Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcap (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 19 May 2010 (→‎Dreamweaver and disambiguation: bitch). 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)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Moving pages

    I need to move (rename) an article of a BLP, Desiree Bassett to "Desireé Bassett". With the new layout, I am not sure how to go about doing so. Frankly, i am not even sure where to have gone with this inquiry, so I am asking here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The move function has been hidden away underneath the collapsible menu to the right of the "History" tab. If you mouse over the inscrutable triangle found there, you should see a "Move" option for any page that isn't protected from being moved. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as I'm here, I should also point out that the article is far too much of a close paraphrase of http://dbassett.com/about/ .Really, it needs to be substantially rewritten. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a page move the right thing here (it is her proper name, after all), or is a simple redirect a more elegant solution?
    As for the paraphrasing claim, I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, but you should feel free to edit to remove any similarity that you feel is there, Gavia immer. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The page move was correct. Titles should use diacritics where appropriate, but have redirects from titles without diacritics to enable people to find the articles easily. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I thought the standard was whatever the person is known by in English. Are they known with diacriticts in English? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about the particular case in question. As long as the article can be easily found that is the main thing. The pedant in me would use the title with diacritics as being the "correct" spelling - names like René, Chloë etc. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a silly question - not to mention a bad time to ask - but shouldn't the page be at "Desirée Bassett" and not "Desireé Bassett"? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not... if the site's spelling ("On her thirteenth birthday, Desiree' played two important gigs...") is anything to go by. Bizarre. Or "bizareé", if you'd prefer. TFOWRpropaganda 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, is the name Desireé or is it Desiree' ? Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Desireé" looks like a misspelling. Desiree (given name) when written with diacritics is normally Désirée. I think I've also seen it written as Desirée. Desireé with the accent over the final e looks weird and wrong and I'd resist that move unless confirmed through some good sourcing or direct communication with the subject that she spells it that odd way. Desiree' would be a mangling by some English speaker who used an apostrophe instead of an accent aigu and put it in the wrong place. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected images on the Main Page Part V

    To join the secret cabal follow me!


    Whack!

    for letting File:Flag of Sikkim.svg sit on the main page for 48 minutes unprotected. βcommand 00:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Err... It hasn't even been uploaded. o 0 -FASTILY (TALK) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had it protected on commons. Im about to file a bug in bugzilla about a flaw that I discovered. File:Sikkimflag.svg is the actual image link that was used. but its a redirect to another file, which was also not protected. The bug i discovered is that cascade protected images do not follow redirects, thus even though File:Sikkimflag.svg was automatically protected via cascade protection the actual image is not. βcommand 02:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    see bugzilla:23542 βcommand 03:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're talking about bugs in cascading protection, I'll give a shoutout to bugzilla:18483. Shubinator (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (out) Does that trout get bigger and bigger all time? It now looks like The Trout That Ate Cincinatti. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious: does being protected on commons prevent someone from uploading a different version here, or do we still need to make a protected local copy? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Local upload or protection on commons both work. βcommand 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What about local create protection? –xenotalk 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If its not uploaded locally then nothing we do here will do anything to prevent exploitation. If they modify the file on commons it translates to en.wp. thus if the image is not protected on commons or uploaded locally its subject to exploitation. βcommand 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. Thanks, –xenotalk 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ βcommand: I've refactored your comment (resizing the trout). Apologies in advance if you find this objectionable; do please revert me if that's the case.
    @ BMK: I've reset the trout to a minnow. I want to see this biggering and biggering myself :-)
    TFOWRpropaganda 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Smaller is better, but I'm not sure it needs to be that small -- it needs to have some impact, after all, without scaring the cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be even larger than I made it, unprotected images on the mainpage shouldnt happen. This is at least my 5th posting to this page about it. the individual cases are even higher. (I reverted the trout). βcommand 03:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, though my first thought was "blimey, BMK wasn't joking!" ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I make a suggestion? If the process of protecting pictures that appear on the main page is failing (and if there have been five postings by the user βcommand about it, then it would appear to be so), users should discuss ways of improving the process on the relevant talk page rather than continually posting a picture of a trout here? --62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm with Beta on that- if enough fuss is kicked up about this, then maybe it will raise the profile of the issue. My suggestion would be for any non-admin who discovers an unprotected image on the MP to email me and any other admin who appears to be online and bug me on my talk page to tell me you've sent me an email, obviously without drawing attention to the subject of the email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Policymaking

    This is discussed here because administrators have much weight and also much experience.

    The current policymaking is not very good. Nobody with a life can keep tabs of all policies and guidelines. Also anyone can stop it by just saying "no". Discussion has too few participants so that one person can hold up things. The United Nations does not operate on a system where one or two can veto everything.

    The current system of discussing things initially works well. However, policy changes should be discussed on a Wikipedia wide basis periodically, say every six months.

    There are a number of conflicting things in Wikipedia. For most or all of them, I don't have an opinion, much less an agenda. Voting can be done at the time of ArbCom elections. The vote can or doesn't have to be binding. If not binding, it can be advisory to the participants of the discussion. Another possibility is that once or twice a year, certain issues can be voted on by administrators and that vote sent back to the policy talkpages to help guide the discussion. That way, administrators would not be the decision makers but their vast experience would help guide everyone. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree there's a systemic problem with "policy/guideline hawks": people with a lot of time on their hands that camp on a more or less obscure policy/guideline page and stymie most changes by first saying NO user1 that proposes X, three months later saying NO to user2 that proposes the same thing, never mind arguing that "this has been rejected already" (by him), rinse and repeat. I have seen guidelines that are widely different from "practice on the ground" as a result of this issue. So, ensuring wide participation in proposals is important to obtain a relevant consensus. This is much less of a problem on important policies than on obscure, MOS-type guidelines, but the latter tend to attract the opinionated anal hawks the most, it seems. On the other hand, we need a flexible way to address small changes. Pcap ping 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it can be unnoticed "small changes" that cause the most problems. Clever alteration of a modifier can reverse the effect of a policy. 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

    Help with salting

    In accordance with discussion at AFD, I deleted and salted Blood on the dance floor (band). I very rarely do anything with protection, and I virtually never salt pages, so I'm not sure that I did it correctly; could someone please check? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I get a message saying that only administrators can create that page, so you've added the right amount of salt in the right place. BencherliteTalk 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might also want to salt Blood on the dance floor as they will surely try again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there really a Sophie Ellis Baxtor tribute band...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses

    See Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses. Pcap ping 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Revision Deletion

    For your information, it looks like this has been turned on for administrators per the discussion here. The appropriate procedural policy page appears to be WP:REVDEL. Camw (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange, the discussion didn't really have any kind of consensus (even though this biased observer thinks that swiftly hiding sensitive or dangerous information trumps the transparency concern). Administrators should be mindful to use this sparingly until the lingering concerns are addressed. –xenotalk 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bugzilla request has been updated now to confirm it has been done. I guess the discussion I linked earlier was to ask for this work to be prioritised as the initial Bugzilla report indicates consensus to turn the feature on was reached in this discussion on the REVDEL talk page. Taking care over its use is a good idea. Camw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, I just noticed this. Some changes need at WP:REVDEL .... Pedro :  Chat  14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to thank FT2 for providing the guidance and warnings below. After reading through the applicable bugzilla report, I share his concerns, particularly those addressed in 3 and 4 below. The tool has some serious flaws that may require as much as a complete rewrite to overcome. Just saying... Be careful! —DoRD (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RevisionDelete update

    The Admin use of RevisionDelete has indeed been enabled on this wiki. But there are issues - an ongoing discussion was tending to "not yet" in light of known bugs, and although a policy exists, no guidance has been provided on testing and usage. According to one oversighter, there has been "suspected inappropriate use" already.

    More seriously, the underlying bug/issue that's been holding it up, is not yet fixed. This might matter a little less in the "single revision" version that was reported to have been enabled... except an admin has already said that they managed to use the "multiple revisions" version today. (Still being checked).

    Until the position is sorted out and we know whether this function will be re-disabled, or viable, and what bugs remain, some quick guidance to minimize any bug-related problems and/or misuse. The RevisionDelete interface is via the new "del/undel" links administrators can see next to revisions, and in the deletion log. These can safely be clicked. Actions are linked from the deletion log.

    Quick guidance:

    1/ Do not test the new "del/undel" function on live pages. Use sandbox pages and own userspace subpages to learn about RevDelete.
    2/ Use RevDelete minimally and within policy only. Read the policy carefully as there are some serious warnings in it.
    3/ Do not use RevDelete on more than one revision per action on a live page, even if it lets you. Log issues can arise later.
    4/ Do not use RevDelete on deleted revisions. Log issues could arise if RevisionDelete gets applied to a revision while deleted and the revision was later undeleted. Instead, use selective undelete to undelete the revision first, then delete the problem fields using RevDelete.
    5/ Do not use RevisionDelete to delete revisions or log entries (and especially block or delete logs) except when you are exceedingly sure they are within the terms of WP:REVDEL. The community consensus on enabling the tool was that due to its power as a tool, arbcom and possible admonishment/desysopping can be appropriate on a first misuse.

    More updates to follow once the position is clearer. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If even a first misuse (even accidental?) can result in desysopping, we need to let admins know about this more broadly. I had no idea it was going to be implemented and panicked for a moment, thinking I had accidentally gotten Oversight access. Steven Walling 04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we not supposed to be able to change the visibility of two revisions at once? I think that's what you're saying is being checked but unless I'm pretty sure I did. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said on the Village Pump discussion, giving this tool to all admins is a mistake. It's too quirky to be handed over to 1000 users, most of who will probably not bother to read the intricate dos and dont's. Pcap ping 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comments: -
    @Steven Walling yes but the switching on of the function was not known till it happened so nobody was expecting it, we're playing catch up and trying to get the sysadmins (server administrators) to revoke it until sorted out, but that's under their control not enwiki community's control.
    @Amorymeltzer As implemented the impression was that you shouldn't be able to do 2 revs at once, but we're seeing instances where people have managed to. If the software happens to allow it, please don't do this. It is easier to clear up any log problems if the tool was used on a single revision in each action.
    @Pcap Eventually I think it'll be like CSD and WW, the norms will be widely understood and the seriousness of misuse pass into "general admin culture". This is "learning curve" stuff. It does however need carefull rollout - ideally explanation, education, guidance first, then tool. The sysadmins have said they will discuss it and learn for future from it though, and it is rare. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most times that I want selective delete is when history-merging: e.g. someone cut-and-paste moved page X to page Y; later people make stray late edits to X (usually redirects). When history-merging X to Y, I first need to delete those stray late edits of X, else in the history-merge they will be shuffled in with the edits that were the history of page Y. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      RevisionDelete is not the tool what you are looking for. You are looking for "RevisionMove". Until that is provisioned, you'll need to continue to use selective deletion. –xenotalk 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd Behavior

    I noticed a new account creating five other new accounts just a few minutes ago. I left them a note, but have not heard a reply (I assume they saw it, since they just finished creating the accounts). I don't know if this is a problem, since none of the accounts have edited. My question is this: do I a) do nothing beyond my welcome note, b) block all the alternate accounts, warning the main account, or c) block everyone in sight and treat myself to a cold beer? Any advice is appreciated. TNXMan 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Nawlin already blocked them all. Elockid (Talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Option C it was, then. TNXMan 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Any chance it's Mascot Guy? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. However, the fact that Everyday People Guy (talk · contribs) only created five accounts probably had nothing to do with the talk page message. Each IP address can only create a maximum of six accounts per day; that limit is waved for account creators and admins, not regular users. Graham87 05:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doniago falsely accusing me of vandalism

    Resolved

    See User_talk:Penbat#Re:_Mobbing

    I am extremely annoyed that Doniago considers my hard work as "vandalism" on mobbing.

    1. my edits are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
    2. the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
    3. my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing, Kenneth Westhues, and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.--Penbat (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Response and comment on your talk page. Should resolve this with luck. I agree that provided the sources are solid as you say (which I imagine they are) then it looks like you have been editing appropriately and not engaging in vandalism. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Query about a new facility "Del/undel selected revisions"

    • I am an ordinary administrator. When I look at a page's (not deleted) history, today (18 May 2010) I have started getting a tick box opposite each edit entry, and to the right a click box that says "Del/undel selected revisions". If I go into that, what I get looks like an option to purge matter from the record completely, rather than an option to merely transfer one or more edits from the undeleted edits list to the deleted edits list. Please what has happened? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See above at #Revision Deletion. –xenotalk 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll about search box placement

    Considering the many comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change, Wikipedia:User experience feedback, Wikipedia:User experience feedback/search box, and many other locations around Wikipedia, a centralized straw poll on the placement of the search box in the new Wikipedia skin is being conducted here:

    --Elonka 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an old version of a talk page

    Please remove this version of a talk page, as an editor revealed the real name of another user. Markus Schulze 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreamweaver and disambiguation

    I'm still a little clear on how dab actually is determined, and I was hoping someone could explain it to me. when I type in the word "dreamweaver", I am redirected to Adobe Dreamweaver, which doesn't seem to be the most common use of the word or even the initial use of the term. For me, it wold seem that it should probably either go to the dab page or one of the musical references, like Gary Wright's Dream Weaver.
    I am thinking of replacing the redirect from the Adobe program to the song, musical group of the same name or the dab page itself, but am unclear how how we determine which term to use. I don't want to push my personal choices on the wiki, and it would be nice if there were some sort of reference (outside of a Google search) indicating which terms are more popular. If I am posting int he wrong place, its simply because I wanted to find a room full of more experienced folk than I to talk about this with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd argue that of the two, Adobe Dreamweaver is the most common use of the term. While Google Hits are not always useful, I think it is at least somewhat telling here. "Dreamweaver" its 23.8 million hits,[1] for "Dream Weaver", less than 700,000 with many of those still being for the software[2] Dream weaver already redirects to Dreamweaver (disambiguation), when really it should also go to the Adobe article, which should then link off to the disambig. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that opinion that for "dreamweaver", Adobe is by far the most common meaning. While not the initial use of the term, it is now most likely what people are looking for. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC offers a few ideas for relatively objective indicators, including search engine results. I'll disagree about "dream weaver" though, as I feel redirect to the dab page is appropriate in this case, since in my opinion seperate words do not and should not assume that someone intended to search for the combined word when there are other possibilities, and there is not (that I know of) a clear winner among the multiple "dream weaver" results which would win out under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why isn't this discussed on Talk:Dreamweaver? Pcap ping 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=363026057"