Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List unusable 2 Copyright mess 3 Nicer blocking messages for TOR, please? 4 Inappropriate Archiving? 5 Copyright violations on the main page 6 Special:Cite 7 {{notorphan}} 8 Speedies again 9 Block log vs. Blocked IP addresses and usernames 10 WikiMan53 block review 11 From the mailing list 12 Automated editing by Editore99 (talk · contribs) 13 Admin IRC - how to get on 14 Protection javascript 15 Andiamstillhere and FfopoPreteP 16 Single purpose spammers 17 Probable copyright infingements 18 Freaking confused 19 User:P.B. Pilhet 20 Antisemetism template protected 21 Password cracker to be run over admin accounts shortly 22 Proposed security policy 23 Requesting a schoolblock... 24 Bot Request for Approval appeal 25 Another bad admin 26 Advice request on User:76.5.105.107 27 EMERGENCY DESYSOPPING Main page deleted 28 Six double redirects need fixing. 29 Assistance needed with bomb threat warning 30 Indian caste system 31 Pick strong passwords! 31.1 Has my password been cracked? 32 Ownership issue 33 Luther Martin vandalism 34 Wikipedia:Namespace 35 Willy on wheels 36 Linkspam 37 User:Dax Flame 38 @wikimedia.org e-mail addresses for admins 39 New namespace 40 Watchlist please 41 Cite news template 42 Child issue 43 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong 44 Requested move to Shatt al-Arab 44.1 Discussion closed 45 At what point do guidelines trump straw polling? 46 Block of User:CommonsDelinker 47 Cfd binding? 48 Still trying to clarify fair-use rationales - please comment/edit 49 http://commons.wikimedia.org/ 50 Please help 51 All (Free/GFDL) Images Need to Be Transferred to Commons 52 Asking everyone to assume good faith with compromised admins 52.1 Section break 53 Committed identities 54 Table: namespace 55 Overturning a block 56 Silent undeletion of corporate censorship (formerly Gaaaah!) 57 Identifying repeat noticeboard reportees 58 More incivility by User:Illwauk 59 Celebrity (game) 60 What happened to the links? 61 Everything going red! 62 Link color 62.1 Styling stub links with css 63 User:PCE 64 User:Kolrobie 65 WP:AIV backlog 66 Delete template 67 Chloride 68 Unblock of autoblock caused by DennisGay 69 Highly diverging versions of Prem Rawat 70 List of people by name 71 Block/Unblock review requested

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

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

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

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

Perhaps we could add an "only allowed on" feature, such as the Bad Image list has, to the spam whitelist. Alternately, we could make admins immune to the blacklist. Prodego ^talk 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The latter is not a good idea, many admins inadvertently set it off, which helps get the link removed. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved everything off to its own list, however steps need to be made to WP:BEANS it down.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright mess

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

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

Deleting material generated for Wikipedia and released under the GFDL simply because a complete history has not been maintained seems to be overkill. The GFDL requires credit for five (5) authors; if that's present, I don't think it should be deleted simply because of an improper and regretable cut-and-paste move. Though I agree that liberal application of a clue-stick would be nice.- Nunh-huh 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The articles I looked at ALL the principal creators had been eradicated. That does violate the GFDL as well as basic common sense.--Doc^g 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I do understand. The GFDL doesn't specify "principal creators", just five contributors. It may violate common sense, but it doesn't violate the GFDL. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it says "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five)". Now if the principle authors, or most of them contributed BEFORE the unsourced copy and paste, then the GFDL is violated. I think in most of the cases I'm referring to that is the case.--Doc^g 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll, I see no benefit in deleting material that was clearly relased under the GFDL because of what amounts to a bookkeeping error. These particular atricles may not be worth saving, but it seems a bad rule to adopt, considering that the meaning of "principal" (and for that matter, what constitutes a valid history) is open to our interpretation. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of articles potentially involved, I wasn't necessarily suggesting deletions. Perhaps a note attached to a nul edit? I'll leave it to your disgression.--Doc^g 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of that would fully satisfy all would be a comprehensive database search to find the original, and either link to it or notate it or merge the history, depending on where it's foudn. Which I think would have to be done from a database dump offline, lest servers be overloaded. My discretion is already satisfied :), I'm just offering an option (one that I don't have the means or computing power to perform). - Nunh-huh 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You should also have notified David Cannon about this discussion. I've now done so.-gadfium 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've reversed the deletion for now. But some note needs put into the history noting where the article originated. I have notified him of the problem. This was not meant to be a discussion - but an appeal for another admin to take on this problem. It only became a discussion because someone started arguing.--Doc^g 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussing isn't "arguing"! - Nunh-huh 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a sign you should do more 'detective work' before deleting in the future? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicer blocking messages for TOR, please?

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

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

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

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

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

The proxy blocker might have been disabled, but the hardblocks remain.  : ( Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're asking for an admin, or group of admins, to unblock all TOR proxies and re-block them just to give them a nicer message? Corvus cornix 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly changing the block message will affect all the blocks. Possibly. We can't unblock them anyway, it is impossible for anyone but a developer. Prodego ^talk 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the message to mention vandalism would be misleading, because we don't block them for vandalism, we block them simply for being anonymous or open proxies. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But why do we block open proxies, bainer?

Corvus cornix, it would be nice if you softblocked them all, considering the systemic bias problems caused by blocking China. However, since I don't think there is actually community consensus about whether TOR should be softblocked or hardblocked, a nicer blocking message would be good.

I can't block anybody, not being an admin. Corvus cornix 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one autoblocking message that kept saying it would expire at the current time.

Thanks,

Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prodego, why would TOR exit nodes, which could cease to be TOR exit nodes at any time (TOR is a volunteer network), be indefinitely blocked without regular administrators having the ability to unblock them? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the blockings by User:Proxy blocker, which used to be run by the servers to automatically block proxies. These can't be unblocked by an admin. As for why, I don't know, I assume that it ran when we weren't a huge project, and it wouldn't matter if a few extra IPs were blocked. Prodego ^talk 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, thanks for telling me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Archiving?

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

• This IP has been blocked as banned user evading a ban, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher and ParalelUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), also BritishDad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) recently blocked as a sock, sock tag blanked by the IP. Review welcome, but I think the view at the time was that ParalelUni was one of the most vile trolls we had ever seen. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have now cleared the backlog of (largely bogus) edit requests on that article, anyone who wants to archive the talk page is welcome to do so. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It still makes me shudder whenever I read the case. bibliomaniac15 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations on the main page

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

• Image:Maha_shoretemple.jpg
• Image:Madurai-tank.jpg
• Image:Gingee.jpg
• Image:HathiGumphaInscription.jpg

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

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

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

This user has been targeting Tamil people and History of Tamil Nadu articles and has been tagging the articles as well as images in my opinion maliciously. This disruptive behaviour has been reported [1]. The images in question have been through a [Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags previous round of examination] and have been found to have appropriate licenses.

Sarvagna has also been maliciously tagging images even with appropriate licenses such as Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg, Image:Nallur.jpg and Image:EttayapuramPalaceRemains.jpg. His intent is plain and clear for all to see. Disruption. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue. Chick Bowen 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hot air and handwaving again. Conspiracy theories too. Of the above three he's mentioned, only the last two were errors of judgement and I corrected myself once it was pointed out. And as is abundantly clear to anyone who can read English, I'm not even complaining about those two. I'd like to see some source information on the ones that I've mentioned above or I reserve my right to remove copyvio. Sarvagnya 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright status of all images comes from the uploaders' assertions. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, perhaps you should assume good faith? (The Hathigumpha photo looks pretty old to me, and appears to be the same photo referenced here. The only issue is the image from JAINA.) Phony Saint 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Copyrights dont come merely from uploaders' assertions. For example, if you are claiming that you're uploading what a friend gave you, then Wikipedia requires that you present some proof that the friend has indeed given you permission. I believe, there is a whole bunch of people working on those alone. Similar to the ones who check the flickr copyright issues. I have seen similarly sourced pics with a link where the email from the friend(or some such) permission is displayed. I just cant remember where I saw it though. Sarvagnya 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hathigumpa photo is copyright of the British library. The website clearly says so. See this.

Excerpt from the page - ...The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programs and scripts) of this website is copyright © The British Library, unless otherwise stated (adjacent to or within the content) as belonging to other specified copyright holders. The content of this website can be accessed, printed and downloaded in an unaltered form, with copyright acknowledged, on a temporary basis for personal study and non-commercial use. Written permission must be obtained from the British Library for any other use, including... Sarvagnya 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Collect Briton is an archive. Materials taken from the site has a water mark. The said photo does not have a watermark. Therefore it was not taken from the website. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was not taken from that website, then it is blatant copyvio. The copyright is with British Library and somebody plagiarised it and you plagiarised it from them. How cool. Sarvagnya 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And if it wasnt taken from that site? Then where the hell was it taken from? Did William Cornish come back from the dead and give you his copy? Source please. Pleeese. Sarvagnya 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarized it? Copyrights expire 70 years after the copyright holder's death, and Cornish has been dead since 1925. [2] Owning the actual photo isn't the same as owning the copyright. Phony Saint 05:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The British library is in the European union and most certainly know the copyright rules. If they say it belongs to them and they own the copyright, I'd believe them because they are a reliable source. If they knew the copyright had expired, why would they bother to put up copyright warnings on their site. Sarvagnya 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how corporations actually work. Of course they're going to claim blanket copyright on all of their images. That's the simplest way to do it. It's up to you to figure out on a case-by-case basis whether some works are actually still under copyright. They're making a good amount of money off of continuing to sell rights and reprints off of old pics, even if they happen to be in the public domain (it's not illegal to sell PD images). So if they made it obvious that the images are PD, they'd be cutting into their own profits, not something they're liable to do! Thus, corporations are never a good source on the copyright status of their own works. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Special:Cite

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

Fixed. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{notorphan}}

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

Looks problematic to me. I would suggest proposing the template for deletion. If no one can come up with a good reason why it is in keeping with WP:NONFREE (none spring to my mind) it can then be deleted. Images tagged with it can be tagged as orphaned non free content and deleted after the requisit time. WjBscribe 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, propose it for deletion. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Its on TfD now. [3] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I never said it was only a law issue. It is a combination of Fair Use law and our policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedies again

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

on it. alphachimp 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just took out a little over 150 articles, but there's still a lot left (over 500). Most are images... alphachimp 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most are imageless image pages. Someone with a faster connection than I should just blitz through them. Chick Bowen 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

A technical glitch of some sort. You might want to post this at WP:VPT, since the devs read that. Prodego ^talk 12:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When there is a conflict, Special:Ipblocklist is the accurate record. Also, there are time when unblocking an editor from their block log doesn't seem to work; if that happens, unblock from Special:Ipblocklist. Thatcher131 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Special:Ipblocklist is the more accurate. That is what the bot at AIV uses. Sometimes it removes a user and no block and be seen in the block log, but the block can be seen at Special:Ipblocklist. This is because logs sometimes lag behind, or other glitches can occur to them, but the Ipblocklist checks the status of the block itself. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiMan53 block review

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

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

[edit] From the mailing list

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs

• {{unreferenced}}: 8,827
• {{more sources}}: 159
• {{fact}}: 8,282

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

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

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

It certainly is not fully automatic - if you look at special:contributions/Editore99 the timing is erratic. If it was a bot, I'd think the edits would be made on a more regular timescale than 17:00, 17:02, 17:07, 17:09, and 17:10 for example. So it's semiautomatic or manual. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it might be AWB, modified from the source not to require approval. Look at this edit for example, where 2 additional changes were made other then date delinking. Prodego ^talk 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While some of the edits seem to be helpful, I'm quite concerned about some. He seems to be changing "horsepower" to "power." Although its not SI, when referring to cars, I believe horsepower is preferred. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for the time being based on the concerns here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

More precisely (or not), you've blocked him indefinitely for the time being. (Er, excuse me while I think that one through.) There are some that are concerned about your methods of editting being too fast and automated. I'm not one of them. Are his edits for better or worse? If they're for worse, is this pointed out to him, and if so how is it taken? I looked at two or three of his diffs, perhaps atypical ones, and thought they were improvements. -- Hoary 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The content of his edits is not an issue. The fact that he's using an unapproved version of AWB or may be a semi-automated bot is—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. AWB is released under the GPL, and modifications are allowed (and, regardless, we don't police whether users use software correctly per the license). Semi-automated bots are also allowed as the editor has to directly approve each edit. Block him if you feel he is disruptive, not for "using an unapproved version of AWB". 67.54.238.233 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

FWI, indefinite != infinite. It is often used that way, but in this instance the block is until the user explains what is going on. Prodego ^talk 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an indef block is out of place. I think a proper procedure would be: Warn (this was done); If violation continues - give a 24h block; If violation still continues without attempt to explain - indef block. Od Mishehu 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding any of the admin niceties, and have no comment on those. Just if this guy is going through and mass-replacing Angstroms with nanometers that is serious mischief seems highly inappropriate. (Since Angstroms are a very-well-understood convention in the world of protein structures). This suggests obliviousness to the actual usage. Also replacing micron with micrometer is bizarre and ultra-pedantic. Whatever the decision about which blocks are technically appropriate, and what flavor of AWB is allowed, this needs an explanation before his semi-automated editing continues. EdJohnston 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin IRC - how to get on

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

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

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

[edit] Protection javascript

• User:Steel359/Protection js

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

[edit] Andiamstillhere and FfopoPreteP

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

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

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

[edit] Single purpose spammers

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

[edit] Probable copyright infingements

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

Any TV screenshot is definitely not PD-self. If they are used in articles, they should be tagged as {{Non-free television screenshot}} and if not, tagged for deletion with {{subst:orfud}}. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger. I'll get onto that. There's one small image he's uploaded which is almost certainly not his work either, but I can't make head or tail of what it is and thus what it needs to be tagged as. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It... appears to be a female abdomen with some unusual clothing and a big glowing sphere over the belly button. The article it's used in explains it somewhat. I presume this one is probably also cropped from a screenshot or a promo image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freaking confused

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

It was moved, then a new page was created over the redirect. I don't see anything wrong there. Prodego ^talk 12:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah (duh). I'm talking more about the phantom history that I (re-)deleted. Grandmasterka 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not an admin myself and can't check this out, it would seem to me that the following process took place:

1. Some page was moved. Call the original name "X".
2. New content was placed in "X", over the redirect.
3. The article Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad was deleted.
4. Someone moved page "X" to Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.

This would explain what you report having happenned, and the software working correctly. Od Mishehu 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:P.B. Pilhet

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

I think it's all there, but masked by the outer div. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's this myspace-esque line of html that's the problem: <div style=" position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0px;>. MER-C 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A way to work around such "invisible diffs" is to manually append "&diffonly=1" to the URL, like this. Alternatively, you can go to Special:Preferences and check "Don't show page content below diffs" under the "Misc" tab. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemetism template protected

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

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

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

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

Please don't misread that as "go type your password into the friendly textbox at www.google.com right now and make sure". —Cryptic 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, type it into the search box at http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/ instead. I've set up a, uh, phishing detector there. Yes, that's right. You can trust me - David Gerard 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Proposed security policy

• Wikipedia:Security

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

[edit] Requesting a schoolblock...

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

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

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

[edit] Bot Request for Approval appeal

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

[edit] Another bad admin

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

[edit] Advice request on User:76.5.105.107

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

Wow, i just read his "comment" on Murri. talk about offensive content... (no admin, but i'd extend :D )--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite naughty, but this IP has only two day's worth of edits, and we have no indication that he/she/it will return after this first block. If this should happen again, though, I'd support a month block and then six months without a second thought. Rklawton 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest against a longer first-time block. Everyone should be given a second chance, and that soo sooner rather than later. Further down the line, if the determination persists, a much harsher block has to be the order. --soum (0_o) 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it at that. Thanks. TimVickers 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking back, the user does not seem to be in a positive frame of mind diff. I've extended the block. TimVickers 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As a frequent WP:AN lurker, I find this user's comments hilarious! 86.152.76.231 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EMERGENCY DESYSOPPING Main page deleted

[edit] Six double redirects need fixing.

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

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

Done. —Cryptic 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed with bomb threat warning

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

Another stupid kid whose education will be ruined by decent adults covering their arses. I can't tell who's worse... 86.152.76.231 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not over-react here, anybody ever see If? If one is planning a catastrophe this is a daft place to announce it, as nothing is ever decided here without 6 weeks of discussion. This is daft adolescent, attention seeking kid behaviour. He just needs a kick up the ass and told to grow up. Just block the account without comment and ignore Giano 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A bomb threat is a bomb threat. Needs to be reported to the Authorities. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

well report it then, don't debate it. Giano 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that it's just some kid being silly, but in the interests of playing it safe I emailed the following to the principal and 2 vice principals of the school:

Some person, using a computer registered to the Castro Valley Unified School District:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.163.233.254

edited Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in which they posted what could be considered a crude bomb threat against Canyon Middle School for May 8th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lard&diff=prev&oldid=129046940

This is probably just immature behavior, but in the interest of playing it safe I thought it best to pass this info along.

—dgies^t_c 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if we just tossed it as a childish prank and woke up tomorrow with an incident on CNN... I think I'd have to do more than throw up. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just called the sheriff's department in that county to inform them (I was told they were the ones responsible for this situation). Figured it couldn't hurt to pursue multiple routes to inform people. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's pretty well covered.... Meanwhile in California... ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was good to report it. Threats are threats. We might guess and believe it's just a juvenile prank, but... you never know. It doesn't hurt us to send the report, and might just do some good (even if it is only teaching someone a lesson in online responsibility). --Ali'i 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with a detective there and he said they'd look into it. When I told him it was probably nothing, he said that with the world like it is today, you never know so they have to check everything out. --Alabamaboy 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian caste system

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

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

[edit] Pick strong passwords!

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

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

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

You can't force users to do that, unless the software forces it. Humans will always prefer the cheapest alternative, so people will continue to choose "123456" as password. The software should make it harder. With some friends we solved that in a small site by adding a 1 second delay for every failed attempt per ip, however that forces the server to keep a connection open for much longer than needed (making it easier to launch DDOS attacks). You cannot autoblock, because someone with AOL ip could generate a bit of chaos. Nor you can make the information public for administrators to decide whether an attack is taking place. And don't even think about blocking the account for 24 hours, anyone could then get any account (like Jimbo's) blocked by throwing five or six passwords. Forcing users to change passwords would not work for inactive accounts, and sending a mail to the account owner is useless if the attack is effective. Captchas are not a bad solution if you don't care about usability, and sums are a joke. So, the only viable alternative is to modify the software to request a strong password. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, users could be on their own for the most part. If they fail to choose a strong password, and they get owned, then I guess that's their problem. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, if an admin account gets owned, it is everyone's problem. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying it's the individual's responsibility. If an admin and freaking retarded enough to have something like "password" or "1234" as your password, then that person has more problems than worrying about getting hijacked. Now, if a steward or Bureaucrat had a tool to check the strength of a password before granting sysop status at the close of a RfA, then that would be sweet, but until then, it's up to the editor. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt his password was "password", we have only the usurpers word for that. I think it is more likely that the usurper changed the password to "password". If it really was "password" then it would have been guessed years ago. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can make an essay page out of this? bibliomaniac15 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd volunteer to write one. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I started one at Wikipedia:Don't leave your fly open. It still needs some work, but I need to get to bed here soon. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Mark logged in into AndyZ account, changed the password and removed the email. Since I doubt he cracked the account to gain access, either AndyZ's password was indeed "password", or it was something else, and the vandal cracked it and changed it to "password". -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If I'm able to guess one with the cracker, I'll send an e-mail to the admin asking them to change it to something stronger. Uh-huh, I'm sure you will... -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if my intent was really to hijack admin accounts, it would not be that difficult to do, nor would it be for just about anyone to do (in fact, it's already happened twice, and this is just the tip of the iceberg). Luckily, however, this is not my intent, though surely there are those out there who just haven't gotten the idea yet. If you don't believe me, then I'm sorry, and I suggest you pick a strong password for yourself. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something like this too. Just make sure to obtain permission from WMF to be running this on their servers first. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I would, although I do have to note that with our current level of security, no one would be the wiser if I did that without first getting permission. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe, yeah :) This is a terrible idea, that should be done only locally (as in, a dumb terminal connected to the server through LAN) by an real administrator (as in, a developer), through an automatic program without logs. And even then, it would be really questionable. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the CS servers for my school and on my webserver, we run password crackers frequently that automatically lock any accounts whose passwords can be guessed. There, of course, we have access to the hashes and are able to build a rainbow table to check, so it's much more efficient, but the same principle applies. My point, perhaps my WP:POINT, is that if I can guess anyone's password, so could just about anyone else, and that needs to be prevented. I'd rather I guess someone's password before someone with more malicious intent does. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

That would require someone to be between you and the servers sniffing for you. If the password is simply weak, anyone in the world at any time can crack it. Obviously, having a strong password is not perfect security, but the lack of an encrypted connection does not suddenly mean we should make our passwords be three-letter dictionary words. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't most of this come down to "don't do really stupid things", which presumably we expect admins to know anyway? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I going to go through the trouble of picking a quote I like, converting it to an acronym (to give the appearance of random letters), capitalising the first letter of every sentence or some other capitalisation pattern (which gives me two character types), and adding numbers and symbols (which gives me four character types), just for some password that is going to be sent over an unencrypted connection anyway. Well, at least a partially unencrypted connection, between the TOR exit node and the Wikimedia servers, which is really just as bad as between one's computer and the Wikimedia servers except the program keeps switching exit nodes, which might be either good or bad. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely some truth to this; however, I think the probability of someone sniffing the transmission of your password is likely much lower than someone brute-forcing your "123" password. The first step, I think, is toward preventing the brute-force attack. Then we move on to the more difficult-to-accomplish attacks, such as third-party packet sniffing. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't access bugzilla from where I am. What's the bug listed? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommended article (sorry if it's already been linked): http://www.schneier.com/essay-148.html htom 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has my password been cracked?

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

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

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

No, see MediaWiki:Watchdetail, everybody sees that. John Reaves (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, I've seen some systems that run password crackers before notifications such as this.--Africangenesis 07:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership issue

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

You're just worried they'll be writing articles about the mysterious appeal of the RWD volvos next. 86.152.76.231 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this a while back at the Megalith article. This seems to be a growing problem with some Wikiprojects trying to "claim" articles. I don't really know how to explain why this is happening... but I'll stop now before someone claims this post for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal.--Isotope23 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Martin vandalism

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

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

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

Well, veggies are gay. Luigi30 (Taλk) 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant r. --ElKevbo 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that these vegatables have homosexual relations with vegetables of the same gender? I refuse to believe that my broccoli has become subject to the homosexual agenda or recruited by deviants of the ultra-liberal intellagentsia. We must notify the Produce Majority and Focus on the Farm immediately! -M^ask? 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blame NASA! They taught your broccoli how to fuck in space, and we all know homosexuality is the next natural step from there :D. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Even if he's dead, there are still standards to adhere to. For instance, I corrected "he was a ho in his house maybe a slut" to "He was a sex worker in his house. He may also have been a slut". Herostratus 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. That's "Some critics say he was a sex worker in his house, while supporters assert he may have been a slut." - Nunh-huh 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid weasel words and cite sources: "Thomas Jefferson said he was a sex worker in his house,^[1] while Samuel Chase asserted he may have been a slut."^[2] Phony Saint 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not believe a blue superscript "1" qualifies as a reliable source. hbdragon88 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh relax, we're having a bit of fun because they've blown this out of proportion. It didnt need a noticeboard post. Just revert and move on. Besides, if we didn't poke fun at it, you'd have a bunch of people asking for these 5 minutes of their lives back after reading a somewhat pointless AN thread. Pick one :) -M^ask? 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I misread the article title as Martin Luther which added a whole new dimension.The champion of mediaeval church reform being 'a slut'??Well they didn't mention that in religious history... Lemon martini 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Namespace

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

[edit] Willy on wheels

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Linkspam

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

[edit] User:Dax Flame

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

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

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

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

Perhaps an option could be added to the preferences to "Disable e-mail password change". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Except they can crack the email account if it has the same password as the user account, which, though not a smart thing to do, is likely to happen. Prodego ^talk 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be shocked how many people use the same password for everything. In any case though, I do think the suggestion to disable e-mail change is a good one--such that your e-mail can only be changed if you confirm an e-mail sent to your previous account. Naturally this provides only very minimal security, though, and most established users will have no problem proving their identity to the devs to recover their account. I have always been curious about the @wikimedia.org e-mail addresses; I believe in order to get one you have to be somehow involved in foundation-level activities (i.e., member of the COMCOM or of the board, etc.), and I have no idea who to talk to to even ask for one. It would seem wise for, for instance, OTRS and unblock-en-l volunteers to be offered one, as well as perhaps all admins. The only problem there is that the e-mail address shows affiliation with the foundation, which I believe is what they want to avoid. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ah, but then you couldn't check to see if osmeone had been fiddling around lately. If it's supported, forward email from that throwaway to your main one. I use Yahoo Mail Plus and have AddressGuard, which allows me to create throwaways that will always be deposited into my main mailbox. hbdragon88 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was unaware that admins could have a @wikimedia e-mail account. To my best knowledge nearly none of them do. >Radiant< 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not as far as I know, I was suggesting offering the option. John Reaves (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with using the wikipedia mail. I agree with using throwaway accounts, or at least non-wikipedia accounts like yahoo.com. That is much more secure, and just as easy for an individual to set up for themselves. And it is a much better and easier way to be secure, since password reminders can always go there. --Sm8900 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New namespace

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

Should be helpful. Here's our first table: Table:Climate in Middle East cities, this was split out of the main article into a separate page, to clean-up the markup in the main article. It's really not an article, but meant to be a table. New namespace is perfect for it. --Aude (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems What links here isn't showing the transclusion from Middle East. —dgies^t_c 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed, problem was that somebody put it down as {{:Table:Climate in Middle East cities}} rather than {{Table:Climate in Middle East cities}} on the Middle East page. --tjstrf talk 22:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist please

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

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

[edit] Cite news template

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

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

[edit] Child issue

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

I just speedied the article under A7, so the information has been hidden from regular users. I'll try to get the affected revisions oversighted. Sean William 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy work!--Slp1 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could give this kid a clue. All of his edits are vanity or copyvio. I've deleted all of his images and listed Sherry Hoskinson at AfD. Chick Bowen 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

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

• Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
• Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

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

[edit] Requested move to Shatt al-Arab

Requested move:

• Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab —(Discuss)— Thus moving the article on this Iranian and Iraqi river from a double "Persian/Arabic" title to the Arabic-language name alone, to reflect common English usage, in accordance to Wikipedia's naming conventions. — See some examples of usage in the article's talk page.

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

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

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

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

You're cross-posting this same partisan message on multiple talk pages "begging" other Wikipedians to support your position in a dispute. If you're simply looking for neutral feedback, you should be stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about, and not try to sway people's opinion by a partisan message advocating your position. --Mardavich 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I only informed about the move request in three different forums:

1. Wikipedia:Requested moves (diff.)
2. Here, at this Administrators' noticeboard.
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab (diff.)

Those three forums are "neutral", and my intention in posting there was just trying to get other neutral editors involved in the discussion. I hope that a wider participation will allow us to archieve a clear consensus one way or the other.

In my message I made my position on the issue very clear, but I only begged people to "take a look at the issue", not to share my opinion or to support my view on it.

Of course, if the administrators decide here that those messages constitute canvassing, I will reduce them to a simpler announcement. - Best regards, Ev 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Once more, I encourage everyone to take a look at this move request and give his/her opinion on the issue. - Ev 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I remember everyone that comments at this move request will be most welcome :-) Ev 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop advertising the move request. People will do so on their own accord. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, stopped :-) I'm sorry if my previous posts looked somewhat "pushy". - Best regards, Ev 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Discussion closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If the discussion was about how to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result was a clear, unanimous consensus for "Shatt al-Arab".

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

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

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

See also: #At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?. -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See also the "Requested move to Shatt al-Arab" section above. - Ev 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

To be fair, while I'd personally object to the slashed solution for Shatt al-Arab, I'm myself partly responsible for a superficially similar slashed solution at Imia/Kardak, the only other such case I know. The difference is that at Imia/Kardak (a tiny islet disputed between Greece and Turkey) nobody has ever proposed an argument that either of the two names is more common; all discussion that has ever taken place on that article was in terms of if and how the naming would imply endorsement of the one or other side's sovereignty claims. In this case, I doubt there really is any "common name" in English at all, because nobody ever talks about that islet in English outside of the context of the sovereignty dispute, and then it's typically referred to with both names. Fut.Perf. ¤ 12:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions are just that, conventions; they're described in guidelines, and are provided to establish a 'baseline' so we have generally consistent names across Wikipedia and don't have to hash out every little word. They can be ignored, though, if there's some compelling reason to do so in a specific case... the guidelines couldn't possibly foresee every little issue that might arise with regards to naming. --Aquillion 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true in principle, but the whole point about the Shatt al-Arab case is that there is no such compelling reason. The only argument for "Arvandrud" is "we like it better, we want our name, and we have the numerical power to push it through one poll after another." Nothing else has ever been brought forward. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification of the situation, and a veiled attack against many editors. There are several compelling reasons, all of which have been outlined in the article's discussion page. For starters, neither Arvand Rud or Shatt al-Arab are English names, both are local names which are used in English to varying degrees. WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.". --Mardavich 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed and commented all arguments made for using "Arvandrud" (including the two Mardavich mentions above) in my message to Alex Bakharev. Not a single one reflects our current naming conventions policy, its associated guidelines & what I understand to be common Wikipedia practice. - Ev 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it; but this is a content dispute, many people disagree with your rational and interpretation of guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I respect your obvious commitment to your POV, but there obviously is no consensus on this issue. --Mardavich 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no disagreement about how to interpret the guidelines, but about whether Wikipedia policy & guidelines should apply to the article or not.

Let's remember that the naming conventions policy states that "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." That is policy. And it has been cleary demostrated that what English speakers would most easily recognize is "Shatt al-Arab."

Finally, I'm commited to the POV that article's titles should follow our current naming conventions policy & its associated guidelines. I'm also commited to the POV of justice & equality: if the article on the Shatt al-Arab is exempted from following policy, then so should all other articles, allowing Arab editors to have "Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf", Albanian editors to have "Kosova/Kosovo", Polish editors to have "River Oder/Odra", Argentinian editors to have "Falkland Islands/Malvinas", Korean edtors to have "East Sea/Sea of Japan", etc, etc, etc... - Best regards, Ev 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making many false analogies there. Sea of Japan etc...are English names of international bodies of water, they're English names well established in English language, that's not the case with our dispute which deals with a local body of water with two local names, under the sovereignty of two countries with naming rights to it under the United Nations' decree. Different circumstances require different approaches. And you are indeed interpreting the guidelines, let's remember that the WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed" which applies to this case because the editors have clearly been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name, as is evident by this very discussion.--Mardavich 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for Mardavich for spotting a weakness on WP:NC! But that refers to a few exceptions; it is not a general license to ignore the rest of the policy. There may well be no English usage of Imia or Kardak; but there is enormous and uniform English use of Shatt al-Arab. (In addition to its other problems, Arvand is itself ambiguous; it means the Tigris, or even the Orontes, as well as the estuary. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Slashed names are a bad idea from another point of view - the second item in the slash is being interpreted by the software as a subpage of the first item. Thus we actually have a page called Shatt al-Arab as a subpage of Arvandrud. Not optimal. -- ChrisO 00:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, that is a part of the same policy you are invoking to support your position, we can't pick and choose what parts of the policy to follow and what to ignore. Amazingly, you just unilaterally edited WP:NC and changed the policy all by yourself to suit your position, which proves how the policies are subjective, and can be interpreted and changed in the middle of a content dispute to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold. --Mardavich 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... this is not about continuing the discussion regarding the move request; do that on the talk page. This is about when it is okay to usurp straw poll results in favor of following guidelines. In this case, we have one side (Shatt al-Arab) pointing to WP:NC(CN). There is another side (Arvandrud) saying that Iranians came up with a name first (with no policy suggesting this means anything in naming articles). There is yet another side (Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab) with the "we can't decide" mantra mentioned above. That last side is misinterpreting that line of the guideline. The idea is that if Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are not sufficient in breaking the stalemate (which is so far not the case here), just keep things as they are. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by voting for the status quo simply because you think a decision cannot be made based on guidelines and policies (and I repeat, based on guidelines and policies). -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're interpreting the guidelines based on your reading of it, there is nothing there about "breaking the stalemate" or such, the guideline clearly says "when editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus..." which is clearly the case here. --Mardavich 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<- (removing indent) I'll respond to you on your talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

“For starters, neither Arvand Rud or Shatt al-Arab are English names, both are local names which are used in English to varying degrees.” LOL!! We certainly must award Mardavich the award for “Understatement of the Year”! His “varying degrees” are quite extreme, to say the least: As has been amply illustrated in the course of the debate on the article talk page, “Shatt al-Arab” is the name used among English-speakers almost exclusively, while “Arvand River” or “Arvandrud” is occasionally added as a parenthetical note to identify the name the Iranians give to the waterway. “Shatt al-Arab” is the name taught in American, British and Commonwealth schools; it essentially is the English-language name for it – English has a long history of adopting foreign names for its own use. The English-speaking world adopted “Shatt al-Arab” as the name it uses for the river, just as it adopted “Persian Gulf” for the body of water it empties into.

Wikipedia’s WP:NC policy directs editors considering proper names to use for place to refer to WP:PLACES and WP:NCGN. WP:PLACES states, “Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.” WP:NCGN states quite clearly in its very first point, “The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Unfortunately, we have here an attempt to use a straw poll – an essay – as a means to end-run policy to push a POV. Straw polls do not “trump” policies; as WP:Straw poll points out, “A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.”

Tariqabjotu raises a valid issue, however, WP:AN is probably not the right forum to address this. In fact, we should really take the issue back to the article’s talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's simply not true. To say that “Shatt al-Arab is the name used among English-speakers almost exclusively" is an exaggeration and of course, not true. "Arvand River", which is one of the English varieties of Arvand Rud, generates 36,500 google hits by itself. Anyways, I accepted your new compromise proposal on the article’s talk page, lets continue the discussion there. --Mardavich 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That search uses raw www.google.com, and includes Wikipedia and its mirrors - another self-fulfilling prophecy. Several of the guidelines involved warn against raw google searches for this reason; there are also other reasons. This is also a classic example of WP:BIGNUMBER; "Shatt al-Arab" gets 288,000 hits in the equivalent search. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• The test's are Stochastic ! I still think the tests does not show the "English usage": As an example, imagine about a major event in the Iraqi Or Iranian side ( as a ship sinking or a bomb attack or etc) . That may lead to usage of the Iraqi Or Iranian name in the news or books or other sources for many times , and according to which side of the river , the outcome may appear to show one name is dominant in English !! As I said before, that is only stochastic and that's the reason why testing is not the Wiki's official policy! When both words are not English , then how can someone determine which one is more prevalent in English ?! --Alborz Fallah 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried finding mention of Arvandrud and its various different spellings on US and British government websites and there was little if any evidence that the Farsi name is commonly used, while Shatt al-Arab turned up lots of results. Someone else did the same for the New York Times and the London Times and came to the same conclusion. This is not about Google hits, but the official useage of names for the waterway in the English speaking world and Arvandrud is simply not used. Alborz Fallah is trying to focus on the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. It is true that Google tests on their own are not enough, but this evidence is confirmed by other sources. As for Shatt al-Arab not being English, I would argue that it has been adopted as the name for the waterway by English speakers and is therefore the proper English name (another example is the use of the French name Nuremburg for the German city Nurnberg - Nuremburg has never been French, but the French name has been adopted by the English in the same way as the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab has been adopted by the English).--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

As I explained on the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by User:Pmanderson, a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands which is the case here - so the issue is not as clear-cut as some of the proponents here pretend. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English, especially when the name is not English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Wikipedia should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature, Madras generates 17 times more results than Chennai in google books and other major publications that are used to determine common usage according to the guidelines. The fact that books.google.com overwhelmingly favors Madras over Chennai or Danzig over Gdansk, proves how unreliable the criteria prescribed in these guidelines is. So as another another administrator pointed out, the guidelines couldn't possibly foresee every little issue that might arise with regards to naming. --Mardavich 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard your opinion. I want the opinion of an admin on the three questions I have listed above (which you have not actually answered, but have chosen to repeat statements you made before). This is, after all, the reason why the topic was raised here - to get an admin's opinion on the rules and guidelines, not to enforce an editorial judgement.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your question, guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense. --Mardavich 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that the guidelines/rules should be dropped whenever a straw poll contradicts them. I'd like an admin's opinion on this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I take it that admins don't have an answer to my straight-forward questions on policy, which I posted here two days ago.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Block of User:CommonsDelinker

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

FYI this was because CommonsDelinker, a bot that delinks to images on Commons under certain circumstances, made a mistake at Cryptography and ended up replacing one commons image with another commons image, only that image name actually existed on :en, and the file there was not similar (i've since repaired the file problem; the image that was inserted was Image:Enigma_(Diablo_II).jpg, as opposed to Image:Enigma.jpg). I would unblock, but Siebrand's response was that the bot checks for that and he doesn't know what went wrong, and I just get nervous about unblocking a buggy bot when the bug hasn't been found. Other opinions? Mangojuice^talk 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When I looked, it seemed that the "old" image had been flagged on Commons as a duplicated version of the "new" image: what actually did the bot do that was wrong? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What it did wrong was not skip the replace because there was a file with the same name here on en.wp. It replaced the image anyway and thus a handful of articles ended up with an incorrect image. Siebrand 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I probably confused you by fixing it. The bot replaced en:Image:Nsa-enigma.jpg (a commons image) with en:Image:Enigma.jpg, which at the time contained the image now at en:Image:Enigma_(Diablo_II).jpg. Matt_crypto reverted the change. I later re-uploaded the image formerly at en:Image:Enigma.jpg to its new location and deleted the old one (a bit rouge, I suppose, but the file history there showed a history of some confusion over that title, and I didn't think anyone would mind). Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume that CheckUsage delivered incorrent information. The bot needs work, but so far my inquiries for cooperation from an experienced Python/Pywikipediabot programmer has remained unanswered. Anyway, it's your wiki and CommonsDelinker is providing a service (with its occasional fault, obviously) that you choose to allow or deny. My intention was to make you aware of the block so that a possibly more informed decision could be made. Cheers! Siebrand 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Um, there are definitely a lot more ways that the benefits outweigh the risks. This is only one problem and and the bot does a lot of good things for the project. Blocking it indefinitely for a small reason such as this is not a very good course of action in my opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely the benefits outweigh the risk. The bot is quite useful in saving a number of individuals a lot of time, in superseding images that are being replaced. bastique 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think the benifits don't outweight the risk you are free to try manualy orphaning images deleted from commons.Geni 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I could tell you that you are equally free to manually check the bot's edits to make sure it doesn't break any more articles, but I don't really see the need for a bad-tempered exchange over this. *grin* If we generally think CommonsDelinker's hiccup is a minor problem, then fine, let's unblock it. But our policy is that "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation if they are...messing up articles", and I personally think that caution is a wise approach with bot malfunctions. — Matt Crypto 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm pretty sure it is, I doubt it queries the English Wikipedia for every picture. The problem is, I don't see how the replication lag (to those who don't know: the toolserver English Wikipedia data is lagging behind by over a month) could've affected made this happen, then again, I don't know if the picture (under it's old name, Image:Enigma.jpg) uploaded recently (was it?). By the way, I am, of course, all for the unblocking of CommonsDelinker since if this happens once in a *very very* long while and is caught by someone and there are no red links, it's better than if there are many many red links and this doesn't ever happen. Yonatan ^talk 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any warning when one attempts to locally upload an image with the same title as a commons image. If not, there should be. — CharlotteWebb 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such warning as far as I know, and yes, there should be a warning (or even better, block the upload, because we should enforce free content, either upload to another name, or use the free alternative). Commons names are usually much better than Wikipedia images. By the way, I agree that the bot should be unblocked, unless someone begins unlinking the images until the bot is fixed. -- ReyBrujo 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's enough input. I've unblocked the bot, this seems to have been an isolated glitch. If the problem recurs, maybe we should be more cautious next time. Mangojuice^talk 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't let you upload an image with the same name:

Upload warning

A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name.

However, this does not happen when the local upload is done first. --NE2 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is cool. We need a bot in every Wikipedia adding a special tag, say {{shadow}}, to warn that the current image, uploaded locally, is shadowing a file in Wikimedia Commons. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this thread is now moving a bit from it's original topic, you do have an important point. Although there is a huge replication lag, there is some insight in so called 'Commons Clash' images. There's even a tool that will help you in determining all the images that are candidates for speedy deletion or renaming, called CommonsClash. I have added some links on Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons#Tools a few weeks ago. Backlogs were about 32.000 images mid April. If you think you need a project related to images, this might be the project for you :-). Siebrand 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd binding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Please help

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

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

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

Commons does not accept fair use imagery. Also, why would we want to push our users to upload their free imagery to a failed project? Matthew 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Awful idea. No fair use images. Unless you want to modify the very nature of commons. The Evil Spartan 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A "failed project"? You cannot reject reality and substitute your own. --Cyde Weys 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) This means, free images...(i.e. GFDL images). Not, non-free images. Real96 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt, 1.) Reduce server overloads on Wikipedia 2.) Reduce image backlogs on Wikipedia 3.) Have images easily to search with Tango's Mayflower, etc.Real96 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just can't consider it feasible. I truly consider commons a failed project, primarily because I believe it's run badly and secondly because the foundation is incapable of making a clear statement on copyright, so we could end up having a ton of images deleted from commons.... that would end up having to be uploaded back here. Matthew 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons has way over 1M images. I wasn't aware that was a typical failure criterion. But then I'm biased, I think Commons is swell. On the other hand I don't think we want to push ALL images there, only the ones that have free licenses and clear provenance information. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons will not, under any circumstances, accept fair-use images. That's Foundation-level policy, so you'd have to talk to them about changing that. In terms of free images, well, if you see one that needs moving, move it! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) You realise it's the same set of servers? (2) Moving the backlogs elsewhere doesn't actually fix them. --pgk 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, deleting an image does not remove it from the servers; it just shoves it to the filearchive table. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The Wikimedia Commons is what its name suggests; a commons for media to be shared among all Wikimedia Foundation websites. They also only accept images under Creative Commons or GFDL copyrights or items that exist in the public domain. There should be no reason to prevent users from uploading media to the English Wikipedia htat will never be used on any other project. Also, I do not see how the Commons is a failed project. I have something that I would not upload to the commons because I fear it may be abused by other projects, despite my attempts at trying to get the content released under the GFDL.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We already move a lot of material into commons, this is pretty commonplace. The problem is deleting the wikipedia copy once it gets there! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)Good idea, in theory does not always equal good idea in reality. One huge problem: fewer admins on commons means fewer people to work on problem pages (e.g., pure vandalism - a page with some random guy's dick, falsely claimed licenses, etc.) If you think point 2 (remove image backlogs on en) is bad, imagine what it will be on commons. However, if there could be some mass policy change allowing all en admins to become commons admins (which I don't think they now can), it might be possible, though there would certainly be some growing pains. The Evil Spartan 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate what your trying to do with this idea, I'd oppose it b/c of what it would mean for fair use images and b/c it will require people to use two accounts to do anything with images. --Alabamaboy 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from some people on other projects that images from their projects (i.e. wikipedia-es - see this) derive their free images/GFDL images on commons. In theory, I am talking about free images, not fair use. Real96 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what i was talking about in vandalism images: Image:KhaliSUCKS.JPG. tough backlog (BTW, AIV could use some help, and I can't access the other user's images because I'm in a public library and have children nearby). The Evil Spartan 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use real English, this isn't a chat room. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of all the work involved in moving and deleting files, why not make commons into a database of files that exist on other projects, and at the same time, allow every project to access media files from any other project. So if I'm looking for a picture of a Japanese bridge, I'd go to commons, find a link to the picture on Japanese Wikipedia, confirm that the rights apply to my own project, and add a link to my page like this [[ja:Image:Great Soto Bridge.jpg]]. Of course, this would be more work for the developers to set up, but once established, it would be easier for everyone else. -- Samuel Wantman 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be infinately more work then telling people to move their free images to commons. Its alwaqys been policy that GFDL/free images need to go to commons, people were just being stupid and ignoring it. -M^ask? 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be more work, it would be less. People would just upload files in the project they are in, and it would automatically be transcluded to commons if it is tagged as a GFDL/free image. When you went to commons, you'd see a complete set of images. They would just have to be categorized (this is much less work than copying them over). When you find the image you want you just transclude it into your own article from whichever wikiproject it resides. This is the same amount of effort as it currently takes to use a commons image. So the only change in the amount of work would be removing all the copying and deleting. -- Samuel Wantman 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

the big stumbeling blocks for moveing all free content to commons are 1) inertia 2)lack of SUL 3)need for screening to make sure things are not copyvios 4)slightly different policies with regards to images 4)different objectives 5) the need to be able to protect images to prevent vandalism.Geni 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Real96, you really don't understand this whole thing (no offense). Images that are free or acceptable for Commons are usually re-uploaded there by another user (who either wishes to use it on another project or just thinks it would be of use on Commons). It's an option as it will always be. Forcing a user to get a new account or upload off the project will just get us less imges and be more annoying for all of us. Don't think that I don't like Commons (I actually think it is great!) but what you are proposing is too crazy in my opinion. You, however, are more than welcome, to upload some images to commons and put {{NowCommons}} on their local page as long as you keep all the information the same. That would be more helpful than stopping all non-fair use En-wiki uploads. Cbrown1023 talk 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't forcing them to get an account. We are just technically moving all of the free/GFDL images (with the user's consent) to Commons so that other wikipedia users on various other projects can use them accordingly. How is this too crazy? Admins are always complaining about the image backlog needing to be reduced. Real96 01:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I've uploaded lots of unused images to commons, and a fewer still some that are used. But I've got older images I'd move if there was an easy way to do it. Is there a simple move button? Why not? I imagine it's not a lot of dev time. SchmuckyTheCat 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay commons! :-) Hmm, no simple move button. Maybe a move template that a bot can use? --Kim Bruning 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, and I am going to start with this. The GFDL requirements make the moving pretty slow. -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking everyone to assume good faith with compromised admins

As we deal with this fallout from the hacking of admin accounts, I hope everyone will remember to assume good faith with the admins whose accounts were compromised. Some of these compromised admins have been around for years and have a long track record here. Remember: Times change. Until recently, Wikipedia didn't have a secure log-in function (and when I tried to use it a few minutes ago, that function had again disappeared for some reason). We also failed to require strong passwords.

Yes, we must take action to fix this situation. Yes, they can't get their admin powers back until their identities are confirmed and we're sure the hackers no longer have access to their accounts. But too many editors here seem to have the attitude that b/c an admin used a weak password, they now can't be trusted. My understanding of Wikipedia is that we assume good faith and, once someone admits a mistake, let the issue go. Don't let these hackers win by driving off some of our best people. Instead, let's fix this problem and get back to creating the best free encyclopedia in the world. --Alabamaboy 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I strongly agree with this.

How many of you reading this, when you first opened your Wikipedia account (remember that day, long ago?), thought that it was one that required a strong password? How many have retained that first password until the present day? We should not be punishing people who failed to choose a strong password when they first tried out their hand at editing the encyclopedia. How many of you, when you started, thought your involvement here would be a serious endeavor?

I see a lot of overreaction to this incident -- to be expected, because it was a serious one -- but react strongly in the right way. React to the security hole: make your passwords strong now; implement better security; guard your account. But please do not beat up people who have made tens of thousands of good contributions to our encyclopedia, and spent, in a couple cases, thousands of hours of their personal time building this fine project, just because they were the victims of a hacker attack. Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the two above comments completely. It is quite disappointing to see how other users are kicking the compromised admins while they're down. We all make mistakes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They may be very nice people, but this isn't about how nice they are. They're either too stupid or too lazy to take the most basic precautions to protect their sysop bits from abuse. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone whose password was hacked isn't "stupid" or "lazy". S/he was the victim of hacking, although precautions can be taken to help prevent futher hacks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they chose passwords like "password" and "fuckyou". That's just stupid, and wouldn't require any 'hacking' to break into. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes it extremely easy to execute a brute force or a dictionary attack. I can begin cracking passwords with a single shell line. Yes, a few unfortunate passwords. But don't forget that this could have been prevented from a software point of view, which is usually easier to do. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These passwords are so weak that that it is the first password anyone would try. You don't even need to use one incorrect password to get the captcha; you don't even need to be trying to crack these accounts at all. Anyone even accidentally could log into these accounts. If you go to a secret doorway in an alley, and the person guarding the door says "What is the password?" and you say "Uh, password?" that should not then get you access. If the person guarding the door says "What is the password?" and you say "Fuck you!" that should not then get you access. The situation is primitive; no software is needed, no one need even attempt to be breaking in. —Centrx→talk • 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if your account gets compromised, it would be fair game to call you an idiot? That is essentially what you are saying. You do have to consider that people may have registered here when Wikipedia was just one more site on the Internet, and did not bother to change their passwords with time. Then, there's the whole issue of people making mistakes. So, they fucked up and they don't get second chances? Is that the message you want to send in a volunteer-driven project? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that compromised admin accounts would have to reapply for adminship. Is there any basis in policy for this assertion? My impression is that the burden should be on those users who feel they automatically cannot trust someone whose account is hacked to request the removal of admin status. Savidan 03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing his reaction, I guess Tony wants them to follow the same path he must follow to regain adminship access. I don't have a real opinion (yet) about whether they should recover their sysop access or reapply, but down here, if you lose your credit card and someone uses it to buy something, you call the company and have not only the operation canceled, but a new credit card. They don't even ask you why you were carrying the card inside your cigarette package when you threw it away. -- ReyBrujo 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of good faith or bad faith, it is a question of judgment. These are not just bad password, but really really bad passwords. "password" and "fuckyou" are passwords that are downright negligent. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more in agreement with Tony here. I may not go as far as to say "stupid", but the use of excessively weak passwords is irresponsible, especially for an admin. I'm sorry, but I didn't need a huge banner on the login page telling me I needed a good password. The lack of such a banner elicits no sympathy from me toward the afflicted admins. It's basic knowledge that when choosing a debit card PIN, password, or access code, one should choose something difficult to guess. If accounts with good passwords were being hacked, that'd be a different story. However, that does not seem to be the case here. -- tariqabjotu 03:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit-conflict]Given enough time, any password can be cracked. If someone spent weeks cracking yours, would you be "negligent"? Should we resysop you? Prodego ^talk 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) They made a mistake, they've been embarrassed, and Wikipedia has come out better. If we can confirm who they are, I think it would be best to have them as admins again. Remember, there was never any advice not to have "password" as a password. Not all admins are 20something computer geeks -- and that's a good thing. alphachimp 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being a computer geek. The entire concept of a password---and the concept far preceded the invention of computers, you can find it in Ali Baba, the Bible, and the Republic---is that it is in some way secret or non-obvious. This is not some technical concept. This is not about choosing passwords that are secure against brute-force dictionary attacks, this is about choosing passwords that are so fundamentally simple that anyone whatsoever could have accessed the accounts just by playing around and typing in obvious things like "password". Choosing "password" as a password is simply idiotic, and someone born in 1800 can recognize that. —Centrx→talk • 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) And again, the judgment of the admin in question does not quantize to a different energy level all of a sudden because his account got hacked. These admins made a mistake, and the said admins are probably the most embarrassed users on Wikipedia right now. They realize their mistake, and I'm pretty darn sure that they will not do it again... in fact, I'm actually quite confident that these users will never have these problems again, because of the public embarrassment it carries. So what is the point of these insanely punitive reactions? Pardon me, but I don't get it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it either, it seems like some folks want to punish these editors. RxS 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about someone stupid enough to have a password like "password" or "fuckyou". Understandable in 1988, but this is 2007. How can we trust someone so stupid with a sysop bit? --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And can we stop with the "too stupid or too lazy" comments? Being civil is still a value here..RxS 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony on this one. If they had a very good password, and the hijacking was done because the software didn't react, then I might be OK with restoring sysop access... but if you're dumb enough to use the word "password" as your password, then I'm sorry... how can we trust you to make good judgment elsewhere? Having a weak password as an editor is one thing... so someone adds "poop" to a few pages and you get blocked, not as much of a big deal. As an admin, they were given that right for being trustworthy. Yet they couldn't have even been bothered to change their passwords to something that would've protected them. I'm sorry if it seems harsh, but they can always re-apply. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask who you are calling dumb here? Those admins already affected or any that might have the same thing happen going forward? You'd have a point if you're talking about it happening in the future, but there's no evidence that those involved here are either stupid, dumb or lazy. RxS 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, what is the 'line of stupidity'? Is 'rover' stupid? 'Hairc1ip'? 'pinkhouse#1'? When do we declare a password "stupid". Prodego ^talk 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking in general terms here. The use of the word "password" is just plain stupid, lazy, and dumb, and has no excuse... not even living under a rock since 1970. The fact that everything these days has passwords, like bank accounts, email, chat rooms, even your employer's network... a strong password is encouraged or required at all of these places, to get people in the habit of choosing secure passwords. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As with anyone who works in a company who uses computers, or a bank account they check online, typically the password requirements are 8+ characters alphanumeric. I cannot for one moment believe that someone does not understand the concept of password security in our day and age, especially people who are considered intelligent in nearly every other aspect. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users so remarkably stupid that no one had any complaints of their behaviour before these incidents. What are you trying to accomplish, Tony? Drive off good users? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they, as far as I know, have a clear background, and everyone makes mistakes. With that kind of thought, unless you are a computer geek who reads Slashdot everyday, you should go work with Britannica. If they do repeat the mistake, I would consider them stupid. But until then, assume good faith, dang. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to see the current death toll. By the tone some users use, it appears as if someone cracked the password of an atomic plant root account and blew it up. -- ReyBrujo 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sequiturs, red herrings, and hyperbole are not welcome here. I do not think you are accurately representing the view of people like me who believe that using heinously insecure passwords makes someone untrustworthy to the point that adminship may be in question. Really, are you trying to solve anything, or just trying to win empty rhetorical points by batting at straw men that are warped beyond recognition from any views actually held by anyone present? --Cyde Weys 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Following your point of view, we should also block those admins who use WEP encryption in their wireless setting, who are not logged through the secure website, and who don't lock the computer when taking a break. -- ReyBrujo 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the hyperbole. Having your password being "password" or "fuckyou" is not equivalent in the slightest to your example. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And neither makes them lazy or stupid. RxS 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as system community goes, it makes them dumber than rock. We don't need administrators that much that we shouldn't be asking these people, politely, to reapply for their sysop bits, with the knowledge that they failed a very basic test of trustworthiness. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This could have been prevented via software. It was not. It is MediaWiki fault as much as the users' fault. Of course, you won't accept it because, in your world, having passwords of 16 characters with alphanumerics and strange symbols is common knowledge. Open your eyes, not everyone is a geek. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Bottom line of this whole discussion: Admins are chosen based on their trust to use their powers for good, and this includes trust on preventing those powers from getting in to the wrong hands. The use of a ridiculously simple password shows absolutely no understanding of security, the ability to put the need to have a simple and really easy to remember password over the well being of the community, and the audacity to think that a simple "I'm sorry" will suffice. Admins are chosen based on trust, and in this case all trust has been lost. Assume Good Faith does not mean getting duped. It means where good faith is due, it is given, where it is not... you're on your own. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly not the bottom line. Being a trustworthy admin did not mean having an understanding about computer security. It does now, admins should always be aware of issues that have come up in the past. But they were not picked because of their computer expertise, but were picked because they were trusted not to abuse the tools. Abuse of tools may now include password security, but it didn't when these editors were selected. And you can bet they won't allow it to happen to them again. RxS 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, computer security is suddenly something that admins have to have an understanding about? This is 2007. How many times have there been stories in the news about personal data being stolen, records being accessed... more often than I care to count. It does not take a computer scientist to know that "password" is not a good password. Like I stated before, the use of secure passwords is everywhere these days. College records can only be accessed by the student on most college websites, and they require secure passwords. Bank account information, again, is the same way. To stand here and say that it requires a computer expert to know that using a very simple password is dangerous is insulting to every non-computer expert that understands this fact. This is not a debate over the merits of the admins edits, its on the fact they put the speed of logging in, and the ability to not have to remember a password over protecting their admin tools. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own password security, but if you're willing to ignore the fact that people have even offered money to have an admin turn over their account for a day and use a simple password that doesn't require such a person to give money, then why should we trust that person? It's like calling a parent a bad parent only after the first baby dies of starvation, because they didn't know to feed it. It's not a direct comparison, but it illustrates the fact that password security should be as common knowledge as the idea that you have to feed your children. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"...password security should be as common knowledge as the idea that you have to feed your children"? That says all there needs to be said about how unrealistic you're being. You don't understand that all people don't happen to live like you....RxS 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how dare people have "the audacity" to think they'd be forgiven when they've said "I'm sorry". There's hyperbole going both ways here: since when were passwords required at all' in 1970? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest: search every RFA to see if there is a single one before all these incident happened in which the nominator is asked which measures he would take to prevent his account from being compromised. Common knowledge? Come on, not even us recognized MediaWiki was so easy to crack until this happened. -- ReyBrujo 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was "cracked" at all. These were trivially simple passwords. —Centrx→talk • 11:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That may no longer be true. -- nae'blis 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a constructive discussion, or is everyone just bitching at each other? I sense that the latter premise is manifesting itself at the expense of the former. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but I always bristle a little when people toss the words lazy and stupid around...RxS 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I went that way. At school, I always solved math problems by reductio ad absurdum, something I tend to use everywhere. Basically, if using a weak password demonstrates the user's unsuitability of being an administrator, so would using WEP encryption, not using a secure connection, not logging out before going to sleep, etc. -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble but you're not using reductio ad absurdum, you're using slippery slope and straw man, both of which are extremely well-known logical fallacies. Please knock it off. --Cyde Weys 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed. It is common sense that if you can type in a password, someone else can type in a password, and if your password happens to be as weak as 'password', then someone with the a few minutes to spare and an angry will can probably guess it. No l33t hax0rz needed. WEP's weakenesses, on the other hand, are not common sense at all, but require specific knowledge'. Though that said, I don't have an opinion either way on the resysopping. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have left this discussion, can't argue against the knowledge of the mass. However, if strong passwords are being cracked like KOS's one, there is a possibility that, somehow, this attack has been going on for months, or that communications are being intercepted (or, that someone, somehow, managed to get the password hashes). -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Rey, by your logic though, we shouldn't have admins... because there is no way to even check if an admin is using WEP encryption, not using a secure connection, and not logging out before going to sleep. See where Cyde is going with this? ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bitch? Not at all. Tony Sidaway and I are actually here to belittle and deliver harsh punishments to the compromised admins. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can Check-user users check for failed attempts to login? If so, then we can tell the difference between a brute-force attempt to try every password and someone who used an easy-to-guess password. In the second case, I think the following should apply:

1. After the first time it's been compromised, re-sysop without any process once it's clear the account is no longer compromised and the user claims to have a secure password.
2. The second time it's compromised (again, due to an obvious password), no re-sysopping. If the user didn't learn after the first time, then he/she isn't responsible enough to be an admin. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!".

Od Mishehu 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Choosing really bad password may be irresponsible but the conversation that developed here is well over the top IMO. As long as WP:CIVIL is a policy here nobody (and his/her actions) should be called stupid, dumb, etc. Did anybody bother to check the work those people did here? I would not expect to find such a violation of WP policy on Admin' noticeboard. Lots of people got warnings for a lot less. Thank you, stay calm and consider finding a way of resysoping those users as a gesture of good faith.--Pethr 05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Please don't call longstanding contributors and administrators here lazy, stupid or dumb. This is a volunteer project. There are more civil ways of raising your arguments -- Samir 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another agree. I've been editing here for over 3 years. Since I've been using firefox's password manager, I had to stop and think about what password I started my account with over 3 years ago when this site was just a curiosity to me and I didn't even know there were admins. I'm glad I picked a secure password and I wasn't a victim. I can easily imagine how someone could overlook creating a more secure password as they up their involvement here. Lack of civility is probably the biggest threat we have. It is a bigger threat than cracking passwords. Civility is one of the qualities of this community that inspired me to contribute. If it disintegrates, we will loose much more than the front page, we will loose many valuable contributors and perhaps destroy the project entirely. -- Samuel Wantman 09:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point here, but the truth is that the concept of civility is being abused in the project much more often than cracked passwords are. "Incivility" has become a mantra for those willing to persecute their opponents under any convenient pretext. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

A couple of questions:

• (1) Will those calling for going back through RfA for compromised accounts even after it is satisfactorily verified that the account is no longer compromised) apply these standards to themselves if their accounts are ever compromised, in any way what-so-ever? Do they realise that they might be making themselves targets for ambitious crackers if they continue along this line of reasoning?
• (2)Will those calling for going back through RfA for compromised accounts be calling for those who deal with Wikimedia security to resign over this? Or will they say that such people are too valuable to lose? If so, why aren't admins with demonstrable long-term committment to the project as valuable?
• (3) Is this issue about password security, or about who has to go back through RfA? Please make the connection between these issues clear before conflating them. Expanding the criteria concerning which desysopped admins have to back through RfA shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction.

And I agree with the need for civility here. Tossing words like 'lazy' and 'stupid' around is not going to help. Carcharoth 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• If being lazy was grounds for deopping someone, there's quite a bunch of admins that have been inactive lately, or haven't used their admin tools much. Given our extensive backlogs, it's easy to make a case for those people being lazy. Is that helpful? No. Are we going to deop all those people? Of course not. We're all volunteers here, and a lazy volunteer is still a welcome volunteer. >Radiant< 10:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the coment by Alabamaboy that started this thread, and the comment by Radient just above. I strongly disagree with both the tone and the substance of the comments by Tony Sidaway. I have seem editors, and indeed admins, make errors that are far more clearly culpable than having a weak PW, and thsoe errors are routinely forgiven on an apology and a promise not to offend again. Indeed, we routienly forgive things that are not "errors" but intentional actions, such as the making of legal threats, on the promise that the editor will not ofend again. I strongly suspect that if these editors resume activity, no one will be more fanatic about security than they will ("once burned..."). I see no reason why one error, even though it had potentially serious consequences (and lets remeber that the actual damage was fixed quite quickly) should make us less willign totrust an individual. at the very least, lets wait until there is some confirmation that the proper editors are in control of thsoe accounts, and then see what they have to say about the matter, before rushing to judgement, or should I say pre-judgement. DES ^(talk) 12:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well obviously the only solution is to have 128-character one-time elliptic entropic passwords, otherwise there's a possibility they might get cracked! And no staying logged in! And no admining from a non-SSL server! You never know who might be looking, and Jebus help you if your password gets cracked, obviously you're far too stupid to be doing anything here! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just don't pick "password", it is like leaving the door to the office unlocked an wide open. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to process DESiegel's statement that he has seen "admins, make errors that are far more clearly culpable than having a weak PW, and thsoe errors are routinely forgiven on an apology and a promise not to offend again." Short of actually deleting the main page yourself, what action by a Wikipedia admin could possibly be more culpable than having a stupid password like "password"? That's just flatly incorrect. The problem here, in any case, is not punishment or forgiveness or anything like that, it's that fact that Wikipedia cannot afford to routinely continue to trust people who have proven so feckless or negligent. I only ask, as I have from the beginning, that these editors not be routinely resysopped as has apparently happened here, but that they should be required to test whether they retain the community's trust as administrators. --Tony Sidaway 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So who was negligent enough to allow the Mediawiki software to accept simple passwords like 'password' or even (since fixed) blank passwords? Would you continue to trust people that allowed a security loophole like this to go unfixed (for the record, I would). Carcharoth 13:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, someone leaves the door unlocked, and you blame the lock designer for not autolocking? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you replying to me or Tony? Carcharoth 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As you've said below that you were replying to me I've indented to show this and, then yes, the lock designer should bear some of the blame, as the final design of this sort of lock (choosing the password) is done by the 'owner' of the lock, and not the designer. A good design would place limits on that part of the process. Carcharoth 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone whose PIN for banking, intruder alarm, and office are all the first digits of my phone number I am probably am one of those Tony would think very stupid, but I'm not so stupid I can't see when Tony is deliberately making provocative statements. The simple truth is those admins (whoever they are) have learnt the hard way that many of us need to be more security conscious. They have learned, we have all learned, we are all better and wiser for it. They can still be admins - now let us move on. Giano 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear Lord! Change them now! (The PINs and codes - not the admins). Carcharoth 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry - I already changed them. :) --ElKevbo 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What where is that office? (kidding) ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, I'm finding it difficult to work out who you are replying to. Could you possibly indent to the correct level when replying? Carcharoth 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know there is a correct way to indent(please point me to a page describing it), my response dated 13:49, 8 May 2007 is to you. If the community asked for a blacklist of passwords the devs would have added them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably no page describing it. One of those unwritten rules. The general rule is to indent one more level than the person you are replying to, and to try and keep replies in chronological order, so if someone else replies first, your reply goes below their's (unless there is a good reason to jump the queue, when you can double indent to indicate you have done that). I wonder what happened to LiquidThreads? I've taken the liberty of correcting the indentation above, though I took care to take the courtesy to ask you to clarify who you were replying to before doing that. Now, tongue-in-cheek I wonder if this sort of "common knowledge" about threading of conversations (more familiar to those who use bulletin boards or Usenet) is on a level with the 'obviousness' of password security? :-) Carcharoth 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) My two cents' worth is this: the Wikipedia community was the prey to a grievous attack, which hurt us. This attack was in part due to the negligence of some admins who used passwords that were too simple. Those admins were chosen in the first place for their general good judgment in most matters. However, I don't see that never making an error in judgment was a prerequisite for being an admin. Last time I checked, it wasn't. These admins, in not choosing a strong enouhg password, did, IMHO commit an error in judgment, the grievousness of which is debatable (as all the damage was rather quickly and painlessly reverted). Unless we start asking for all admins to reapply any time they make any error of judgment, I don't see how we can ask them to go through the same process now. I believe we should just ask them to prove their identity and demonstrate they are using a stronger password ("strong enough" is subjective). If, however, their password were to get cracked a second time, that would be recurring negligence, which might be rightfully sanctionable. If we want to move forward from this, I would welcome us putting way more effort in making sure it doesn't happen again (and I don't think we should rely that everyone should fully understand what a strong password is) than assigning blame. These admins didn't suddenly prove themselves untrusworthy, they made an error in judgment, certainly, they were negligent, probably, but in the end, erring is human. Let's please let it go at that.--Ramdrake 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really on to equivocate like this. It isn't merely "an error of judgement", it's such a basic failure of the norms we require of any editor on Wikipedia, that if an administrator fails surely his trustworthiness is called into question. Let me be clear here, because often we seem to be losing sight of it: deliberately choosing a password like "password" or "fuckyou" can only happen for two reasons: stupidity or negligence. The effect is to expose Wikipedia potentially to damage that for reasons that must be obvious I will not describe here. This is fundamental: can we place Wikipedia's integrity in the hands of someone who would guard it with passwords like this? --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a very foollish thing to do, given the damage we know can be done with an admin account. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, in future, no the community shouldn't let this happen. I agree with the changes being made, and I would urge you to suggest (over there) that this question be asked of all RFA candidates. Forcing people to go back through the RfA process in matters like this is counter-productive though. To be fair you should have all admins go back through RfA and let the community judge whether their judgement in cases like this (password security) is suspect. Also, for reasons of natural justice, singling out those who (for whatever reason) were compromised in this case, would be unfair. Several people changed their passwords to stronger ones in the wake of this, many more probably did so and said nothing. Did those people have weak passwords? Should they be castigated and desysopped as well? Concentrate on putting safeguards in place now, be more vigilent, and let the past become history while learning from it. Carcharoth 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of my view as "you should have all admins go back through RfA and let the community judge whether their judgement in cases like this (password security) is suspect." That absolutely encapsulates my view. I have openly promulgated, before the attacks yesterday, at around 1100 GMT, that we run a sweep of admin account and summarily desysop all those who have weak passwords [11] [12]. Actually Brion did perform the sweep but has locked out the accounts by changing the passwords, so those who had no email address have lost their accounts--this isn't a bad solution.

I don't think asking questions of RFA candidates along the lines of "have you got a strong password?" is productive. Actively testing their passwords, and rejecting any candidate with an easily hackable password, would be much more effective. It's easy enough to write a "yes/no" hackability test that can be run by a bureaucrat. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, by "all admins" I meant all 1000+ admins should be questioned in depth about their knowledge of password security issues. I mean, you can run password crackers over accounts all you like, but educating the weak links is best (yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic here). Carcharoth 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So Brion desysopped a bunch of admins yesterday? Huh, I would think there would be a little more discussion about that then a unilateral action...unless he has some way of letting them into their accounts when asked to. RxS 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well locked out for those foolish enough not to have an email set. What alternative did we have? The site was under attack because of some people's poor password choices. Secretlondon 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, unless there was a way to record what the old password was (not always possible) then it's a hard lesson learned I guess. RxS 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So did Brion actually desysop them, or just lock them out of the accounts? If the latter, we're going to haev a hard time telling what our actual admin totals are now. -- nae'blis 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Can we have a link somewhere to something stating what exactly was the outcome of Brion's sweep? Do those locked out by changed passwords get the same sort of message as those blocked? If not, there may be some puzzled people out there wondering if they've suddenly developed amnesia or something... (sure, as admins, they should eventually work out what is going on, but still). Carcharoth 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony, the question then is, if this was so important, how come you didn't test their account for security? Or anybody else for that matter? I mean, if their password is as terrible as you're implying, and if your trust of them is contingent on their establishment of this minimum level of security, why weren't you out there trying, in the simplest possible ways, to crack the accounts during RfA? The reasoning here is essentially the same as that forbidding ex post facto laws in many nations - it cannot be a crime to do something if nobody knows that it's a crime. This isn't just a failure of those admins - it's a failure of the community for not making it an issue, the developers for not building in all manner of security tools, and every person that didn't think to ask about it. I work in IT. I certainly know that "password" is a weak password (and I haven't personally seen confirmation of that specific case, which isn't to say it's not there), but, if you can believe it, I've worked with people IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS that don't realize that sort of thing. If you haven't tried to teach a child, you can't blame him for not knowing long division.Cool moe dee 345 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See my earlier comments in which I suggested a scan of weak accounts and automatic desysopping. This was at 1100 GMT yesterday. I agree that the community had failed, but for understandable reasons--it may be obvious to you that many people are too stupid to set a proper password, but it was not obvious to me and I'm sure not to most other editors. This does not excuse those negligent editors their responsibilities. In short, it looks like you're having a good go at deflecting attention from the cause of the problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you have a good point. But I think asking all these admins to go through RFA again when we don't even know the extent of the problem is rushing things a bit. Surely, if (1) we can re-identify a user definitively, (2) they agree to choose a stronger password, (3) we check that they have done so, then the only remaining question is whether the community can still trust them given the weakness of their password, right? I see the point, but we rely on admins to do a lot of work around here, and RFA is very contentious, and the last thing we want is to drive such dedicated volunteers away over what is probably a single lapse of judgement, that as others mention, probably was made well before they came to prominence as admins. Mangojuice^talk 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Blanket requirements for re-RFA (with its concommittant tendency to magnify 'problems') may only net us a total reduction in admins, something the vandal may have wanted. Although I hate to quote GWB, "if we desysop people because of old passwords, the vandals have already won". -- nae'blis 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, Tony - can you stop throwing hyperbolic insults about how "lazy" and "stupid" (even - ! - "mendacious") the poor people who have been caught up in this sorry mess have been. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen variations on this theme from you over the past few days.

Admittedly, passwords like "password" are at the far end of the spectrum as far as security (or lack thereof) go, but it is unfortunately a fact of life that some people are less aware of or less concerned about computer security issues than others. Does that make them "stupid" or "lazy", or even untrustworthy?

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just a project to build an online encyclopedia, not a repository of medical or banking records, so it is understandable that some participants may choose passwords that are not as secure as you or others with more familiarity of such issues might like or expect. Perhaps it is second nature for some people to choose different lengthy random strings every time they are asked for a new password, and to change them regularly too, but most people don't, particularly article-orientated editors: that is, people that are actually writing the encyclopedia. Being an admin is not (or not solely) about knowledge about geeky computer-administration issues: admins are people that the community is confident will not abuse the admin buttons. No more, no less.

I agree pretty much with Alabamaboy and Antandrus. Let this be a lesson to us all to choose our passwords more wisely. It is also comforting that technical solutions - like the captcha - are being implemented to help to stop this sort of thing happening again. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes these people were ignorant, and yes that has consequences. Fortunately, on wikipedia, ignorance is a viable defence. :-)

So I'm just going to say good luck to those who lost their accounts yesterday. If they can prove who they are, they can get their accounts back, and will have learned a valuable lesson. One which they will likely not soon forget.

If they can't identify themselves, well, yeah, that's kind of tough, because we really won't know if they are actually themselves. :-/

--Kim Bruning 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (said the manager of the man who just lost the company $1 000 000 : "What? Fire him? Never! It just cost me a million bucks to educate him!")

I don't think it makes sense to punish the admins in question for this incident (and it certainly wouldn't be a preventative response since this mistake is unlikely to repeat itself). This is better dealt with by the path that we have already begun -- checking password strength and requesting admins with weak passwords to improve them. It is better to focus on our response to the malicious parties, not the punishment of the honestly negligent in our own camp. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue is judgement, for example: Could they be duped into giving out their passwords? Are they going to leave their admin account logged in at an Internet cafe? Are they running Windows with no updates? Those are just some of the security issues, and they are serious security issues; we are lucky the vandal only deleted the main page and blocked a few users, though that should still never happen. —Centrx→talk • 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I'm surprised to find a respected Wikipedia (in this case, Kim Bruning) questioning the obvious:

Admittedly, passwords like "password" are at the far end of the spectrum as far as security (or lack thereof) go, but it is unfortunately a fact of life that some people are less aware of or less concerned about computer security issues than others. Does that make them "stupid" or "lazy", or even untrustworthy?

Um, yes, I think the presumption should be that they have been trusted and found wanting. This is obvious. Automatically resysopping should not be done. Unless there are extensive mitigating factors, they should be required to go to the community and ask if they're still trusted. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me. It is not at all obvious to me that someone who knows little or nothing about computer security is lazy, stupid, mendacious or untrustworthy. They are just vulnerable, and in need of guidance and assistance. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know you think that. You have said so quite a few times in this thread. You haven't said anythign new about the matter for the past few times. Othjer people have read and understood what you have said, and at least some of them disagree with you. I do, for one. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have acquired a royal plural. Yes, I have no problem repeating the facts in appropriate permutations until they permeate the consciousness and are established beyond dispute. This can take some time but I've never regarded that as a problem. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Oh good grief! I can assume good faith and deplore bad security habits on the same line. Be glad that you have a system that allows rolling destructive changes back. I'd urge you to set up a system to actively test or challange administrator's passwords, and to timeout an administrator's login after a couple of minutes of inactivity. I suspect that most of the problems are from human factors other than password choice. Not that that can't be a problem, too. (forgot to sign, sigh!) htom 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a horrible idea, that won't accomplish anything. Considering that Wikipedia does not transmit passwords encrypted during login (and this has been public for a while, so no risk of WP:BEANS here), you want admins to have to log in more? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That the passwords are not encrypted is not good. That an administrator might be distracted and leave their account accessable to someone walking by -- whether their cat or a shoulder surfer -- should also be avoided. If you don't like the five minute timeout, how about fifteen? htom 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither. I'm not concerned about my cat editing. This solution doesn't accomplish anything, besides allowing more interception attack vectors. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: For about a day or so, we had a secure log-in option on the site. I used it and it seemed to work ok. Last night that option disappeared. What's up with that? Will the option return or were there major bugs with it?--Alabamaboy 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That has been there for a long time, not just a day. It was where we recommended AOL users to log in. I would guess that when all these editors found out about it, the load got too high to support it. Prodego ^talk 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we were advised by the devs not to so publicly advertise it. We have, I believe, only one server that supports HTTPS for all Wikimedia wikis; it can't handle the load of every single user. Nonetheless, it is still available at https://secure.wikimedia.org and you're welcome to use it; just don't advertise it (as I just did :D). AmiDaniel (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(In response to the original post): Hear, hear! Lets pay no mind to the cruel histrionics of the geeklitists. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution: at RfA, add the question "What is your password?" If it's not secure enough, oppose ;) Confusing Manifestation 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committed identities

The above thread about admins with compromised accounts got me thinking: if my account was compromised, would there be a way I could convince someone unfamiliar with me that it was the same me operating in a different account? I suppose we could use Checkuser, but I came up with a different solution: use a cryptographic commitment scheme to specify my real-life identity on my user page, in case I'd ever need it. I created a template, Template:User committed identity, so others could do the same thing. I encourage my fellow admins to use this, just in case (if they haven't already specified their real-life identity publically). I do have a strong password, but nothing makes you immune from a dedicated attacker who could try every ascii string until they get your password. Mangojuice^talk 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check this out. One thought, though: Could you change this to something other than "Committed Identities." That makes these people sound like they were committed to a mental institution or something. Of course, excessive WP editing might be a deciding factor in getting one committed. :-)--Alabamaboy 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! From a crypto standpoint, it's the right term... but if you can think of a better name, that would be good. Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that it's not feasible to reverse the algorithm, couldn't they try every ASCII string until they get your real name? No thanks to that. —freak(talk) 13:34, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

It's best to put more info in there - for instance, I put my phone number, my username, and an email address. The string is much too long to brute force. But I'll add that to the instructions, people should be careful about this. Mangojuice^talk 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have two static IPs so if I log a comment from both of those then it's definitely me. I don't mind giving those to a trusted party for justin. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it is not mandatory to use it for a real-life identity, it could be any phrase. As long as you can state what the magic word is, it confirms that you are the person who placed that hash in your use page. One could have several strings for several future uses. (SEWilco 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

That's true, you can commit to anything. However, I felt like using a real-life identity would be best, because then the re-verification of your identity is two-pronged: not only do you know the secret, but the identity in the secret is the one who knows it. So, if someone managed to figure out my real-life identity, they could maybe figure out my secret string, but they probably couldn't convince someone else that they really are me. Mangojuice^talk 14:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant idea for confirmation of identities, Mangojuice. I've set one up myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Premeditated Chaos (talk • contribs) 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC). ^{Damnations, that's a fast bot. I literally just hit "save page". ♠PMC♠ 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}

Thanks. I'm glad to see them catching on. Mangojuice^talk 14:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of your confirmations can be your real identity. You could have other confirmations, such as a long phrase which mentions an action you did on Wikipedia, in case all that is needed is confirmation that someone is a certain Wikipedia editor and not necessarily who the editor is. (SEWilco 04:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

There should be some WP Categories on the template so people have a chance to find the template. (SEWilco 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

I signed up. I also moved the template docs to a subpage and tweaked the category includes so the template isn't in the user category. CMummert · talk 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table: namespace

Um... frankly wtf! See this. Is there some reason this was done with no visible discussion at all (other then on the bug report that I've dug up). Am I missing something? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed wikitech-l asking for this namespace to be removed. There is no consensus at all for it, and that bug report came from a suggestion made in 2005 that we should have a complete WYSIWYG table editing system that would incidentally use its own namespace. There was little discussion on the subject even back then, and there certainly isn't anything near a consensus now that this namespace is wanted or needed, or what we should do with it. This sort of thing needs a complete proposal to be written (and generally agreed upon) beforehand, and that just hasn't happened – Gurch 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread at the Village pump about this, check here. -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not the only one unhappy, either. See here] as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict)I recall a rather lengthy discussion about it on the village pump a while ago (no concrete timeframe, sorry) that was quite positive towards the idea, so that's not completely true. The use seems rather straightforward as well: containing data tables which are better suited for transclusion than direct insertation into pages or existence as stand-alone articles.

Is there any particular reason you guys have to be against this? Do you think it will hurt Wikipedia somehow? Or is this just a general reaction against change? --tjstrf talk 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That this functionality is essentially the same as templates; that the reason behind the idea (that it will provide the background work for a table editor) is baseless, as they're completely unrelated; that there is no clear definition of what the distinction between a template and a table will be; that wikisyntax to link to tables will not be modified any time soon; that tables can be part of the article mainspace, and don't need to be relegated to a back corner of the wiki... I could go on and on... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only short term benefit I see is reusing tables. The bad thing is that we already do that with templates, offering no advantage at all. I have no opinion about this, though, although it has no real advantages. Personally, I find a Draft namespace (so that we stop using subpages in talk pages to create drafts) is more useful. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A Draft namespace may well be a good idea. Hardly matters, though, as you could request it today, nothing will happen and then in 2009 when everyone has forgotten all about your idea it gets added without warning – Gurch 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Sarcasm and irony are my weapons! ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, may I ask... whats the point of this? What makes this different from Template namespace? Most of our infoboxes are in there anyway. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that, though – it's more the fact that the namespace was added just like that... with no warning, at all... when it had been requested two years before. We need guidelines on how to a new namespace, what it's for and what belongs there, before we create the namespace and start moving stuff into it. That hasn't happened – Gurch 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral towards it myself, since it was just implemented and we haven't seen what its effects will be. We can work out the rules for which stuff should go where as we go. --tjstrf talk 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch are you upset that the devs forgot to fill in form WEF-32F-C3? I admit that it would have been nice to have some notification, and more importantly some explaination as to how it is actually useful, but its not the end of the world. I'm still personally asking for why is it different then template space? Whats the deal :P —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm upset that they didn't tell anyone, at all that they were about to add a new namespace for which there was no active and advertised proposal – or even anything close. If they add something that everyone has obviously wanted for ages, then that's not so much of a problem, but that is not the case here – Gurch 04:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Search through archived discussion and obscure forgotten project pages and you'll find dozens of new namespace proposals. I remember making one myself. That doesn't mean it's OK for them all to suddenly show up in MediaWiki tomorrow – Gurch 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm yeah that part could have been done better, but really if the use of the namespace is made clear, then we are better off for having it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, irony and sarcasm are my weapons! ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just haven't found the obscure location where the announcement was made. (SEWilco 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to mention WP:Tables for deletion. As if the backlogs weren't big enough as it is ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Tables:Table of tables for deletion. Obviously the namespace Wikipedia Tables: is needed. (SEWilco 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

• Could somebody please explain a meaningful difference between the table namespace and what we use templates for? >Radiant< 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The new namespace was discussed at VPR, and is still in the archives (current link permlink, due to the VP's strange archiving system). So I suppose the question is, what should be considered to be sufficient consensus/advertising to add a new namespace? --ais523 09:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I found out about it from the announcement on wikibugs-l, where all software and language configuration changes are announced (except for ones that didn't use the bug tracker); however, this is a somewhat obscure mailing list with much traffic the average user wouldn't care about (it's a sort of 'recent changes' for bugzilla:, and its messages are automatically generated). --ais523 09:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also announced the change at #New namespace above on AN, and also at WP:VPN, shortly after it had been made, because I realised that it hadn't been announced anywhere people were likely to notice. --ais523 09:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's no big deal. If you prefer to do your tables with templates, fine. If you prefer to put your tables inline into an article, fine. If you prefer to put your tables into this new namespace and include them via the new [[Table:... syntax, fine.

There is, to me, a fine semantic distinction:

• templates are (general-purpose) building blocks intended to be included in many pages, and useful for many purposes, whereas
• any single table is typically intended to be included in very few pages only, in most cases even only on one single page, and is not general-purpose at all but very context specific.

That might be an argument for doing tables inline within articles, but apparently some people feel this unnecessarily intimidating to novice editors, a concern I can understand.

Just some anecdotal evidence: in Shrimp farm, I originally had the table in a subpage (which turned out not to be a subpage, as these are disabled on the main namespace, but let's ignore that). I didn't want to have the table in the article for size considerations and also because the article was going to be on the main page, and I feared it might be a magnet for subtle vandalism. (Someone changing only a few digits...) I did not want to pollute the Template namespace with this single-purpose table, so I chose a "subpage" and transcluded that. Sometime later, someone else put the table directly into the article, removing the transclusion, because the "subpage" wasn't a real subpage. I'm now seriously considering to move this table to this new Table namespace. Lupo 09:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Many pages that are currently templates are intended only to be included in one page, to simplify that page's formatting. So by your logic, they'd go in table namespace. Thing is, many of them aren't "tables" at all – some of them are tables in the sense that they use tables for markup purposes, but that has nothing to do with tables in the sense of a table of data, which is what people seem to think this namespace is for. Either we have single-transclusion/multi-transclusion namespaces, or we use Template namespace for both... but either way, I don't see that having a "table" namespace will help. Especially not with our current lack of guidelines, which will lead to administrators who want things done "their" way deleting any table namespace pages they don't like with pithy explanations like "it's not a table" (it happens, when you don't have agreed-upon policies and guidelines specifiying what is allowed) – Gurch 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the original purpose of the namespace was so that tables would be treated like images, hoping that eventually a separate table editor would be created. --ais523 12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may like to look at this: Wikipedia:Table: namespace and editor. Viridae^Talk 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is purely a proposal, as that page doesn't mean that a developer will look at it. All the active MediaWiki developers have their projects to work on, and unless you convince one, a table editor is not one of them. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand a) the hue and cry, and b) why this is a AN issue. Is it harming, or were you just not sent an invitation to the discussion? Not many people complained about the idea, several thought it was positive, and the namespace is easily removed if it becomes a problem. -- nae'blis 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not easily. All the pages in the namespace become inaccessible the moment the namespace is removed, and have to be retrieved by a developer with shell access. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, "easily" in the sense that we can move all the Table: pages into other namespaces before deletion, considering it should be a well-considered and consensus decision to remove it upon evidence that the experiment has failed. :) -- nae'blis 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Eagle101's link at the top doesn't work, so try this one. :-) 13 pages in the Table: namespace so far. One has even been marked on its talk page as "Table Class" and a category created for table class pages! Also, has anyone noticed that the talk page syntax is inconsistent? It goes Talk:Table:... rather than Table talk:... Carcharoth 12:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's because the namespace was just removed again, and all the pages in it were moved into articlespace by the developers using Table: or Talk:Table: prefixes. (It was Table talk: while the namespace existed, and will be if the namespace is created again.) --ais523 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, right. Thanks. I'll quote you over at the other thread. Carcharoth 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-May/031298.html for what happened. --ais523 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overturning a block

A user I had not known has contacted me by email to review his block - I do find the block weakly argued and rather too long (2 weeks for a weak proof of sockpuppeteering) - please see full (short) discussion. I think this block should be overturned - I don't find evidence of sock convincing (perhaps a WP:RFC should be filled?). Comments? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I started out defending the two people accused of sockpuppetry, but requests for explanations have largely been ignored by Gaimhreadhan, and after initial protests, by W. Frank. See also User_talk:W._Frank. At the very best, the two are very close friends, have been editing with a similar viewpoint on some articles, and are unable to understand Wikipedia's processes or are unwilling to cooperate in resolving the matter. The "smoking gun" appears to be an email W. Frank said he sent to User:Tyrenius, but which arrived from Gaimhreadhan's email address.-gadfium 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your fairness, gadfium. G and I have known each other for more than 20 years and I do not consider friendship to be grounds for accusing people of being meatpuppets. Please do not take this the wrong way but I am happy to discuss these matters by phone or in person with anyone that does not require the shelter of anonymity. Because of security concerns (related to the industry we both work in and the subject matter of the articles that `caused' the blocks) I am completely unwilling to discuss our personal details with anyone that does require the shelter of anonymity. W. Frank 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in a disagreement with Gaimhreadhan, which was then carried on by W. Frank. Gaimhreadhan did seem to have taken a far more measured approach since his initial unblocking, and although he didn't discuss the sockpuppetry despite requests I don't see much merit in this block, it doesn't seem to be preventative. Even as a party who was involved in a mild dispute with him prior to the initial blocking, I'd support unblocking. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your fairness, One Night In Hackney. Please do not take this the wrong way but I am happy to discuss these matters by phone or in person with anyone that does not require the shelter of anonymity. Because of security concerns (related to the industry we both work in and the subject matter of the articles that `caused' the blocks) I am completely unwilling to discuss our personal details with anyone that does require the shelter of anonymity. W. Frank 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the block still serves any purpose and would be happy for it to be lifted. I have notified Tyrenius of this discussion, as he's the blocking admin.-gadfium 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked per the wish of this discussion. There is more talk related to this on User:W. Frank. Please note that the recent reinstatement of the sockpuppet block occurred only after I had requested an explanation and waited 4 days, but none was forthcoming. User:Gaimhreadhan ignored the request and carried on editing regardless. The question was how come User:W. Frank said he had emailed me, when the email was from Gaimhreadhan's email address and signed Gaimhreadhan. I am not aware this has been explained yet. There is other material relating to these two users, which I have not made public because of WP:BEANS. Tyrenius 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent undeletion of corporate censorship (formerly Gaaaah!)

I am not a process wonk, God knows, but it does irritate me when a deletion is overturned without any comment whatsoever. I speedied corporate censorship as patent nonsense (which it is, in my view), and only found out it was back by looking in my deletion log. I have no problem at all with people reviewing, challenging or even undoing my deletions, but please, friends, at least let other admins know when you do it, otherwise we look like clowns, repeatedly deleting and undeleting stuff. Freely acknowledging past faults on my own part, restoring without notifying, especially where the content is blatant POV-pushing and likely to be reposted by the original POV-pushers, as in this case, is a great way to accidentally start a wheel war. I think we have enough low drama already without that. I promise to try to remember this, too, although as an arch-deletionist I don't often undo deletions. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the article as it was on 3 May 2007 (which mentioned Wikipedia) but overlook the shorter, more neutrally-worded stub that has been there since 27 December 2005 and doesn't? I think it's safe to say that speedying an article that has existed for so long is more or less always inadvisable, whatever the content. Reverting to the older version (and then using {{prod}} if it is still unsatisfactory) may have been a better course of action – Gurch 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The older article has only about half a dozen non-vandalism edits, links to a speech which does not mention the term (corporatism was not a widely-discussed concept in 1644) and was referenced solely to an anti-corporate tract, so the original article was almost certainly serving to advance an agenda as well. But this misses the point. I'm happy to accept I may be wrong, the problem is undeleting stuff without leaving any kind of note - even to say don't be silly. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion in the first place wasn't a good idea, so I'm not sure what the problem is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That he would have liked a note about it, I think. Sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps Guy shouldn't have deleted the article in the first place (I haven't read it), but if that were the case a note pointing this out might actually be helpful in addition to being polite. --kingboyk 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, none of us should undo another's admin action without discussing it, or at least mentioning it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is never/rarely a rush to undelete anything. Unless it is obvious rouge, you ask the deleting admin to reconsider and wait. If you don't a response, or you can't agree, then off to DRV. Simple.--Doc^g 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at least talk to the admin, and if you cannot come to an agreement seek a larger consensus(with the exception of honest mistakes that are objectively obvious). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who were around when the speedy deletion criteria were first drawn up will remember that its purpose was to specify a a very limited set of circumstances within which an administrator may presume that the will of the community is to delete, without bothering to ask them. You should therefore never speedily delete an article unless you are certain that the community will wish it so. If in doubt, ask. A corollary of this is that if a good faith editor overturns or challenges your speedy deletion, you are automatically in the wrong for having deleted it in the first place. Hesperian 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in doubt - but not relevant. Highly POV articles are frequently re-created by the POV-pushers, and that is not good-faith. The vast majority of links in my deletion log that go blue, are either gross POV or spam, reposted by the original editor. Sometimes I make a bad call, which is fine, and I don't mind that being undone, but it is annoying not to be told about it. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And would not discussing it first increase the likelihood that both adimins will understand what is going on? Challenging a delete is fine, but talk about it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you disagree with. Even if we accept you are entirely right (which I don't, really, but that's tangential), a note to Guy telling him he was "wrong" might help. The best of us you learn from mistakes, after all. --kingboyk 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

(after numerous edit conflicts) Yes, I certainly agree that overturning an administrative (or indeed editorial) action without prior discussion is discourteous, and not even informing them after the fact is highly so. I was making a slightly different point. Hesperian 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

... that point being that if I were to challenge one of Guy's deletions, Guy's next step must be to undelete, and then take it to AfD if he so wishes. The situation where he declines to undelete and we have to go off to DRV, as canvassed by Doc Glasgow and HighInBC, should never arise, as the mere fact that I have challenged Guy's speedy automatically renders it improper. (I'm just using Guy as a convenient example here - no offense or challenge to Guy is intended by it). Hesperian 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not neccessarily disagreeing with that. But, someone times when a deletion is challenged as seemly poor, the deleting admin is able to say either 'oh, your right' or 'no, you've not notices that...'. In many cases the two can reach an agreement or if they can't they can agree that there's a discussion to be had which then goes to afd or drv depending. Discussion always comes first, and the CSD are not exhaustive.--Doc^g 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Must? I'd say it depends on the article. I'd be more likely to accept some people's word on that than others. Sometimes DRV is a better venue, when having the article during the debate may cause harm (thinking here of actions in response to OTRS complaints, in particular). Guy (Help!) 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of seeking a larger consensus is that there is a possibility you are wrong, not saying that is the case here, but a sanity check is always nice. You may be right on technical grounds, but seeking consensus is beneficial, even if not mandatory. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Was that to me? I completely agree. The problem is not being challenged, it's being reverted without anyone bothering to say anything. Maybe it's irrational to be pissed off by that, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarrely, the AfD nomination that was looking like a unanimous delete got closed as 'speedy keep'. Now relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship (2).--Doc^g 08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> No need to prejudice the discussion in this way. The absence of bizarreness is adequately covered at the AfD. You could have just linked to the new discussion, instead of characterising the first closure as bizarre, but hey, in a thread titled "Gaaaah!" that is par for the course. Carcharoth 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying repeat noticeboard reportees

I've just created {{userlinks-an}}, a {{userlinks}} variant, for use on the admins' noticeboards (here and ANI, etc.) It contains a link to use the ~eagle AN/ANI/CN/3RR archive search on the toolserver (thanks, Eagle 101 and GeorgeMoney, for creating it) to search for mentions of a username on those pages (it's designed to try to avoid the sig of the user themself, although it probably isn't perfect in this regard, with both false negatives and false positives likely). For instance, Ais523 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · search noticeboard archives) will show all the times I've been mentioned at AN and AN/I. What do people think of this? --ais523 10:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I haven't been mentioned nearly often enough. Clearly I need to create some kind of major drama. I'll get back to you – Gurch 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The template genius strikes again. Thanks ais,we really needed this. ~Crazytales 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the credit should go to Eagle 101 and GeorgeMoney for creating the search tool in the first place; I just worked out the template coding and the regexp required. ais523 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More incivility by User:Illwauk

How do I deal with this? [13]. He was previously blocked for this [14]. I've been checking his images because he has a habit of uploading from Flickr with the wrong licensing tags... Not a dog 11:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've already responded ([15]) and I think you handled it pretty well. My advice is to stay cool, report any further breaches of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA and don't be put off. You're doing nothing wrong by keeping an eye on a user who makes frequent mistakes (assuming good faith). If he continues to breach the rules having been warned, that's verging on vandalism and should be reported as such. Waggers 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Not a dog 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity (game)

We have an OTRS complaint re Celebrity (game). The complainant asserts that he owns the name "Celebrity" as applied to games. The game appears, as far as I can tell from a Google search, to be generic, a parlour game. The article is a how-to, which the complainant does not appear to like (impacts on ability to sell for profit). Google search is not especially helpful, due to the generic nature of any searches; I cannot verify whether the game is ripped off from the published game, a generic parlour game which was incidentally published, or somewhere between the two. I also can't find sources for the history of the game, which is what the article needs to avoid deletion as a game guide / how-to. I do not know what to do for the best here. I thought I'd already posted this, but can't find it, so apologies if this is a duplicate. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Chronicle Books put out a similar game in 2004, and this book suggests that it may simply be a variation on twenty questions. So I don't think they have a case here, but I don't think deletion is the answer, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You never do, Jeff. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now now, that's not true. But hopefully this helps answer the questions - it's worth noting that the corporate site suggests that they produced this game in 2000, the second link predates it by at least six years. A rename may be in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did post before but iirc you didn't link to the article :P I'll take a look. --kingboyk 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c *2)

Well, I for one have definitely played this game, and it wasn't any kind of "official published version". Not that this helps, but thought I'd say so. --Ali'i 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is the person claiming we have infringed copyright? If that's the case, we could figure it out if they would show us where the text is allegedly copied from. I would like to see the article have a source backing up the name, though (which Jeff's sources don't show), because if someone else has used the name to refer to the game, we're just commenting on that. Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is similar to the drinking game AfDs from last year - they're known by a variety of names, but are created under the name whichever person got around to creating the article. We may very well have this article on Wikipedia already under a separate name. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible breach of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Besides that, if he owns a trademark the article can say so, it doesn't stop us covering it. Sounds spurious to me. If, OTOH, he's claiming a copyvio I think we need to see some proof. --kingboyk 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Other places calling the basic game "celebrity" http://www.kimberg.com/celebrity.html, http://www.metafilter.com/56061/Ink-and-Paper-Instant-Party (in a comment about half way down), http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/party-games/a_free_party_game_celebrity.php, http://www.hashai.com/blog/archives/2003/11/guess_the_celeb.html. --Ali'i 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the links?

Why are blue links suddenly not blue anymore? Chick Bowen 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everything going red!

Why are all the blue-links turning red? The articles are still there, but the links are red. Maybe some CSS glitch? (I'm using monobook). Some are still blue, others are red. It varies as you refresh it. Surreal. Oh, and not really red, as Pastor David says. Maroon is a good description. Carcharoth 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like articles are red (or maroon), and some wikipedia space things, while everything else is still blue. hmmm Pastor David ^† 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now? --JoanneB 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not on my end, at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Some articles have blue links, while others have dark red links. Neldav 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh good it's not just me I thought I was having a bad flashback. Whispering 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post if you have nothing productive to say; it just causes repeated edit conflicts. —Centrx→talk • 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bug. Article links are being tagged with class="stub" which is generally a feature you can find in Preferences->Misc->Threshhold for stub display to change the link color for short articles. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really annoying! I keep thinking, "who deleted that article?? Oh wait ..." - Alison ☺ 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh yeah - the whole main page has pretty much gone magenta for me now. Will (aka Wimt) 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone send an e-mail to Wikipedia to inform them of the problem? Neldav 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The devs are apparently onto it (see here). Will (aka Wimt) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix. Go to Preferences -> Misc -> Threshold for stub display and change the 0 to a larger number, like 8000. That should fix the problem for you. CMummert · talk 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That reduces them for me but still doesn't get rid of the problem altogether. Will (aka Wimt) 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Without changing anythin in my settings, this appears to have been fixed. Thanks for all the hardwork. It was quite unnerving (the sky is falling, the sky is falling ...) Pastor David ^† 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup seems fixed for me now too. Phew! Will (aka Wimt) 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link color

Now that it's fixed, and I understand it, it is kind of a neat feature. Setting the threshold to 0 leaves the display the same. Setting it at a certain number colors the links for all articles shorter than that number as maroon - so that you know that they are stubs. I found that 6000 is about right. Pastor David ^† 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But, but, nearly everything is stubs. Oh no. If we want them to turn blue again, we will have to write some content. Oh. Hang on. You can't fool us that easily!! :-) (off to turn a maroon link blue.) Carcharoth 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Styling stub links with css

You can style stub links with CSS so that they are the same color but distinguished in some other way. I am trying the following code to see if I like it: a little superscript s after a stub link, but with the usual colors. It works in Firefox but maybe not in IE. CMummert · talk 17:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

a.stub:after { content: "s"; font-size: 70%; vertical-align: super;}
a.stub { color: #002bb8; }
a.stub:visited { color: #5a3696; }

[edit] User:PCE

Previous posting here at ANI went completely ignored, and as the problem is a long term issue it probably needs to be in AN anyway. User has a consistent history dating back to September of last year of making up his own arbitrary names for wrestling moves and adding them to articles. Way back when he was warned about this, repeatedly, and constantly ignored the warnings. He was blocked for disruption due to these edits and stopped for a bit but returned later and since then has been continuing his effort of changing wrestling articles to his own made up names. The only edits he makes outside of adding his own names to wrestling moves are vandalism to other articles, and he has received a total of four test4 warnings for what is pretty much vandalism. Any effort to talk to him is ignored and every warning is ignored. This requires admin intervention. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan through this user's recent edits shows no obvious vandalism nor edits of the type you are complaining about. His talk page warnigns are all weeks or months old. Can you provide diffs to any recent edits you think are problems? Several of this user's recent edits do not seem to match your descriptions. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - [25] and [26] along with [27] and [28] are particularly telling as he makes up different names for the same moves.

I could keep finding more but I think that's enough for now. To someone looking in from the outside the edits don't look like vandalism but they are completely made up names, randomly added prefixes or suffixes, or applying a move that isn't the move the name applies to. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kolrobie

Kolrobie (talk · contribs)

The user is obviously doing what he's doing in good faith. He's been adding {{GFDL-presumed}} to many images that were uploaded long after the cutoff date of January 1, 2006. In addition, he's been adding {{pd-self}} and probably other templates to different images as well. There's no problem with his conduct as he seems to have been mislead, I'm just posting here as I need help reverting all inappropriate additions of license tags by him. Yonatan ^talk 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV backlog

The backlog on WP:AIV is becoming very severe. Help, please? Diagonalfish 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleared. The AIV backlogs go away quickly, especially when several admins are made aware of them. Grandmasterka 00:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete template

Somebody please delete or BJAODN the template that appears here and in other edits by the same IP. He may have just made it up for one-time use, but he may also have "subst"ed it, and I can't track it down. Thanks. 129.98.212.73 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's almost 2 years old. Why are you worrying about it now? —dgies^t_c 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chloride

User:Chloride was blocked a few days ago for being a vandalism account. However, though he did vandalize and confessed to being a sock-puppet of User:Elspeth Monro, he created many articles about battery companies. I deleted a few of them that seemed to be particularly non-notable or hoaxes, but some appear to be legitimate articles, though they often contain many typo corrections. But because of the vandalism by this user, can somoene help go through this user's contributions to make sure that the rest of these articles are really legitimate and written correctly? I tried to sort some of this out, but it's getting confusing and I have to go offline for the evening. Does anyone have any other comments about what should be done? Thanks. Academic Challenger 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, he also created Category:Button-cell battery manufacturers and later blanked it. The only significant edit, other than his, was placing it in Category:Battery manufacturers. Od Mishehu 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock of autoblock caused by DennisGay

A previous section of this page makes it clear that DennisGay shouldn't have been blocked. Can some admin please unblock the autoblock he caused, #496143? Od Mishehu 05:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Alison ☺ 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highly diverging versions of Prem Rawat

I am in a dispute with user:Momento about two highly diverging versions of the article. We are both completely unwilling to use the other sides' version as a basis for further improvement. Basically, I think the old, long version was reasonable good and intense efforts has been done to sourcing over a period of 3 to 4 years. User:Momento has made a new shortened re-write that I believe is significantly flawed and has many, many issues to be resolved. I estimate that it would cost me one year to bring the quality of the new, shortened version to the standard of the old, long version. I think this is a near-complete waste of time. I am willing to shorten the old, long version but only when using the old version as a basis. No compromise seems in sight. What to do? Andries 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this. Admins try not to intervene in resolving a dispute, unless they are part of the discussion. Also read the dispute resolution process on what to do. Sr13 (T|C) 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for mediation. No compromise is in sight. Andries 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Andries claim the old version is the basis of the new version. The major difference is that the old version was severely criticised by two independent GA reviewers for being "bloated" and "too long" and in need of "merciless editing". I initiated a rewrite and with the help of other editor's, an independent reviewer and two month's hard work, a shorter version has been created. It was reviewed several times by one of the original GA reviewers and pronounced "very good". Andries' objection to the new version stems from several editor's desire to see it attain GA status. Andries' is a regular poster on an anti- Prem Rawat website and seeks only to contribute negatively to the Rawat article. Andries was banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages for similar behaviour.Momento 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the old version is too long, but your re-write only improves the length issue and introduces many serious flaws. Andries 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave several examples where your re-write is seriously flawed, but I am unwilling to give an exhaustive list of mistakes and flaws, because a reasonable version is available at our fingertips that has far fewer and less serious flaws. Andries 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, please first make sure that the new re-write is better than the old long version and only then replace the old version. That is the write (right) order. Andries 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people by name

This set of lists has been nominated for deletion about 6 times now, but people keep !voting to retain them basically because they like it.

There are 370,000 biographies known to WikiProject Biography on Wikipedia; the true number is probably far north of that. Having any sort of catch all list when this number of articles is involved just ridiculous. Having an incomplete list seems pretty useless too, and is to an extent original research. The lists are redundant to the category scheme too.

Can we do something to get rid of this nonsense? --kingboyk 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So, after 6 nominations that didn't succeed you want this deleted by going here? Why didn't you take this to deletion review if you believe the closer didn't properly discard the WP:ILIKEIT !votes? This is not the way to delete articles unless you believe that it could be speedy deleted. MartinDK 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin and here's where we discuss issues which might be of interest to the community and admins in particular. Problem? I'm asking for suggestions: perhaps it is speediable, perhaps it should go to AFD again, perhaps I should let it lie. Hence the question. --kingboyk 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite simply wondered why you didn't take this to deletion review since that is how this kind of thing is normally handled. Especially after 6 nominations. Also, I'm quite familiar with what this page is and it says at the top of it that non-admins are free to leave comments. But I will just buzz off then. MartinDK 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're quite welcome to comment, I thought I made that clear. I don't know why you're telling me to take it to DRV, I'm not appealing any closure. I'm merely stating my opinion that this is utter crap that needs to be deleted! --kingboyk 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I thought you were joking, then I clicked through the list .. and wow ... we actually do have huge lists of people by name. Totally unexpected to me. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit unwieldy, but I'd suggest leaving it be. Have you read all the AfD debates yet? :-) Carcharoth 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and "a bit unwieldy" is something of an understatement. It's scope covers approximately 25% of all the articles on Wikipedia, and what use is it if it's not complete? --kingboyk 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?, and no. I doubt I can be convinced that an area of interest which has maybe 400,000 articles on Wikipedia can be listified, nor that a selected list is not useless. --kingboyk 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also very badly organized. What is the point of a page like List of people by name: Brb-Brd? Chick Bowen 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Try reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination) - that was the latest debate, and the list maintainer showed up and mounted a vigorous defence. I don't admit to having read all of that, but anyone thinking of nominating again should probably try. Carcharoth 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Much hot air by one vigorous defender? --kingboyk 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it contains useful red-links. Someone would need to strip out the red-links, or at least devise a way to generate a similar set of lists from categories, before quietly putting it to rest. I'd wait until the technology makes the list obsolete. The technology is not quite there yet. Carcharoth 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Red links are a maintenance issue. Maintenance should happen in project space. It would be quite possible to have a bot create such a list and place it on a WikiProject Biography page. --kingboyk 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The red links are in any case of no use whatsoever in a list like this. Far more likely to be filled in a project-specific or subject-specific list. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You might not like it, but surely this is exactly the kind of case where WP:IAR applies, particularly as consensus has shown time and time again that this shouldn't be deleted? Doesn't WP:CONSENSUS generally overrule policy? That said, I'd be in favour of categorising it if at all possible... -Halo 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I always thought that policy overrules consensus (unless of course consensus mandates that the policy be changed, hehe). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules and delete it you mean?

Biographies are already reasonably well categorised. Category:Living people alone contains well over 100,000 articles. --kingboyk 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I don't mean "ignoring all rules and delete it" - deleting things citing WP:IAR, in my view, is plain abuse of administrator privileges. I'm saying that if enough people vote "keep" because of WP:ILIKEIT, and one of existing [[WP:PILLARS] doesn't cover it, consensus has spoke and as such WP:IAR comes into play where the policies don't actually matter for that individual case. Of course, there's one or two exceptions (which I'm not 100% convinced of myself), but still... That said, you are right about the category, but it doesn't actually tell you who the people were, which gives me the feeling that List of people by name isn't quite as absurd as it first sounds, even if I find it a bit overly kludgey with sub-sub-sub-categories to be useful to myself personally. The theory behind a giant reference list of names with an overview of each person is something I could quite get behind myself, and I actually quite like the idea if not the implementation of it... -Halo 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that it has the shortcut LoPbN... — Scientizzle 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Take it to deletion review, pointing out the canvassing and ILIKEIT arguments. I should note that this is precisely what categories are for. >Radiant< 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The last AFD was in December. Is it not a bit late to be challenging that closure? --kingboyk 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Er, yes. Well, that's four or five months ago, so a renomination would not be problematic. >Radiant< 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block/Unblock review requested

Could another admin review my block of User:Reachouttrust, I blocked it as a username violation because it was promotional for Reachout Trust, if you check their contribs, you will also notice that they were editing Reachout Trust. Now I quote WP:U#PROMOTIONAL (under innappropriate usernames), Promotional usernames that attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia, including but not limited to: Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it. User:Doc glasgow contacted me about the block and although I have stated the reason it is against policy, he has overturned my block with a reason, "no reason to block this. ID confirmed by OTRS anyway)" - Firstly, I can see a very good reason per WP:U to block this, secondally, since when was a user allowed to promote their group using their username as long as they confirmed they were the company? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I overturned this in response to an OTRS contact. I can confirm that the user represents the association in question - and I've asked him to contribute to the article by constructively commenting on the userpage. He was blocked without warning and was a little confused. My reasons for doing this were 1) WP:AGF and see if he can indeed make useful contributions to the article. If not, then we block him for revert waring, pov pushing or whatever - but he's not done any of these things yet. 2) Yes, he's got a conflict of interest - but it is better than this is out in the open, rather than he logs in under a different name and pretends to be neutral. I say again, there has been no disruption here. Yes, he posted an article about his organisation - but others have worked on it and it now looks OK. Anyway, there's no hard and fast rule about not posting article about yourself - we just discourage it. A n00b doesn't know our rules, or the intricacies of our username policy, which even I don't understand. Seems to me too many people are far too fast with username blocks these days.--Doc^g 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The original block seems reasonable to me, and Doc's reasons for unblocking do too. Sounds like the situation is fine as it is right now. Friday (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The original block seems okay. The unblocking does as well. Concur with Friday. Bastique 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy does suggest to seek a greater consensus if you cannot come to agreement with the blocking admin before unblocking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we were both in the right! Thanks for the input guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy page needs changed. It seems that to block people, without warning, who use their organisation's name and thus are upfront about their conflic of interests, breaches WP:BITE WP:AGF and the long-held idea that everyone but vicious vandals merit discussion before people jump in with the tools. I am greatly afraid that zealous admins who like blocking things will use that crazy policy to justify more of this. This is bad, bad, bad. I don't recall any major discussion about this - when did we depart from WP:AGF? Where did this new policy come from?--Doc^g 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the intent of that particular part of the username policy has two facets, one is the passing off as representing the company/person/whatever, the other is in line with not being a vehicle for advertising or self promotion. Having your companies name appear littered throughout talk pages and page histories can be pretty spammy. Like most it's a case of considering each instance on its own merits. --pgk 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I brought it here, the fact is it is in policy, a username which is the name of a group or company aren't allowed, if they are actively editing their own article, it shows that they certainly are using their name for promotion (whether they mean to or not) - as I said to you, it was a blatant infringement of the policy (I'm not saying that it was offensive or anything, it was just blatant) so I blocked. I left the {{UsernameBlocked}} template on their userpage giving a full reason that the name was against policy and it gave them details of how they could request a name change or simply change their name. The point is, I did things by the book, I don't agree a quick sharp username block is biting, it's a lot better to get the block in quicker rather than subjecting a new user to a massive disccusion about their name. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is always better to use your head, rather than follow policy to the letter. This use was only editing his own article. If the article was spam - fine - delete it and tell him not to do that. But in this case, the article is/was salvageable and a bit of discussion with the use wouldn't go a miss. Sure, if someone is passing themselves off as microsoft, or using 'user:shop at Joe's' hit them with a block - but a bit of investigation here would have shown every likelyhood that the user wasn't really spamming or disrupting. When User:Bill Smith - creates Bill Smith (musician) we don't hit him with a block. Policies are fine if commons sense is used too - following policy to the letter is what ends up in trouble.--Doc^g 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you to some extent, but the problem is this username is spam (not just the article), you probably don't realise the number of usernames which are blocked on sight, no discussion (I'm not just meaning me) for promoting a group or company, it happens all the time. It's not simply the article being spam, it's the fact that every time they edit, they will have free advertising for their company/group in the histories, watchilists. They are more than welcome to request an unblock to change their name, as I said, the point is it's in policy, if people disagree with it, WT:U may be the place to start. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlike your suggestion, this is far far less generic. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that User:Ryan Postlethwaite followed existing policy and procedure. i further believe that he was right to do so, and that this policy is a good one, and that this user name in particular, and such usernames in general, are spammy. Moreover, we generally ban "role accounts" and i don't think we normally want soemone being presented as an "official representative" of a company or institution. If an editor is an official or employee of a firm or org, that fact should be disclosed on that editor's user page, but the editor should still be, and be treated as, an individual, not a firm. I would favor asking this user to change username, and blocking if a change is not started reasonably promptly. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc, FYI, but spam disguised as user pages are deleted all the time:constantly, in fact. The talk pages of the user pages I just cited should probably be nuked, too, based on "Deny SEO Hits" principle. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, but there was no userpage here. So?--Doc^g 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts are supposed to be for individuals, not multiple people. With accounts named after organizations, it is unclear if one person is using it or it's a role account. While preventing accounts names after organizations doesn't prevent people from sharing the same account, I do think it tends to make it less likely. There is also the issue that we have no way of knowing in many cases whether the person with the account is authorized by the organization to publicly represent it. -- JLaTondre 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)