Wikibooks:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive1

Request page history merges

May not be the right place but... I moved Blender 3D: Tutorial Links List to Blender 3D/Tutorial Links List to correct name. However the talk page refused to move as there was an existing talk page and the message was "The page itself was moved successfully, but the talk page could not be moved because one already exists at the new title. Please merge them manually." The talk page referred to is blank - admin task, right place? Apologies if it has caused a problem --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done - The talk page had been previous moved there without having the module moved with it and then someone copy-pasted the conversation up to that point to the other one, so I went ahead and moved it. To be on the safe side, I also undeleted the original conversation since most of it still appears to be present on the copied version, in order to remove any question of who said what. I'm going to leave this here a while in case an admin or someone else wishes to comment. --darklama 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to me - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Import

On the help pages we have a redlink to help on categories. Elsewhere we seem to be linking to w:Wikipedia:Categorization. Is it worth getting the page to help us do our own? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Categories. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That page is a guideline, so I say no, better off copy+pasting m:Help:Category and using it to help make our own. Or are you proposing to try and create a new policy/guideline here on categorization of pages? --darklama 12:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No - I was looking at the help pages and trying to get rid of some of the redlinks so that they at least point to some useful (if not perfect) info. What bugs me is that I now can't find the page I did find that point to the wp equivalent! I'll fix that one when I find it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Other items for Admin attention

Worth keeping an eye on - new user User:Only1NIG1 ? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

+ User:Online pawan - ok so it's me but that reads like online porn to me (it's my mind!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

+ User:Only1NIG1 - What? Oh I get it, the nickname I'm using comes from a project I used to be part of. If you read it quick enough it comes to Only 1 (one) NIG 1 (won). Basicly 'only one NIG won'. And yes, my name is Nigel hense NIG.

Apologies and placed on your talk page too - oversensitive I guess --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Please use spell-check on MediaWiki:Uploadtext; specifically, every instance of "license" is spelled "licence." --Iamunknown 10:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Licence is the British and International spelling for the word. Although I'm Irish I tend to use American spellings but I think that the original spelling should always be kept. You'll notice the same with words like "travelled", "cancelled", "colour", "aluminium", etc. Xania ^talk 12:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look in the history, "license" was used first until Derbeth uploaded the text from Wikipedia. :-) And about my ignorance: I'm sorry. I didn't realise that "licence" was a correct spelling. Which is odd, because I actually spell words with British spellings more times than not. — User:Iamunknown 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Closed VfD - advice please

Yesterday I closed Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Imamat_or_Successorship_After_the_Last_Prophet_of_God as delete which I saw as the correct decision. Swift has asked me to re-open this (on my talk page if anyone requires it). I would stress I have no objection to re-opening (tho I would object to it remaining open for an undue period of time. I am aware of Xania's current view and that of Kellen. I would appreciate the views of others (admins or otherwise) as to whether this should be re-opened and if it were whether they would see a different outcome --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this issue has already played out and should be resolved now as Delete. The material would appear to be POV fairly clearly, and the author shows no sign of any willingness to change that, and certainly hasn't done anything about it in the intervening month between the first VfD and its subsequent reopening. Quack, quack. Webaware 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. It's gone on long enough even if I had wanted it keeping. A clear majority wanted it deleting so I have no problem with that. Xania ^talk 11:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• reset

The page having been deleted despite a note asking for it not to be I guess this is closed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundraising sitenotice

Don't play with that. "Happy New Years" is nice, but we are a Wikimedia Foundation project, and they want us to have the fundraising thing up there. While it's true they don't pay us enough ($0), it wouldn't matter if they paid us ten times that (still $0)... it's their website, so it's their rules :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review needed

I Blocked Panic2k4 (talk | email | contribs | logs) today, and he has requested unblock. If you would like to discuss this, please do so on his talk page (which he can edit), so that he'll be included in the conversation.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't know what I'd have done. SBJohhny has done NO wrong with this block but I'm not convinced that these blocks have any affect. I would prefer us to work with one another to reach solutions no matter how long it takes. But I am only one person and the decsion by other users and admins will always differ. I'd prefer a shorter block but I know I'm in the minority. Xania ^talk 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If a user is clearly here to make trouble, they should be blocked.° Panic is not here to make trouble.

Blocks should be clearly explained by the blocking admin on the user's talk page.° The block has neither been clearly nor sufficiently explained on the user's talk page.

SBJohnny has done some wrong.

I would prefer at least a shorter block at most no block. You're not in the minority — User:Iamunknown 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am quite reluctant to get involved in this as I am not a "policy" person and the topic is one I know little about. However it is a community matter and we owe it to all Wikibookians to sort this out.

These are my personal views at the time of writing this - I have not come to a conclusion hence the fact I am posting it here rather than on Panic's page at the moment. My views may be of interest to others and I would certainly like to see how other people view the situation. I appreciate and agree with most of Xania's views. So I see nothing wrong with the block placed on Panic although I am sad to see it. Some breathing space is required by all concerned Panic included. I guess the block could have been a week (or indeed a month) but I support the admin action.

I feel I should say that I do not see Panic as being intent on causing trouble. However he does seem to attract it. I do find his habit of reformatting his talk page for example, very unhelpful indeed - for me it makes it very hard to "follow" a conversation. It appears (from my limited understanding) that he has real issues with the subject of ownership and "control" which run quite contrary to DarkLama's and quite possibly to that of Wikibooks.

One way or another this needs to be resolved and enforced for the benefit of the community in such a way that we do not continually return to scratching the scars. I will reflect and urge others including those concerned to do the same --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting - my preference would be to set up a framework/structure over the next couple of days say. We would need to agree on some form of arbitration (& an arbitrator) and the decision made must be binding on all parties. As soon as this is set up I feel that Panic should be unblocked and the situation dealt with as soon as it can be. If I think of more I will post it here for now. I'm sure that Panic will be watching this and I am equally sure that Panic is aware that I watch his page! I have no objection to trying for some constructive dialogue --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I would have done or what should have been done or what should be done now to remedy what has been done in the past. This is all very frustrating, and certainly seems to be raising everybody's WikiStress level ... or maybe I'm imagining it and it is only raising mine. I just don't like conflict and, at the moment, there appears to be lots of conflict. :-( User:Iamunknown 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Mumfum stuff

Hopefully you are all watching this page! Kinda feel like some sharing of ideas/info could be helpful here. No doubt we are being targeted by someone who is trying to make things harder for us where possible. By the way we owe User:Az1568 for some good work in dealing with the latest one.

I'm assuming we are in agreement that indef blocks are the only appropriate block?

While I am uncertain that the protection of page moves is really good news the way that we are now getting multiple re-directs seems to suggest it might be good (but unravelling them takes some sorting - anyone with an "easy" way??). However going round protecting a heap of pages that might be vandalised seems like a lot of work?

Can we/should we be more agressive with the IPs that come from checkuser info - the situation did improve for a while after the last lot. I think sharing some info among admins and anyone else interested may help --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think "circling the wagons" is a good response, nor listing it on VIP every time: if it's an admin who catches it, the admin should just quietly clean it up, rather than making announcements.

Certainly do the infinite blocks. If checkuser shows that a particular IP was used more than once (and no-one else has used it) it should be both long-term blocked and checked to see if it's an Open Proxy, and if so, blocked indefinitely.

Blocking more of the open proxies would be a good idea too. Wikiversity's newest admin has been going after tham like crazy, see the block logs on wikiversity for details (he's done several thousand, using data dumps from wikipedia). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As to "announcing" it Derbeth felt it was useful as he then runs checkuser on them (& in today's case I didn't have the time to cleanup). If you point us with a link to any concrete block lists I for one will happily do my share of blocking - I'm sure other admins will feel the same (I now checking any possible ones on WP as well DNStuff and using their block time rather more aggressively if appropriate - we may be seen as a "softer" target by playful folk) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Flo Gitt ( talk | email | contribs ), our latest Mumfum, also blocking account creation from the IP. Is this the best way to go about this? When should it be used? --Swift 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please block User:Brian Barbera, as the user is being disruptive / vandalizing. See [1] [2] and [3] --Iamunknown 01:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass speedy deletion nomination

I would like to nominate all images in Special:Prefixindex/Image:Sonic for deletion. I presume they were also used in various Sonic-related wikibooks which were transwikiied and then deleted. User:Iamunknown 13:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. I'll get a start on it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When I came across them, I very quickly decided not to tag them all. --User:Iamunknown 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a few... a lot of them are also copyvios (tagged PD when they're clearly screenshots). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) The list looks a lot smaller now. I didn't catch those copyvios tho, I only saw the fair use ones. --User:Iamunknown 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unwatched" pages

Any admins know anything about this. For me it gets to 5000 which is only up to M or N and then stops. Is this normal, odd?? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

5k is an imporvement, actually... the cache used to be 1k. Not the most useful list though, just watch RC :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but you don't know why I was going thro it <g> --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

lol... I do now :) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion runs

I know that this has been discussed before, but I am going to ask again. Can we please not delete tons of untagged images yet? I went through a lot of them earlier and began replacing some with my own works, duplicated works I found on Commons and I tagged a couple. One was the Ruby on Rails logo, so I used {{logo}} and the others were 2-D chemical structures. On Wikimedia Commons, they are tagged as ineligible for copyright because they " [consist] entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I followed suit and tagged a few 2D chemcial structures that I found. But only ones that used black text and straight black lines.

At any rate, if we could all invest our efforts either creating or finding replacements for these images, we could save a lot of valuable imagery here at Wikibooks. Please? User:Iamunknown 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration stalled

The "arbitration proceedings" involving User:Panic2k4, myself, and others seems to have stalled out. I will not be participating in any further proceedings on the matter, but the C++ book's authors are currently not working on the book, as they are waiting for some kind of resolution before work can start again. If someone (admin or otherwise) would be willing to mediate the situation, I think that would be helpful. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Not all the plaintiffs have submitted rebutalls. Or is the arbitration stalled because the involved parties are no longer willing to participate? --User:Iamunknown 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hi,

I created a bunch of templates for inclusion in a couple of different modules. I was later enlightened that these should be in the main namespace rather than in template namespace, so I moved them. Basically all of these need to be deleted if they are italicized. I still use Ay_prerequisite, Ay_division_legend, and Ay_camping_grade_level, so please don't delete those. There are more elsewhere too, but I'm not quite ready for them to go the way of the dodo yet. Thanks. Jim Thomas 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use images

Delete the five images at Special:Prefixindex/Image:Simearth. They are all images uploaded to be used under fair use but are orphaned. --Iamunknown 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Mumfum moves

OK having dealt with three now it is quite easy BUT read this first!

Having done the indef block DO NOT revert any moves. Look at the first page that was moved and its final place. Delete the first page and then "move" the final one back to the original location. The redirects in between are quite irrelevant and can then be deleted. This is much easier than reverting individual moves - believe me I've done that and it is a mess. Let me know if this is not clear (or if there is an even better way). Any non admin vandal fighters reading this you may well be better leaving page moves alone as the simplest/quickest way requires an admin to delete the first page. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, the way I understand this:

• orig_page is the original, correct page location
• final_page is the final, vandalized page location

1. Identify the orig_page and final_page.
2. Delete orig_page (as it only contains the redirect history)
3. Move final_page to (the now vacant) orig_page (as it contains the page history)
4. Delete pages redirecting to final_page (if they have no other history).

Here, still one thing remains unanswered; what to do with final_page? Delete or keep? --Swift 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spot on from my point of view and dealt with well thanks. In practice it makes dealing with page move vandalism quite easy (trying to revert individuals moves left me with a mess!) I would certainly delete the final page. There does seem to be a difference on dealing with the user page concerned - I have previously deleted them but I see some recreate and protect them - any consensus?

The other issue is checkuser - WK prefers a note on his talk page while Derbeth checks ViP as a matter of course. Think WK is away and not sure of Derbeth currently - worth nudging either if anyone spots them I guess - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with user pages: I'd say delete. I don't think we should be protecting pages unless there is a disproportionate damage done by vandalizing the page (e.g. in the case of common templates) or the page is disproportionally popular with vandals.

Checkuser: Perhaps we should put up something on WB:CVU, WB:VIP, or somewhere, such as a mention when to ask for having the Checkuser tool used and a link to a list of Checkusers with their preferred method of contact. --Swift 11:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Both good ideas in my view. If they are permanently blocked as a user don't see a need to "keep" a page in any form (& I do prefer not to have pages protected - although move protection for key/important pages seems sensible). Making sure people know what to do about checkuser requests has my support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fighting Game Moves

• Please consider deleting Fighting Game Moves. It is has been totally split up at WikiKnowledge. (See the deletion log.) The Computer game department is the head of the split, but I don't think that a link to a non-content page — even if it is related — is wise. The user is looking for content, not administration. Cheers, User:Iamunknown 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• I wonder, however, if it shouldn't be deleted and instead should be a list of links to the appropriate pages at WikiKnowledge. — User:Iamunknown 22:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I reckoned someone else would answer this but when I asked the question when I started here I think I was told that it allowed people to be pointed in the right direction or similar. That said I agree with you - not a good advert for WB content --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please consider including a link to The Book Exchange Network (TBXN.com) in Special:Book Resources. TBXN is a free resource for college students to buy books from each other or from online vendors. The link to an ISBN would be in this format: http://www.tbxn.com/isbn/nnn where nnn is the ISBN number. E.g. http://www.tbxn.com/isbn/031239019X

Regarding redirects

Look at Special:Wantedpages. Many of those pages are the deleted redirects when the original page was moved and the redirect deleted. I haven't found any recently deleted ones, so I don't know if administrators generally do that or if that is a thing of the past. Regardless, please do not delete the redirects without first bypassing them. Even then, however, I think we start to use some soft redirects especially (or maybe only) for established Wikibooks. Many old Wikibooks use the old naming convention. But there are interwiki and extrawiki links that we should be concerned about. Regards, User:Iamunknown 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam bot pages

If you come across one of these it is worth checking the block log as well as contribs (which may be nil if they have all been deleted). I found one today that I had blocked previously for the same offence and so placed a longer block - if I hadn't checked it I might have merely deleted the page (the same page arrived on a number of other Wikis at the same time from the same IP btw). Might just be me but thought it was worth a mention --Herby ^{talk thyme} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection Updated

I just wanted to let all admins know that the page protection mechanism has been updated, and there are now more options available when you protect a page. I recommend that all admins check out these new options. We might need to update the text of Wikibooks:Administrators to account for this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Expiry of protections is pretty cool, but I definitely think we need to warn about using the cascade feature here. I don't see it as having much use at Wikibooks and it could prove a bit dangerous. -withinfocus 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you pretty much, cascading protection might be useful in some circumstances, but should not be used often. expiry times should likely become the norm, protection against temporary vandalism, protection during flame or edit wars, etc. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• reset

On this topic I found this one interesting and worth sharing. Could well be useful m:Talk:Small_Wiki_Monitoring_Team#using_cascading_protection in the context stated? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request: page protection

• Please create and protect Link title. It has been deleted ten times. --Iamunknown 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Az1568 ^(Talk) 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Panic's Block

I have decided to unblock Panic and reblock him for 2 weeks because: 1. the original block was 2 weeks 2. the 6 month block was without community approval or good reason 3. I believe the block given by SBJohhny was fair and so we should abide by his original block. I have done this without community approval but feel it necessary because of considerable arguements. I feel this is the middle ground given views on Wikibooks at the moment. I also believe that this action is being bold and that others may revert it if they feel strongly but please make sure you explain yourself clearly as present actions seem to be personal attacks on Panic. Feel free to flame me for this but it's what I believe is right. Xania ^talk 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Very bad and hypocritical move on your part but I left you a message explaining why on your talk page. Blocks are absolutely not actions to be bold about. The community can handle it now. -withinfocus 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)