeah, I am.  :) RickK 21:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    That could explain it, then. AOL's system of using random transparent proxies in a very large IP space for all connections to the Internet breaks most anti-session-hijacking measures, in a way unfavorable to honest users. --Carnildo 21:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I get this too, from time to time, and I'm on cable. I assumed that it was a database burp, like the others that I regularly get during high-traffic periods. – ClockworkSoul 23:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I get these occasionally too, and I also use cable. Tuf-Kat 05:06, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

    Unblocking IP after user is blocked... a problem

    Hello. User:Gumba gumba was blocked indefinitely, as "all edits vandalism". He had been blocked earlier for 24 hours and came right back. However, he seems to be using a shared IP, so the username should be blocked, but not the underlying IP.

    According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, the thing to do is wait for an "autoblocked because you share an IP" notice to appear at Special:Ipblocklist and then unblock that. However, I've done that half a dozen times now (see Special:Log/block, and new autoblock notices keep appearing. Does this work as advertised?

    Can someone look into this? Unfortunately I have to step away from the computer soon. -- Curps 22:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I thought IP autoblocks expired after 24 hours anyway, even if the user account was blocked indefinitely? Lupo 22:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently this user is using a shared proxy IP. Waiting 24 hours is really not an option. User:Tony Sidaway and I unblocked about ten IP autoblocks over nearly 45 minutes, but they just kept coming, and finally had to unblock User:Gumba gumba. Imagine that, an unblockable non-anonymous vandal. The software leaves much to be desired. -- Curps 23:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    His IP gets auto-blocked for 24 hours every time he logs in, so blocking him and then unblocking the auto-block works, unless he keeps trying to edit under User:Gumba gumba, as each time he does that the IP gets auto-blocked again. --Weyes 23:12, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    So a vandal user on an ISP that uses shared proxy IPs can carry out a denial of service attack against fellow Wikipedia users on that same ISP, just by repeatedly trying to edit under their own username? That's insane. Why can't we just block a username without blocking an IP, and why wasn't that a feature from DAY ONE? -- Curps 23:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It was there at day one, but at a certain point auto-blocking was introduced, and getting that up and running was deemed more important than making it optional. Ask for someone to hack up a fix at wikitech-l, and in the meantime advise those who are affected to disable the proxy in their browser settings, or, if it's a transparent proxy and cannot be disabled, to use one of the many available public proxies. --Weyes 00:34, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

    Request to edit 2 MediaWiki messages

    Over at MediaWiki talk:Missingarticle and MediaWiki talk:Dberrortext (pending for any kind of response for over 3 months). BTW should this page be added as an option for editing protected pages at Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention? Thanks! -- Paddu 16:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Not an admin)

    Just wanted to update that only a spelling error got fixed thanks to User:Frazzydee. But I also wanted the messages to ask bugs to be filed on Bugzilla instead of contacting sysops about bugs. This wasn't done & I got no response why it shouldn't be done. Probably there should be a link to Wikipedia:Bug reports in both the messages (& probably others). Thanks! -- Paddu 20:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Not an admin)
    If there is general consensus (and silence==consent) that this is a good idea, I will add the Bugzilla link for Paddu. Noel (talk) 14:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Impersonation in other Wikipedias

    I've noticed a couple examples of accounts being created in other-language Wikipedias with the same name as an editor here. The accounts are then used for various sorts of vandalism. It really doesn't do any harm here, and I'm not certain that anything can be done about it, but I thought I'd just mention it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • The only way this is going to be solved is for a universal login to take effect. Mgm|(talk) 18:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks, that's what I figured. Either that or preemptively registering your name in other Wikipedias. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Block conflict question

    Pardon my ignorance; I am a relatively new administrator and a couple times another administrator and I blocked the same person without realizing the other had already blocked him. How long will the block last? I can't find this anywhere although I thought I saw something about shorter blocks, but it was on a talk page somewhere. One of us blocked for 24 hours, the other one indefinitely. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    The newer block replaces the old one. So whatever block length you put down is the block length that will be used. I had the same question a couple of weeks ago. BrokenSegue 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Apparently someone told me the wrong information. BrokenSegue 05:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I have a related question. When dealing with a user account set up to vandalize (and which has made no or virtually no regular edits), what is the usual period to block for? Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism says up to one month for static IP addresses. Does that also refer to user accounts, or can these be blocked indefinitely? SlimVirgin 02:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, Jay. SlimVirgin 03:12, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

    According to User:Tim Starling in #mediawiki, and as confirmed by a bit of testing I did (as you may have noticed in the block log), the shortest block is the one which takes effect, and not the oldest or newest. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 05:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Blocking myself was something I hadn't considered trying; nice idea. Thanks, Dan. So then my next question is: suppose an administrator blocks someone indefinitely, and I then block the same person for 24 hours (SlimVirgin and I blocked the same person during the same minute). I check the log and see that she was first—how do we restore the indefinite block? Do I unblock the user and then reblock indefinitely? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, you do. Don't forget to mention the reblock in the reason field. This is exactly why I check the block log before blocking someone. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    Here's a feature idea: first, put a "Block" tab near the "Delete" tab (in the default layout) for admins viewing User pages. Second, when you click the tab, you automatically see that user's complete block history. Good idea? dbenbenn | talk 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Korath implemented this idea at User:Korath/blockip.js, which needs to go in User:USERNAME/monobook.js. dbenbenn | talk 19:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Excellent! Wow, this is exactly what I needed. Thanks for pointing it out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Request for Account Block

    Account: BurnInBlue

    Reason: Public Account

    Proof: Username == Password

    Proof2: The creation of this message. I hereby assert that I am *NOT* the creator of this account... however I am using it to prove that the account has (or at least had) public access.

    BurnInBlue 04:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Password changed, thanks for reporting. silsor 04:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    If the real owner of this account would like to step forward they can have it back, with a good password of course. Funny how you knew it was a public account when it had never made a contribution. silsor 05:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    I know it is a public account because i found it on bugmenot.com, which is a well knoiwn public account distributer... indeed that is the purpose of said site.. to distribute public accounts for various websites... 69.68.36.55 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Also I have checked all Accounts listed from bugmenot.com at this time, none worked except this one.. because this is a wiki and thus there is no *valid* use for a public account it may be advisable to request removal of *.wikipedia.org; *.wiktionary.org, etc from bugmenot... 69.68.36.55 05:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Sent such a request. 69.68.36.55 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, we do block all bugmenot accounts when we find them. As far as I know they ignore all requests to stop hosting public account information for Wikipedia sites. silsor 05:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    That is funny becaue according to BugMeNot: "BugMeNot also willingly removes accounts for any web site that requests that they do not provide accounts for non-registered users." 69.68.36.55 05:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I sent BugMeNot an e-mail, and they say they've stopped supplying accounts for any of the Wikimedia projects. They were very friendly about it, and complimented the project, so that should make the public account problem a little better. Snowspinner 17:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

    There's no need to block public accounts, which clutters up the block list. Instead, just change the E-mail and password in the account preferences, you don't even need to be an admin to do so. --Weyes 13:23, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

    Armenian Genocide. Did I do the right thing here?

    There is a slow-burning but longstanding content war on this article, characterized mainly by failure of the editors to engage in substantive discussion, and much insulting on either side. Today witnessing yet one more revert of some apparently good faith edits, I protected the changed version in the hope of nudging one of the less cooperative editors into discussing the article instead of just reverting stuff he doesn't like. He now claims that I have abused my admin privileges--a possibility that I accept may be true. I'd appreciate it if some other admins could take a look and see if they agree or disagree with what I did, and perform any further admin edits they believe are necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I believe that short term protection was warranted given the tension between User:Fadix and User:Coolcat. I think that the next step is for the editors of this article to list the points they believe are false or POV. The personal attacks and snide edit summaries should also cease. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think you've done anything wrong. This dispute has been brewing for far too long. If you can solve it you earn a barnstar. I've tried to get them talking and failed. Mgm|(talk) 12:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

    Wikipedia Has Been Hacked

    Wikinews has related news:

    I just got done reverting some vandalism on the article Homosexuality. For a moment when I went to revert the page and click "edit this page" it said "vandalise this page". Where is that coming from? The "vandalise this page", it appear now to be gone; however, how could it happen? Apollomelos 02:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Did you notice today's date? (a sysop was having some fun with MediaWiki:Edit, that's all.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, that is right. Although that may be confusing to those of us where it is still March 31st or unaware of April's Fools Day. Good prank though. :)

    Apollomelos 02:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry, it's giving vandals free rein. Somebody changed the Main Page to say that Terri Schiavo died from autofellatio. How do we tell people not to vandalize the encyclopedia when everybody's doing it? RickK 06:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    So that's what it is, I thought that "vandalise this page" was really a hacking attempt. - Yamamoto Ichiro

    I take that back. This is absurd and damaging now that more users are following example. Having foolish articles on the front page next to serious ones is idiocy. Apollomelos 05:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    But I liked the takeover by Britannica! --Carnildo 06:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    This is getting out of hand. Sneak vandalism everywhere, and it seems like every wikiuser feel they should have their own April Fools prank somewhere. I'm thinking maybe the best joke would be to let wikipedia not be editable today. Use the day to reindex tablebases or whatever it is that a day off can be used constructivly to. Wikipedia should be correct all the year. God knows how long all this misinformation will live on on forgotten pages and various cashes around the net. Shanes 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    just block every user involved under this dissrution clause (well it's tempting)Geni 06:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Well, this is much more serious (if this is the right word...) then a year ago - see Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#April fools. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    There's a difference between jokes and vandalism. Sneaky vandalism is an offense no matter what day it is and the Terri/autofellatio wasn't funny. We should make a clear distinction here. Mgm|(talk) 12:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)



    Incidents

    Reporting of all types of incidents other than 3RR violations (e.g. informal complaints over the behaviour of an admin, blocked users evading blocks, etc) is done on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (shortcut WP:AN/I).


    Three-revert rule violations

    Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=11759440"