Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Demi (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 14 May 2007 (→‎Open proxies need to be hard blocked: ask for clarification). 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.

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



    User name blocks

    User:Misza13 blocked User:DennisGay with the block reason of "Username" at 15:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT) It appears that this was a bot-based action that blocks any newly created username of the form "Xisgay" While most such names are clearly inappropriate, i don't see this specific one as being worthy of an on-sight block.

    User:Time to die was blocked with the same reason at 10:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! at 16:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Ericisgay at 14:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT). None of these user names seem to me so offensive or inappropriate as to warrant a block on sight. The one-word summary does not help any new registrant who might wish to correct problems to understand what the problem is. I will say that the vast majority of user name blocks issued by User:Misza13 seem proper, but I am concerned about the risk of unwarranted blocking in this apparently automated activity. In none of these cases did place any notice on the user's talk page, as is strongly suggested for user name blocks that might be at all debatable. DES (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    X Is Gay, Eric Is Gay, Denn Is Gay(this one could be an error), basically saying someone is gay in a username is a form of disparagement to those who do not wish to be known as gay. Since Gay is a last name, Dennis Gay could be a good faith name, but the others seem to be insulting by intent. As for the Oompapa one, I see no violation. I agree that a proper explanation to the user is more helpful that just saying "Username". HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oompapa is too similar to the user name of a blocked user. Aslo the user doesn't just see "username" they see {{usernameblocked}} Metros232 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'd say User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! is pretty likely a User:Mr oompapa sock. Will (aka Wimt) 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DennisGay should not have been blocked, but I think I have to agree with Ericisgay being blocked. Dennis is a real name, Ericis on the other hand isn't. As far as I know. Burntsauce 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict x3] Oompapa is the name of a vandal, Ericisgay is clearly a WP:U violation, and Time to die seems like an inappropriate name to me. Have you spoken to Misza about these before bringing them here? – Steel 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unblocked DennisGay. The rest looks fine. Kusma (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eric" is a common fist name, and could appply to any one of thousands of people, in other words it applies to no one in particular, and I fail to see how it is different from "Dennis". In general i don't see that "X is gay" is insultign when no specific person can be identified as "X". Perhaps others differ on this. I note that possibly inappropriate names are usually warend, not blocked on sight. User:Misza13 said "...Thus, I see no reason to change the status quo,..." in refernce to his blockign practice at WP:ANI#Children of Curpsbot, so he is already aware that questions are being raised. DES (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking 'Xisgay' accounts is not only common practice but backed by policy. If you disagree, I suggest you move to have policy changed, rather than single out one user and use recent concerns about adminbots to complain on WP:AN. – Steel 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that I mis read the policy. Blocking any name that contains a "reference" to sexual orientation whether or not it is an attack on any particualr person, or in any celar way offensive, seems very odd to me, and I didn't expect iot to eb in the policy. i read what seemed to be the relevant sectiosn of that page before startign thsi, an somehow missed this clause. i still think that particular policy is, er, perverse, but I don't think i fight that particular battle just now. I still think that auto-blockign on a regex is a poor idea. DES (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this one of the reasons blocking usernames is not delegated to bots normally? Misza13's apparent use of a regexp bot seems to be the root cause here. -- nae'blis 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Bots should not be used to block people. If the bot wants to flag a username as problematic, fine. But the block itself should be done by a living human admin.--Alabamaboy 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree too. Anchoress 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking of bots flagging usernames as problematic, there's a discussion about that at WT:UAA if anyone's interested. Will (aka Wimt) 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing wrong here. Misza made a mistaken block. He accepted this when asked about it. The account has been unblocked. The other username blocks are clearly fine and Misza has an excellent track record on making username blocks. WjBscribe 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's easy to find one of two borderline blocks and generate a huge discussion about adminbots. I wonder whether a human's error rate would actually be lower than a bot's. – Steel 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A casual glance through Misza13's logs shows that all blocks (except for DennisGay) were good. Of course it would be preferable if they were under a bot account, but that would violate a couple of rules... Kusma (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the "isgay$" regex has so far performed well in blocking all kinds of stupid attack usernames. "DennisGay" is a very rare case that got caught erroneously, I admit. Nevertheless, I have removed that regex until I figure out a better solution for this common attack pattern. But then again, I might've as well blocked that username instinctively if I saw it with my very own eyes. Any other blocks under question? I do check my block log regularly and I must say this is the first blunder - I design my regexes with extreme care and use them mostly to combat nauseus memes such as "Great Gitten Huff of <insert year here>". On a side not, I believe that "{{UsernameBlocked}}" block summary is about enough for a notification, because (as noted above) the blocked user will see the full template when the block kicks in, not just the CamelCase word. Миша13 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misza you are doing a damn fine job with username blocks. The signpost had an article about another administrator who was constantly issuing poor username blocks but I don't see any problem with yours. Your work is appreciated. Burntsauce 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even admins have the right to make mistakes without being penalized for them. The block of DennisGay is seems to be such a mistake - if Gay is a real last name (as has been claimed), then since Dennis is and Denn isn't, DennisGay is most likely the user's real name. Od Mishehu 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the possibility that that said user knows someone named "Denn" and is mocking him under the pretense that "Dennis" is a legit real name and "Gay" is a last name. hbdragon88 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have we forgotten so soon? No matter how good his results to date are, the process lacks transparency if we only found out by seeing a questionable block. --Random832 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mega backlog detected at IFD

    I'm surprised this has gone somewhat unnoticed. Please exterminate these images. MER-C 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's a big backlog. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When you finish a day, please remove it from the "Old" section on the main IFD page. --kingboyk 11:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FU images in lists

    Is the previous discussion's consensus is that zero images are allowed in episode lists now? - Peregrine Fisher 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It all depends on whether there is a reasonable, thorough rationale provided for that image's use in that article. If there is, then no worries. If there isn't, remove it. Picaroon (Talk) 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you help me come up with what constitutes a thorough rational. - Peregrine Fisher 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a list would be very likely to contain the critical commentary and discussion necessary to justify the images' use in the first place. If it did, the rationale would have to briefly explain this critical commentary. See User:ESkog/Rationales for some examples of what I mean by this, including some exemplary rationales on other types of images. Lists are a tough call because of our prohibitions against decorative use and fair-use galleries - I know you don't feel the images are either one of those, but that's what they look like to me. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ESkog/Rationales is a good page. Creating rationals better than Image:As Nasty As They Wanna Be cover.jpg, Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg, Image:Action_Comics_-1_June_1938.jpg, etc. is not a problem. It's problematic when you say that "it is not sufficient for the image to just show something - such as a screenshot of an episode - but it must illustrate some concept or claim in the article in such a way that words would be insufficient." It sounds like episode images are being held to a higher standard than other images, but I'm willing to accept that. Anyways, I imagine that even if I met that criteria, I'd be hit with a revert and a page protection. This is a problem we need to come to a compromise on. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromise: one image per 10 episodes, 10 images max. Of course meeting all requirements on User:ESkog/Rationales. - Peregrine Fisher 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (un-indent) Please don't treat my page as anything more than suggestions; it is only my reading of policy, and is certainly not anything binding. I don't think the number of images is the problem at all, but instead it is the depth of the commentary provided. An article with 2000 words and 200 images is almost certainly not providing any analysis of what we're seeing in the pictures or why each one is significant, so I suppose numbers come into play, but the bottom line has to be common sense. No sensible policy will ever state that X images is okay but (X+1) is not. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The new rule for episode pages is apparently zero images, unlike any other type of article. The problem is that some admins now feel comfortable with reversion then protection of a page when one image is added. As a non admin, I feel pretty helpless. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If an episode list provides sufficient critical commentary of each episode, then screenshots could certainly be used. Most lists by definition do not. --bainer (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, say I'm trying to add an image and someone is contesting it. How much, of what type, of critical commentary should I add so that I can feel secure. - Peregrine Fisher 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, that's the wrong way to do it. We shouldn't be looking for a reason to include an image after it's there. We should be writing about something, going "this really is missing something, we can't complete this without showing the reader what we're talking about", then add the image. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Basically, this isn't a case of "Well use X words, and you can use Y number of pictures." If you notice, after working with the article, that you're discussing some particularly iconic or controversial scene in that episode, and the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, you've got a good rationale for a fair-use image. If it's just "Well, we really should have an image in this article...", it's decorative. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard because I feel every article should be illustrated. Convincing myself that an article needs an image is easy, it's the convincing of someone who feels most comfortable with zero images that's hard. It's similar to the free images I have uploaded. I don't look at the article and decide it needs an image; I look at the images I can provide and then find articles for them. I will add rationals explaining why an image is particularly iconic or controversial , and why the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, though. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work. (But remember "iconic" or "controversial" means "according to reliable sources", not "according to fans", and not every show will have such a scene! Probably, not even every TV series will have too many such scenes.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Peregrine, you do realise that's bullshit, don't you? This is not about preferring articles without images, it's about copyright law and our fair use policy, based on copyright law. Which policy, incidentally, you seem to have violated rather prolifically. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the use in lists is well within both policy and even further within the law. Copyright paranoia and over-reaching admins enforcing their interpretation of the policy is just as much bullshit as Peregrine wanting to use the images. SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do feel free to show a list which provides critical commentary of an image for every episode. -- Nick t 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since a single screenshot is such a tiny portion of a TV episode (a standard 40-minute episode contains nearly 72000 frames, not counting commercials), and since a screenshot does not in any way impair the market value of the episode or serve as a substitute for the episode, the legal threshold for fair use is probably fairly low. I think that the episode lists (which usually had about one paragraph of commentary for each screenshot) would be considered fair use in the very unlikely case that the copyright owners decided to press the matter. (Plenty of major fan sites use screenshots far more prolifically than that, often with no commentary at all, and have never been served with a C&D.) What we're really talking about is not U.S. law, but Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that these usages constitute actual copyright infringement; the question is whether they fall within our fair use criteria. I feel that using terms like "bullshit" in response to other people's arguments, and implicitly accusing them of violating copyright, is probably unhelpful. *** Crotalus *** 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The lists look so empty without images. Also they help if you don't know the name of the episode, among other things. JDeus01 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't use images to make lists look "full". As for recognizing an episode, that only works if you have seen the episode in question. An image is not useful for someone who has never seen the episode. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CAT:CSD

    The candidates for speedy deletion log is down to about 70-80 articles right now. It'd be great if we can get some extra admins out there to knock out the last ones and keep it down for awhile. Thanks, Metros232 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think congrats all round is required here, everyones done great work getting it down that low. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations? For getting it "down" to 80? Clearly you have forgotten the days when 80 pages was considered a backlog in need of attention. (And it wasn't that long ago. I'm talking about late 2006) – Gurch 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was down to one article as of this timestamp! (aeropagitica) 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was actually down to 0 when I headed out for a bit this morning. I almost took a snapshot. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in love with this diff from Cydebot right now. Metros232 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected

    Can anyone explain to me the point of all the new stuff on this MediaWiki page? It seems that several users have decided to copy the Main Page into a user subpage and cascade protect it, and then change this notice so that if the Main Page is not available it invites them to go there instead. This messes up View Source for the Main Page by listing a load of userpages, and until I asked for it to be fixed, completely broke the message everywhere else. If someone was going to delete the Main Page, surely they would just delete all those userpages first? This seems to be to be completely the wrong way to address this "problem" (if a problem even exists) – Gurch 07:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would bet that it's intended as insurance against the main page being accidentally unprotected. --Random832 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. After an article is deleted, it nullifies the cascade protection (and briefly unprotects all otherwise cascade-protected templates, leaving them vulnerable for a short period of time). Also, when the page is finally undeleted, it is quickly vandalized by anon users, which the other cascade-protected subpages would prevent. However, David Levy moved the user subpages that the protections were originally on to subpages of the main page. These pages will now show up in Special:Random, and subpages are disabled in the mainspace, so I don't understand what it was meant to accomplish. You'll have to ask him. Sean William 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. Er... has nobody else noticed that anyone who can delete the Main Page can unprotect/delete those other pages as well? – Gurch 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Talk:Main Page#Cascading protection backup subpages. —David Levy 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-11

    Hello I have encountered a problem on the aforementioned page. If you look at the last submission you will see that a user submitted some content that caused all following submissions to not be registered. He used <ref><ref/> instead of <ref></ref>. Because of this the page was truncated, and all further submissions do not show up. If I replace the <ref/> tag by a </ref> tag, the problem is fixed but, then it makes it look like I have signed all the submissions, because the ~~~~ were not parsed by the server, when the users submitted their articles. See here what happens if I do that. What can I do? And what can be done to prevent this happening again ? It a fairly serious problem, because the only people likely to find this are unregistered users who do not have a good grasp of wikipedia (or they wouldn't be using WP:AFC), or the person reviewing the submissions. By which point it is too late, and all the IP addresses are lost. Thanks for any ideas on how to solve this.Jackaranga 08:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think now it can only be fixed by hand, writing all the sigs explicitely. Might be a good idea to file a bugreport on this. Perhaps you could have like a warning when you save such an edit that says: "This edit contains unbalanced or incorrectly closed (HTML-)tags. You open with <tag>, but there does not seem to be a </tag>. Press save again if you are sure this is how you want to save this entry". Another possibility is that you let ~~~~ substitution take precedence over <ref><ref/> parsing. Or perhaps both :D I'd file, but i don't want to register. I'm already in too many of those bugdatabases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Alton, as fixed this page ! :) --Jackaranga 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfair allegation against me

    I have been the victim of a false allegation made using Template:uw-delete1, and the person who made the allegation is not apologising to me. I do not think this sort of short cut method of insulting people who try to help Wikipedia should be allowed as it is very upsetting and will put people off contributing. Varsdra 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this issue requires administrator attention. Clearly there has been a misunderstanding about one of your edits. To avoid this in future, it might be wise to ensure you provide an Edit summary with a brief description of the changes you have made. Not doing this increases the chance of confusion like in this instance. Whilst I note you are not happy with the templates, I would suggest these are necessary when you consider the size of the project. Using templates ensures a consistent message. For the benefit of other editors looking at this issue, I believe this diff is what prompted the warning. Adambro 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The d1 template is hardly insulting, for that matter: " It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful..." Natalie 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have not explained why you removed the tags from Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. I'm sorry if you feel ofended by the template. This is the diff and also note that the article can be speedy deleted CSD A1 "very short articles without context". The article it self needs a rewrite and expanded. But try and use your Edit summary to explain why you are removing content such as the tags listed in the diff I provided. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As it currently stands Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. is not an A1 speedy, it has pleanty of conteXt, although not much content, in short it is a stub. Please be careful when using or considering A1, if there is enough info that an editor can easily figure out where to look for more info, it isn't an A1. DES (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PJ Pete

    Could somebody fix some articles? User:PJ Pete moved Pauline (Nintendo) twice and then change the redirects. Now there are 3 articles that all redirect to each other (double re-directs), and the edit history is at the wrong one. Could somebody restore the original article at its correct name? TJ Spyke 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin, so I couldn't fix it all the way. I fixed the double redirect and I reverted one move, but I couldn't over the second. To an admin: The original history is located at Lady (Nintendo), and the page needs to be re-moved back to Pauline (Nintendo). Thanks! — The Future 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Chick Bowen 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, for future use see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Chick Bowen 03:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up --Kind of HOT

    Resolved

    Can one of the kind administrators please check out CAT:PER as there is a request by FrankB/Faba rtus about changing Template:Infobox Officeholder. Many thanks, Extranet talk 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) {{EditProtected}}[reply]

    • This is (@FrankB) a one line cutNpaste Edit needed to fix a 'parameter name used twice' problem that has been affecting template:Infobox Officeholder, and hence potentially a lot of articles. It's been in place for some ten hours, so is kind of hot! <g> The double name use is breaking the second use occurrence, even when not used as it biases the default. Hence Notable People's Pics are defaulting to user preferences thumb size in the infoboxes, not going full margin!
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.I'd added both the {{HelpMe}} and {{EditProtected}} to my talk as the template has an outstanding connumdrum of some sort going back several days, and has the {EditProtect} "lingering" and stale because of that on [template:Infobox Officeholder].
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Since the problem I'm involved with is analyzed in that section of my talk, and it holds the entire three party conversation thread, that seemed a handy way to get an administer's attention for the cutnpaste that will solve the problem on Nancy Pelosi.
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.User:Extranet, apparently patrolling 'Help Requests', elected to remove the {{HelpMe}} -- and left the {{EditProtected}}. Being on a user talk as active as I am in templates, I figured it might be overlooked by itself as a likely mistake. Sigh! <G>
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Since I just polled all my normal Admin friends, (Yah -- Saturday night -- they're out partying or sleeping!) I thought I'd check Extranet's note here to see if there's been a response. Sniff. No Joy. Believe I'll put the HelpMe back -- maybe an admin will respond before anyone sees THIS. Have a good weekend! (It'd be a damn shame if you don't, it looks like everyone else must be!) Good night, and thanks! // FrankB 05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the extra parameter. --MZMcBride 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI

    Saw this interesting news story during a Google search. The individual doesn't seem to have caused any actual problem on Wikipedia, but it's good to remember that we get all kinds at this site. DurovaCharge! 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not suggesting that you disclose which account or IP he was editing from, but have you identified him with reasonable certainty and confirmed that he was not causing problems... or are you just assuming that if he was disrupting the project, we would have noticed it by now? — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't identified the editor's account or IP name. DurovaCharge! 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it won't be a future problem as he most likely won't be editing from prison. Talk about an IRL ban. — MichaelLinnear 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think there's anything we should be doing about it. The way, the truth, and the light 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been blocked from editing[1] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. DurovaCharge! 15:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I wonder if he's one of the parolees caught in a recent Perverted-Justice MySpace sting? Well, not sting, really. Anchoress 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image file history lost and other oddness

    I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but couldn't find where else to put it. The image file Image:Toronto_Skyline_Photo.jpg has recently been edited by a user (I believe) who has said the image is a fake as the moon can't show up north of Toronto downtown (see this edit for the reason I believe this [2]). Now however this has been edited it now says below the licence Template:Delete and This is a fake. Since many images on Wikipedia are edited I see no problem in having an edited photo, when all that has been altered is the moon added, it's depicting the skyline which is what it is used for. Anyway, the edit has done something to the image page, I cannot access the history and I cannot remove the Template:Delete or the text about it being fake. I don't know how, but something has broken (or I'm being incredibly dense this morning). Can someone take a look and see if they can figure something out? Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image is on commons. ViridaeTalk 07:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block

    Someone is threatening to block me from editing for an ongoing editing war over the genre of Lamb of God (band) so therefore he is being a hypocrite, please block User: Inhumer from editing or prevent the blocking of me. Please visit my talk page. Skeeker 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page so there should be no need to block either of you at this stage. You need to discuss this and sort out the issue on the talk page. --pgk 07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That user isn't an admin and so can't block anyone... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism and missing article sections

    I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this type of question, but I have noticed that sometimes vandals will blank or delete whole sections of articles, and then the next editor to come along will not completely revert the deletions which were made. An example of this is in the Bob Dole article, where I noticed that the previous version that I saw had no information on his early life before entering into politics. So I went back through the edit history and lo & behold, I found the missing sections, which had apparently been deleted by vandals nearly a month ago. This is the diff showing the replacement of sections that I had to make.

    This is not the first time I have encountered this problem on Wikipedia. I was wondering if there was any way to solve this, perhaps noting in an automatic edit summary that a section has been deleted, or some other type of software fix? Some way of readily identifying when article sections are deleted, without having to go back many pages through the page history (which will often not be an obvious option to newer editors) would be a useful tool for combating this type of vandalism.

    If you have anything to ask me about this, please visit my talk page. Thank you for your time. --Eastlaw 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing you can do, is every time you see such a thing - leave a message to the reverting user. Od Mishehu 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot Issued Speedy Deletion Warnings

    A new bot, Android Mouse Bot 2 has been approved. This bot is designed to scan the CSD category and automatically add a nn-warn template to the article creator's talk page. I have concerns with this and have written them up at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Notify article creators of speedy-delete tags. As this bot will be doing something that overlaps admin responsibilities (ensuring users are notified when speedy deleting their articles), I believe we all need to be aware of this and the potential issues. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ehem... I know I warn users when I delete their copyvios with a {{nothanks-web}} tag, but the standard procedure states Also, in some cases the article's creator should be notified. Therefore, I don't think the bot is overlapping me, it would just issue warnings I do not consider necessary. I don't really see anything wrong with that. -- ReyBrujo 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the quality of automatic warnings; not usurping responsibility. I am also not advocating that the bot be prohibited. I am concerned that it's thought through and we don't end up over biting new users. As admins who work CSD should have the best experience (at least ideally) with the occasions that warrant warnings and those that don't, they should be able to provide input (if needed) to the bot creator as to what potentials pitfalls are present. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clear things up a bit, it doesn't always issue an nn-warn alert. It issues alerts based off the template that was used on the article. It although has been pointed out that some of the corresponding warnings I have choosen for the speedy deletion templates don't make sense or are not appropriate. I'll go ahead and post the tags it scans for on the article and which warning it generates from those so if others have objections to my choices can suggest alternative templates or create custom templates for those situations. --Android Mouse 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following is a list of tags the bot searches for and the warning it generates for each. The ones listed below are placed on the talk page in the format {{subst:template name|article name}}:

    (I'm removing the list since I've added an updated list below, see page history if you need to see the original.) </nowiki> --Android Mouse 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone through and created custom templates for each warning. These new templates state that the warning is comming from a bot and that the bot didn't nominate the article/image/category/etc for speedy deletion. If you see any problem with the templates I created, feel free to edit them. Although I have kept some intentionally vague since some I plan to use several for multiple similar warnings, keep this in mind if you edit them. Unless I recieve further suggestions or comments I will go ahead and run the updated bot (monitoring its edits closely) sometime tomorrow.

    The 4 immediatly below specify a specific reason given by the nominator for speedy deletion, the rest only specify the article name and a prewritten reason:

    --Android Mouse 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your new templates are much better. Some comments though:
    • I still have concerns with automatically posting the article title of attack pages on user talk pages. Many times, the title is part of the attack and the article creator is going to know what article they created. I see no value in repeating "so-and-so is a baby eater" on their talk page.
    • I also don't think automatic messages for db-redirnone or db-transwiki are necessary, but there is no harm in them.
    Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also suggest that you remove the warning for {{badname}}, as it's only meant to be added by the person who uploaded the image (sort-of like {{db-author}}), and so they'll already know that it's tagged for speedy deletion. I'd agree that you shouldn't give the page name for db-attack or its synonyms, and probably not db-vandalism or its synonyms either. ais523 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the attack template to not include the article name, and have removed the badname template, thanks. --Android Mouse 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article name is important for attack articles; it is very hard to determine whether or not to block a user for attack article creation without seeing the actual articles. If the names are problematic (and a bot should assume they are), the article name should be added in an HTML comment. Kusma (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I do have two more concerns based upon these two edits: [3] & [4]
    • It looks like your bot does not "remember" the messages it places. In this case, the editor removed your message and your bot re-added it. I think the bot needs to remember which ones it added and not repeat messages. CSD tags can remain in place for days when the backlog is large and there is no need to duplicate messages if the user has archived or removed it.
    • This user should never have been given the message in the first place. He did not create the article. He moved it to the correct spelling (added a space). The person who actually created the article is not listed in the history of this article because of the move. The first person in the article history is not always the person who created the article. In addition to moves, there are also cases where someone "hijacks" an existing article or converts a redirect into an article. The person who should get the message in those cases is not the first person in the history. Even with your new templates, I am concerned that most people will view these messages pejoratively and they should not be incorrectly given to editors. I don't see how your bot can prevent that.
    Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    THanks for pointing this out too, I can have it check the page log's to make sure the article hasn't been moved and also have it log which users it has notified of which articles in order to avoid repeat warnings. --Android Mouse 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this bot will be very useful. I think the custom warnigns above are a very good idea. i do agree tyhat for attack pages, the page title should be included, at least in an HTML comment, and i would include it in the substance of the msg (but not in the section header or edit summary). i think it is overly optomistic to assume that an editor will always know which page s/he created that was tagged as an attack -- some people don't understand what we think of as attacks, and sometimes the attack tag is used improperly. I persoanlly always give a manual warning, and i think this is the best practice, so I hope the bot will delay a few minutes so that a tagging editor has a chance to give a direct warning if possible. Noe the less, far too often I find on CSD patrol that article creators are not notified, and I think this bot will do lots to help that situation. Disclaimer: I am the person who filed the request for this bot to be created. Thanks for doign so. DES (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the instance of an attack I think it would be better to have the article in question in a link, but not title of the link. Ex: "The article here has been nominated for speedy deletion". Would a five minute delay before having the bot add the warning be suitable? --Android Mouse 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The link works, in lets editors find the page if they are in any soubt, without repating the attack. 5 minutes should be a sufficient delay, IMO. DES (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have nothing useful to add here at the moment, except that I saw it give Tony S a notice about a stub he created in 2005 (or maybe moved, was that before move logs?). Is there some sort of statute of limitations we can apply here? The article in question had ~30 edits by the time it was removed... -- nae'blis 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That should be an uncommon case, but perhaps a rule that if the article is Older than X, and has more than Y different editors, don't warn -- say 1 Year for X and 10 for Y? I don't know if this is feasiable without too muchg extra work. DES (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean, could you please give me a link to this user's talk page so I could take a look? Thanks --Android Mouse 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that this edit? if so it is a different bot. DES (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's this edit which looks like Android Mouse's bot running while not logged in (see the contribs for the IP address). -- JLaTondre 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shame On You

    Shame On You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Can someone take a look at this user. His talk page is full of civility notices, and I think his recent comments to me deserve admin attention. I'd do it myself, but then I'm sure someone would complain that it should that I'm "involved". Raul654 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gave him a last warning. Further incivility will result in a block. —210physicq (c) 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You definitely did the right thing to post here Raul. There won't be any shortage of admins willing to block if he doesn't mend his ways. Already been done. Too bad, that guy knows the the truth and now he can't tell us! :( --kingboyk 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I encountered the article by watclist chance; too bad I failed to notice this notice. Anyway, indefinite block issued, eventually. El_C 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

    Madmedea (talk · contribs) has been tagging a number of centuries old images, some of which have been used in Wikipedia articles for years, as "no source" for deletion within 48 hours. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg apparently noting it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519 is not adiquate sourcing. I (and some others) have objected to this to Madmedia, arguing that such images are in no way copyright problems, but Madmedea says this is appropriate and necessary for image policy. I would appreciate others taking a look at this and stating perspectives. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is currently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sources_for_Mona_Lisa.3F. I suggest that the discussion be kept there. --Iamunknown 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I hadn't been aware that this was already under discussion when I posted above. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking of 210.50.231.142

    The IP address 210.50.231.142 was blocked until a date in October 2007. I request for this block to be removed as the IP address belongs to a high school in Melbourne, Australia, namely Mazenod College. The block is having a negative effect on students whom wish to edit Wikipedia legitimately.

    Could a notice be also added to the page to alert administrators to this fact?

    — Peter McGinley 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... the ip has been blocked 8 times, and has vandalized since June 2006. Everytime the block expired, vandalism continued. Students can register an account and edit through it. I would unblock it, but if I am forced to block the ip again, I would block it until next year, due previous abuse. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added {{schoolblock}} to the talk page of the above IP address. As ReyBrujo said, if a student wishes to edit legitimately, they should create an account at home. I'm not recommending unblocking the address, as the record is too damaging to assume good faith. Harryboyles 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hotel Travel Check's "Wikipedia listing service"

    This caught my eye today during a routine Google check. Apparently this firm has spent the past half year soliciting business for the purpose of writing Wikipedia articles about hotels. Anyone heard about this, or know what the firm's Wikipedia username is? DurovaCharge! 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HTC. One Night In Hackney303 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why hasn't it been blocked yet? This kind of editing is completely unacceptable. MER-C 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what user name do we block? extra points for clear proof. DES (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user name is above. Click this link in the link Durova provided above, and it has a page with a link to Hotel Union Square, created by User:HTC. One Night In Hackney303 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I indef blocked the account with a note on their talkpage. Let's see where this goes... Veinor (talk to me) 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating articles for payment is not forbidden on Wikipedia, nor should it be. Of course, it's heavily frowned upon, but in other cases it wouldn't be an insta-ban. The problem with this service, is that the vast majority of Hotels are not notable, and they should be informed of those guidelines. - hahnchen 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I belive that doing this from an SPA is currently blockable after warning according to WP:BLOCK. DES (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the block may be suitable as the user is only posting articles on seemingly non notable hotels. However, cases such as the blogger paid by Microsoft to improve the Open XML article should not. The problem is advertising and nns, this may be exacerbated by financial motivation but it doesn't mean a user cannot write a neutral article even if they are paid. I actually believe SPAs are more useful in this area, as their edits can be easily tracked, unlike say a normal user doing a bit of "extra" editing on the side which may be missed. - hahnchen 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick review, see Hanlon's Razor

    I think the block might be premature. The standard COI warning says that abusive accounts can be blocked without further warning. I would issue a warning, and then block next time they do edit-for-hire. I've given the warning in case somebody decides to unblock them. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concurrent with this thread I informed Cary Bass. Per Jimbo's reply I have no objection to the block. DurovaCharge! 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I acted in haste; if the community decides that this is perhaps a bit rash, I would of course not object to an unblock. Veinor (talk to me) 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AACS encryption key

    The Spanish Wikipedia found a way around $wgSpamRegex, and that method is now starting to appear here. Is this something that should be allowed, or should any key addition be reverted? This pertains to AACS encryption key controversy of course. Prodego talk 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BEANS? Personally, the key is not really needed for articles, and would revert it on sight, especially if in articles that have little to do with the key itself (such as hexadecimal). -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, perhaps, maybe this wasn't terribly smart, but it would have been figured out anyway, since someone spotted it in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it could just be copied over. However, I am talking about the article AACS encryption key controversy specifically. Prodego talk 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is one of the exceptions I was thinking about. I am sure we will be receiving a DMCA takedown notice, though :-/ A pity we don't have legal advice from the Foundation. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DMCA notices don't apply since not a copyright issue.Geni 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The-Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named can be treated however you would like to treat it. As long as it only gets used in the article, and nowhere else, it may well be safe to use... or not. The lawyers are out on that, but either way, no one seems to have complained yet, and there are advantages to both approaches. It definitely shouldn't be used elsewhere, of course.

    Whatever the case, we're certainly noticing a clear chilling effect here. --Kim Bruning 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sure some people are seeing a chilling effect but I wouldn't include us in that group. We can discuss the controversy perfectly well without reproducing the key in full (just as we discuss child pornography without actually including any child pornography). The relentless attempts to insert the key do seem very WP:POINTy, since there is clearly no reluctance to document the controversy. As an encylopaedia, we have done our job acceptably well on this. If people want the key, they need to go to a hacks'n'cracks website, not an encyclopaedia, our job is to tell the world what happened and why it was important. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironicaly it could be argued that legaly we could be in a better position if the number was in any article bar that one.Geni 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review requested

    Since the issue has come up elsewhere (WP:AN/I#Reverting_problem_tagging) I would like to solicit comments on my recent block by User:Jossi. Details here: [5]

    This was about tagging Image:DerSturmer_stand.jpg as unsourced. The first edit was to tag it unsourced [6], and then a revert war spun out with several participants about tagging it as {{PUIdisputed}}. I see WP:PUI as different in character from {{nsd}} - it serves to attract more eyes to a questionable image and offers the chance to find a suitable replacement if one is needed.

    Nazi-era events are abundantly documented, and there is images available from archives all over the world. The Library of Congress, the Holocaust Museum and the German Historical Museum all have images online and offer further reading as well. It's crucial to document the provenance of an image. A recent example is Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg, which was uploaded as an example of a generic antisemitic cartoon but on closer inspection turned out to be attacking Churchill as the head of the supposed world-wide Zionist conspiracy.

    I prefer to think that much of the material culled from websites was added in the early days of Wikipedia, when there was higher priority on generating content. Now that the project has matured it is important to vet what is uploaded - it makes us more credible.

    Accusations of antisemitism are way off the mark, below the belt, and they won't help to clean out the huge backlog of unsourced imagery. Dr Zak 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point? Other people acting badly doesn't excuse 3RR violations. Is there some reason you shouldn't have been blocked that I'm missing? -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the purpose of {{nsd}} is to mark something clearly deleteable for deletion. {{PUIdisputed}} is to attract more eyes to something that is possibly deleteable. There were no three reverts.
    Also, there is the general problem with unsourced imagery. Every time it's a Nazi image someone complains about antisemitism. Dr Zak 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The second claimed revert ([7]) isn't technically a revert, so he shouldn't have been blocked for 3RR, although there may be some other problems in this case. I'm not sure where accusations of antisemitism come from. Phony Saint 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenacious IP Vandal

    Tonight we dealt with a particulately energetic vandal who was shifting IP addresses as fast as we could issue blocks and repair the damage:

    The vandal targeted the following articles multiple times:

    Edits included deceptive edit summaries. The attacker frequently asserted that reference links to Matt Cutts blog were spam. Because of Matt's official position as leader of Google's webspam team, and unofficial position as Google's lead spokesman to the web developer community, Cutts' blog is a valuable primary reference.

    The situation was finally resolved by semi-protecting the targeted articles. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify the point of this thread, Jehochman and I suspect this was a coordinated attempt to erase outgoing links to a particular site, possibly by some professional adversary of Matt Cutts, and possibly script-driven. I've blocked all three IP addresses for 24 hours and semiprotected these articles for two weeks. DurovaCharge! 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Adler's Social Internets and Comunicaitons Course

    Just a heads up. There may be some odd articles being created and other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is that user not blocked for making death threats? --ST47Talk 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely by User:Petros471. PeaceNT 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I can't think of a good one, especially as it's nearly (though not quite) a vandalism only account anyway. So I've blocked. Petros471 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments

    User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He looks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

    • Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names
    • we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians
    • the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism
    • we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.
    • I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

    It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture.

    I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have named political groups and governments. There is nothing offensive about it unless these people are associated with such groups. They actually started the political discussion, not me. Here are couple of lines from Ralhazzaa starting political discussion on April 8:

    • I don't know why some users here are enjoying the ignoring and suppressing of information! Why some users here like to play a game against history and real life just for politcial sake of eliminating other's POV and culture?!
    • May I remind you that we are talking about the "Arabic" name of this sea, not the English or the Persian?!!
    • If you still not sure, leave this job to native Arabs, and I don't think you are native Arab to use this right.
    • Please stop your intentional misinterpreting and continous falsifying ancinet works as it is not good for solving this dispute here.
    • Also the user has been aggressively r.v. waring after a consensus was reached [8].

    These are some of the comments of this user that has been going on for more than one month, while I have been respectful. Now they brought something about the Iranian Government (which I do not defend), but how to point out that the actions of political groups in their own countries is not so rosy. I will try to stick to the discussion, but the other side should stop using emotions and be logical. --alidoostzadeh 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You both need to come down, although more so alidoostzadeh who has been especially disruptive recently. If it were not for Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs)'s warning on his talk page, I would have blocked him. Ali, please heed the warning. It is absolutely ridiculous that the discussion has begun to descend into a petty Arab vs. Persian thing. Again. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Psb777 and Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux

    Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux was deleted on April 19, with the decision being to depopulate and delete. Since then, Psb777 has repeatedly added it to his userpage after the original removal here by User:John Reaves. They are claiming ownership of their userpage, requesting that others "go away" and "leave their userpage alone". While I recognize that users have a right to not request others make edits to their userpages, I believe that, in this case, the deletion decision overrides that, and that this is simply implementing a deletion decision. Veinor (talk to me) 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case, I'd let it be. The deletion decision was closed with the category divided and depopulated because "there is no way that we can know which of the two new categories a specific Wikipedian wishes to be in," according to the closer. But there was significant opposition to deleting the category, and evidently this Wikipedian has made it clear he uses the name GNU/Linux. Why make a big deal of a user category that isn't divisive? CFD-watchers might disagree, but I say let it go. Chick Bowen 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understood, two new categories were created one for Linux and one for GNU. The reason was that Linux can be without GNU, and GNU can be without Linux. The reason given for delete and depopulate was based on not knowing which of the two new groups the users would actually be in. GNU/Linux would be a specific category combining both GNU and Linux. I see nothing in the decision which would preclude or discourage a category for GNU/Linux. Lsi john 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you click on the category this does not seem to be the only user who has this category. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Login unsuccessful

    The following posted on my talk page. I can't do much about this and I don't know what the proper procedure for this, so I'm hoping someone else knows what to do. I'm guessing, however, is that the answer is pretty much, "He's screwed." howcheng {chat} 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I was wondering if you could help me retrieve my account. I am the User:Bababoum and have been unable to login since logging out sometime on Saturday. Even though I'm sure I have tried to log in with the correct password (my username), I requested to be e-mailed with a new password, but it said "There is no e-mail address recorded for user "Bababoum". If proof is needed that I am indeed that user please check my IP address. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 82.29.19.104 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmmm, that's a tough one. CheckUser would reveal if they were editing from the same IP address so could determine that it's the IP's address, but would the dev's be willing to reset the account? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing we can do. Tell 'em to make a new account if they have forgotten the password to the old one and never added their email address. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the user should be temporarily blocked to avoid another vandalism spree till his password is recovered..----Cometstyles 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to suggest there would be a vandalism spree. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he is thinking of the account hijacker that hit a bunch of admins recently. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that was admin accounts, this is just a user account - the user probably changed their settings when the account hijacking was going on, and forgot their new password. I very much doubt this has been hijacked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see why anyone would bother, really. The whole point to hijacking an admin account is to do as much damage as physically possible before you get canned. HalfShadow 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer: He stated its the same as his username, and if any of you read the mailing list (you all should, it's official, unlike IRC and business is routinely carried out there, admins should be required to subscribe.) You'd know that accounts with matching usernames/passwords are being disabled. Email a checkuser to confirm, and get someone to reset the password (Steward, maybe?) -Mask? 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh, I've already got enough email without having to deal with yet another mailing list. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that any account whose password was the same as its username has recently had its password forcibly reset by the developers as a security risk. If you had an email set, a new password was sent; if not, you are SOL. It may be possible to contact the developers to reset your password again if you can prove you are who you say you are, but this has only rarely been done. Thatcher131 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked Stewards can't reset passwords, if there have been a lot of these I wouldn't be too hopeful that devs will be willing to spend time on the issue either. --pgk 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The signal-to-noise ratio on the mailing list is not high enough for me to read it routinely, and I can't find anything in the recent archives about non-admin passwords being reset. Can you link to the post? Thatcher131 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he has edited through his account recently (any time within the last four weeks), a CheckUser could determine whether he is editing from his regular IP address (assuming it is a semi-static IP), or at least that the claim is plausible. A developer can go straight into MySQL and set his email address directly on the database, or reset his password to something else. There's even a maintenance script to do this... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Krauthammer Page

    Can an admin please look into the unexplained POV tag on the Charles Krauthammer page? A weird discussion about it is unfolding on the discussion page, and I think an admin better-versed in Wiki policy & guidelines is needed to sort it out. Abe Froman 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:71.161.94.82

    Hi. As this userpage is being used by a return troll to soapbox and troll some more, would it be possible to get semi-protection on it (at least for a while)? I believe {{Pp-semi-usertalk}} provides that this type of protection is acceptable. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked several of the IP addresses involved in this, and protected some of the relevant talk pages for the duration of those blocks. Let me know if any more turn up. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you (though I believe this is a long term user, and he/she will be back). The Evil Spartan 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking User:Matrix17 bad faith blocking from admin

    Both User:Yamla and User:Steel has done wrong when they blocked Matrix17. First of all Yamla blocked me for a totally unfair reason when i haddent even been on the site for more then 24h. I had written a article on Ebba von Sydow which yamla considered a nn bios. Which was proven to be wrong by another member on wiki. Then i tried to request unblock which user Steel denied,which he did because he and i can agree on anything then he blocked my talk page so i can request unblocking again.so all in all the two users blocked me for no good reason. and 6 months is way to hard anyway, this has just been bad faith from both admins. I would be glad if someone could look trough this with an objective mind. Regard/User:Matrix17.--90.225.121.21 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, terrible isn't it? Bad faith blocking, when all you did was keep repeating a problem behaviour after you were told it was a problem. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And that a opened mind? no i dont think so.--90.225.121.21 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked 90.225.121.21 (talk · contribs), as this is clearly the second time it's been used for block evasion. My current impression is that the block on Matrix17 (talk · contribs) is fair enough, but no problem with discussion on that point. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MarkStreet = Mark us street = Henco = Esgert = Truli = Buffadren = DES GRANT (DUBLIN, IRELAND)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.243.232.122 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Mark us street (talk · contribs) and Buffadren (talk · contribs) are {{confirmed}} in that checkuser, but neither of them seems to have edited in the same month, even. Could you be a little more explicit, regarding any policy violations or abusive practices? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only thing I can find is the fact that both Buffadren and Mark us street seem to be serial violators of the 3RR policy and engage in edit warrning (in which both accounts have been blocked and neither has been used while the other is blocked). Sasquatch t|c 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Open proxies need to be hard blocked

    Don't soft block an open proxy - the compromised admin accounts last weekend? The edits were through an open proxy. This particularly applies to TOR. I've just been reblocking a pile as hard blocks - David Gerard 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be a good idea to do so, but I don't see how the compromised admin accounts make it more urgent or desirable, since such an account can unblock itself. Can you explain? Demi T/C 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=130912018"