Wikibooks:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive3

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Blocking Open proxies

Over the past couple of week Az1568 & I (mostly Az1568!) have been blocking open proxies in accordance with policy. We have done just over 3000. There are a further 11900 to go. Bored admins with time on their hands are very welcome to help out. Take a look at User:Az1568/Proxy. Please make sure you update the records so that we do not attempt to duplicate work. For those to whom it is relevant there is a piece of .js here User_talk:Herbythyme#Re:_Open_proxies. Any queries feel free to ask one of us. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have to be an admin to be able to help with this? Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to move this topic to the block policy

This topic should be covered on the revised Block policy and archived here. --Panic 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why? --Iamunknown 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be included on the text Wikibooks:Blocking Policy (my view). --Panic 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree it certainly should. This topic should not, however, be archived there. It is a discussion that took place here at the administrators' noticeboard and, as such (IMO), should be archived here. --Iamunknown 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Geez it's late here but I clearly read "archive here" above (where did you got he strange idea to archive it there ?), I said move the topic to continue or provide a base for discussion there. :) I was archiving posts here and this seems a good thing to be included on the policy nothing more, this was a question if anyone thought it was strange, since there was a reference to a policy (again unwritten policies) but I could have missed something... --Panic 01:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A deletion request

I am not active in most areas currently - this was placed on my talk page --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think these unsourced images can be deleted now. The uploader seems to have left the project (his last edit was on 23 December, 2005).

Thanks, KFP 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just please don't delete the links in any pages to these images. I am in contact with John Burkitt (who, I think, is the uploader of all the images) via e-mail and am working with him to see if anything can be done with these images. --Iamunknown 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So... Anyone? Image:Snowcub.jpg has been tagged as lacking source information for more than three months and all others have been tagged for over a month. --KFP 23:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CommonsTicker

  • Would an administrator consider looking into creating a CommonsTicker page for Wikibooks? I would, but an administrator must set it up. Go to m:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker#Creating_a_Ticker to read the instructions. If one is created, I will definitely add it to my watchlist. --Iamunknown 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Meta Templates

Would it be possible to have a update made to the Wikimedia:common.css page so that Meta's standard sister projects infoboxes like {{Meta}} work properly? The one's on the commons and wikipedia seem most up to date, as they also include class="messagebox standard-talk" which is missing at Meta. The unicode font table loading order for those two also seem to be the best for multilingual needs. Thanks. // FrankB 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: Introduction --> Template:Naming policy notice

Would an administrator please move Introduction to Template:Naming policy notice, replace the line

Create the introduction to your book on page: yourBookName/Introduction.

with the text

Create the {{lc:{{{1|PAGENAME}}}}} to your book on page: yourBookName/{{{1|PAGENAME}}}.

and replace

Administrators: Check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Introduction|what links here]] and remove any link you find there!

with

Administrators: Check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1|PAGENAME}}}|what links here]] and remove any link you find there!

and then type

{{Naming policy notice}}

into Introduction? Then we can apply this template to other pages, like Contents. Thanks — Iamunknown 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Handbook templates

re: this edit... I went looking, but couldn't see any discussions. Are the handbook templates being depreciated/discontinued here, or are Meta guidelines alive and well, as I would think they would be? Thanks // FrankB 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Our help pages are a mess, really :). We had a few people working on them some months ago, but we've been caught up in other chores lately.--SB_Johnny | talk 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that we aren't copying the "Help" handbook from meta here on Wikibooks. As a result, the "standard" help templates may not be up to date if you are using them somehow for other projects. If you want to update them, go ahead. Although keep in mind one of the reasons for abandoning the duplication of help pages from meta was precisely because of all of the nested templates that went with the effort. You literally needed a 'bot if you wanted to copy and maintain the pages.
The VfD Discussion about this topic goes over most of the issues, although there were other areas here on Wikibooks that discussed this topic as well, including the Wikibooks:Staff Lounge. The general concensus was to delete the content, particularly by regular Wikibooks editors at the time.
The help pages are maintained, but those are Wikibooks-only content that relate to how to start a Wikibook or similar topics. As far as meta guidelines as they apply to sister projects, what guidelines/policies are those? --Rob Horning 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!!

Can someone help me by deleting the old modules of Biblical Studies? I worked on cleaning it up, but I don't know how to delete the old modules. See the bulletin board for info on this book. Tannersf 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is add the {{delete}} template on each page you wanted deleted, and state that the reason why you need to have it removed. This automatically notifies admins who will do the actual clean-up. Book cleanup and reorganization certainly is a valid reason to request this. See also WB:DP for some more details. --Rob Horning 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unruly bot

Heads up really - User:FlexBot placing categories on user pages. I've reverted and advised the user on WP. Maybe an issue with folk dunning unapproved bots tho? --Herby talk thyme 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh good - another one User:MiszaBot! Not running yet but definitely needs clarification (unless anyone has requested folk to bring bots here) --Herby talk thyme 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - odder than I thought. Both bots were placing Belgian cycling categories on user pages. Both allegedly have WP "owners". The same IP was used - I smell a rat? Bots and IP with short blocks for now both other opinions would be really welcome! --Herby talk thyme 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Now a request to unblock the IP User talk:84.45.219.185. Not inclined too without other views - there are no edits from that IP. And then "aaaaaH" - check the WP page for the same IP. Still think someone else should review it tho. Off to extend the blocks now! --Herby talk thyme 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks creepy to me. I agree that blocks are all in order. We dont really have a "bots policy" on the books right now, so it's really up to our best judgement to deal with these kinds of things as they pop up. Keep them all blocked, perhaps notify the WP "owners" of the problem. Best case the owners apologize for the mistake, worst case is that these arent even the real owners of the bots! Block them all indefiniately, until somebody starts answering questions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry should have done an update
  1. Vandal bots only and Az1568 had one earlier. Indef blocked. 1 IP with two bots and mention of Willy on Wheels on WP page - blocked 1 month. Other IP, one bot account, blocked 1 month. Reviewed by Johnny & myself and alleged WP owners informed.
  2. Bot policy. Probably need one
--Herby talk thyme 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that a specific bot policy is needed here. If they are being vandals and causing major changes to the structure of Wikibooks without any kind of community concensus, they can and should be blocked. It doesn't matter if the damage is being done via a bot or by some user with a lot of time on their hands. Wikibooks:Decision making is rather clear about this concept as well. If there is a problem like this, we need to deal with it like we would deal with any other user... other than as a bot we need to act faster and be more willing to shut them down on at least a temporary basis because of the widespread damage that they can cause. Of course I hope my attitudes towards 'bots are well known here too, precisely because of the problems that happen when they go amok. --Rob Horning 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea of having a bot policy is larger then just differentiating between types of vandalism. In cases where the intent of the bot is not clear (good vs evil) special consideration needs to be given to these accounts because bots have a larger capacity to do harm, even if the intent of the bot owner is good. A person who is making mistakes in good faith is a far different animal then a bot making mistakes in good faith. If a new user is being rediculous, we can talk to them and fix the problem. If a bot is being rediculous, we really need to block it on sight and contact the operator ASAP. I had previously started a proposal at Wikibooks:Bots, but it gathered no attention. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

A specific policy is not needed just do some tweaks to the Wikibooks:Blocking_policy, it already covers some of those problems of good faith vs bad faith edits and giving a chance to a user to explain itself, all bots are just a special type of sock puppets. --Panic 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia licensing resolution

I posted a long message about this on the staff lounge, and I wont repeat myself here. All admins should read the resolution at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy.

Even if we allow for the Wikibooks:Fair use policy to be a de facto policy, there is still alot of work that we likely need to start doing. Fair use images without proper rationale need to be either clarified, or deleted outright. Also, fair use images for which there is a free alternative, or a high likelyhood of being able to generate a free alternative should be deleted as well. This is mostly just a warning, I dont think we need to go crazy with deletions just yet. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another puppet show

User:BixoDePalha is another sockpuppet of User:Panic2k4 (confirmed by checkuser, the IP has been used for his main account and another of his "declared" puppets), to make an edit to a page he is in a dispute over. Not sure why he did it (or what to do aside from blocking the puppet, which I already did), but Checkusers should probably keep a closer eye on the C++ book. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can take a wild guess as to why he did it: because he is fundamentally uncivil, and incapable of participating in a collaborative community effort. sock puppetry is an appealing option, if you can't work towards compromise with your fellow authors. I wont say anything else about this now, but it's another bad mark on a record that is likely to come under review again in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Panic was told on multiple occasions that if another suckpuppet account was used he would be infinitely blocked and that would be the end of it. Several people chose to continue trying to reason with Panic after his first puppets were used, but surprise, surprise, we're back here again. I guess I'll watch another user volunteer to "mediate" this process, but I wish people would finally realize there isn't going to be a solution to this and we sure are wasting a lot of time. Going back to the original arbitration decision, however people may see it, of a long-term block should occur. -withinfocus 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this behavior goes against the spirit of the unblock agreement. As a matter of fact, it borders on bad faith because it is an intentional attempt to deceive. Personally, I'm very disappointed by this behavior and think that it should result in some kind of punitive action. --xixtas talk 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think we need a mediator or anything like that. We've played games with panic for a long time, trying to help him, or trying to reform him, or whatever. Attempts to correct this problem have lead to gigantic drains on both energy and morale. Since panic was unblocked last, there have been accusations, both on wiki (which we can use as evidence) and off wiki (which we cannot use as such) of trolling, harassment, personal attacks, and attempting to control the C++ book. All of these things, while open to some interpretation, are violations of the unblock agreement. If action is to be taken against User:Panic2k4 at this point, it is my suggestion that the action be final: i.e. he be blocked indefinitely, without much possibility for return. If the community is uncomfortable with this idea, then I suggest that no action be taken at all, since any action is a waste of time, and panic has demonstrated little potential for improvement in his behavior. If people are interested in pursuing this, we can put it to a vote. Otherwise, we can wait for larger bodies of evidence to mount (which I am certain they will) and act on the issue then. No more games though, we do it or we do not. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What would be the point in an indefinite block (without the possibility to return)? If that happened to me then I would just get really pissed off and start creating new accounts all the time and go to even further extremes to hide my presence and disrupt the project. Has anyone tried asking Panic why he created the account? Why was a checkuser done on that account and are you checkusering all accounts or just those we suspect might be used by Panic? Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
For you to suggest such things is inappropriate. If you want to make Panic into a vandal then that's your choice, but if he was mature he would realize the finality of this block by our power here. Insinuating that Panic will become a nuisance (after blocking) is a very negative view and should not bias the block action. Even if Panic were able to do something entirely disruptive which I highly doubt he can or will, he would be treated like a vandal and handled rather easily like all are here. Panic knew the consequences and by how the evidence strongly suggests it he made a slip. If I were to take some of his story as true, I would hold myself liable for actions taken on my LAN since that's my problem to maintain it. The "coincidence" of this story is staggering nonetheless.
Should you attempt to find a solution to this yet again, please view the terms of Panic's unblocking. It seems (or Panic has accused) that I was the complaining user and Xixtas the blocker, so either one of us must fully retract our support for the block, two admins must request the unblock with no opposition, or a majority of admins support an unblock. I believe, although it is not fact, that none of those options can be accomplished as of now. -withinfocus 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My only point with this is that we are playing a game with it. Panic is blocked, then he is unblocked, and then blocked again. Furthermore, people here are all taking turns at "being in charge" of the issue, a process to which there is no rhyme nor reason. If there is any unfairness, it's not to panic (who has arguably gotten more "second chances" then he probably deserves), but instead it is to the wikibookians who are actually dealing with the problems that Panic causes. After all the arguing and yelling and mediating previously, Panic still participated in edit wars on at least two pages in the C++ book. And it's not panic who is cleaning up this mess, nor people who are in general defense of him. SBJohnny and myself, along with a few other users are dealing with these problems on a daily basis, wasting time that could otherwise be spent on writing new book content, improving policy, or helping new users. Yesterday I had to protect a page that was the subject of an edit war, both by panic, but also by a sockpuppet of panic. I'm tired of playing these games with panic, and many of the people who have been dealing with him up till this point are tired of it too. If you are interested in taking over this nonsense, Xania, and following panic around with a dustpan and broom cleaning up his every mess and monitoring his every post, you can be my guest. Once you've tired of the nonsense too, maybe we can get enough support to block him. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot get past the fact that this was a small thing and easily rectified. Panic should not be blocked permanently for this event, IMO. I have spent some time looking at the logs, and it is undeniable that his behavior is much improved since the unblock agreement. But I am still not satisfied with his responses. He came out swinging instead of just simply owning the problem. That wasn't what I was hoping for, but it also wasn't totally unexpected. I am trying hard not to let this escalate and begin to effect everyone's morale. --xixtas talk 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(reset) Well, i'm not going to push the issue any further. People want to unblock panic, and so he will eventually be unblocked. I certainly wont stand in the way of that. All i want is people here to realize the pattern of events that follow panic. The people who want panic to be unblocked should be the first to volunteer to help with the situation. Panic does come out swinging, and that requires "help" and "intervention". What people can't say is "I want panic to be unblocked, but I dont want to be involved in the resultant problems". Wikibooks is about the creation of textbooks, and there comes a time when the actions of a user, no matter how good his intentions, disrupt or prevent that goal entirely. Constantly playing this game with panic prevents other wikibookians from writing our books, and more people should find that to be unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not interested in withdrawing my complaint, so if this block is to be removed again you'll need to take one of the other paths for unblocking. I don't need time to cool down for a few days or whatever else is being suggested on Panic's talk page nor do I find it appropriate to threaten the solution process with circumventing the block, I've just come to a decision on the matter (and have held this opinion for quite some time). I won't be engaging in lengthy discussions on the matter either so if you're going to discount me then please do so, because although I'll defend my statements to a certain degree here I'm not motivated enough to argue this for probably the fifth time. Thanks. -withinfocus 02:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Withinfocus, I respect your opinion and believe I understand where you are coming from. I am not going to ask you to withdraw your complaint. Nor do I expect you to change your opinion. I do not expect anyone other than me to take any action whatsoever. --xixtas talk 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may someday grow tired of Panic Withinfocus but I'll never reach the stage of wanting him blocked. What will that achieve? This is the Internet and you're not going to make problems disappear just by blocking people from the project. Infinite bans are as pointless as the USA's "3 Strikes and You're Out" law - do we really want Wikibooks to be as petty as US politics? Also to say that you are 'not interested in withdrawing your complaint' or willing to 'engage in lengthy discussions' is ridiculous. If you want someone banned then be prepared to argue and discuss the issue - all decisions on Wikibooks should be explained and open to discussion and if you're not prepared to do this then the block is not valid. Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the block with you Xania. Withinfocus didn't place the block. I did. The issue he complained about was legitimate. He has explained in the past why he thinks Panic should be blocked, there is no need for him to rehash it if his opinion has not changed. --xixtas talk 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, Xania. Blocking panic isn't pointless, having to spend every day babysitting him and cleaning up after him is the pointless exercise here. I'm not a babysitter, and I don't think that you are either. And even if you are a babysitter, you don't come to wikibooks to babysit, you come here to write textbooks. Where is it written that we are all-accommodating, or that we are all-tolerant? We are here to write textbooks, not deal with trouble makers, or even to make some kind of anti-american political statement. Answer me this question: How does keeping disruptive users around help us to write more or better textbooks? How does the project benefit from panic's presence here? And for that matter, why do we block anybody? why do we block vandals, if not to protect the project? We do block people here when they are disruptive to this project, and I see no reason why panic should be exempt from that fact. Panic isn't a bad person, but it's painfully clear that he simply doesnt participate in the way that he needs to. It's a waste of time for both him and us to keep going through these cycles of blocking and unblocking. That people are so insistant in panic's defense is mind boggling to me. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of you who are interested, I have reconstructed the conversation related to Panic's most recent block on the page Block of Panic2k4 20070328 Archive. You can read the discussion more easily there if you wish. (Not that I'm recommending it.) ;) --xixtas talk 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point Whiteknight. We are not here to babysit and when we permanently exclude someone from the project we will likely piss them off to the extent that they'll decide to piss the project off too by creating new accounts and new ways to be annoying. When we block someone all we do is block that username (and their present IP). There are millions of ways around these blocks and the trouble that a blocked user might cause is much worse than what they might have caused if we hadn't implemented a petty block in the first place. I'm not saying that Panic would do such a thing but many users would if they are determined to remain a "part of" Wikibooks. Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is that Panic is a common vandal, and that's unacceptable. Panic has stated on a number of occasions that he is not a vandal, that he acts in good faith, and that he does not want to cause harm to the project. I dont know why you keep trying to push the theory that panic will magically become a vandal if he is blocked. I think that is the most insulting thing that anybody here could be saying about panic right now, and something that I am certain he wouldnt want to hear. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys and gals, this is getting old (I'd say it's getting silly, but we crossed that threshold long ago). We need a reality check here: Panic is a troll, plain and simple. He wants to be the center of attention, and keep us from doing what we came here to do, and despite the fact that I find him amusing and admire his spunk, he's still a troll.

Right now Panic is wondering if xixtas will be gullible enough to unblock him even though he said plainly on his talk that he will use sockpuppets to override his block. He has been canvassing new administrators to "fix problems" with the C++ book, hoping that those administrators won't know that those "technical problems" are in fact just editorial disputes. The word "troll" (in the internet sense) apparently derives from "trawling for suckers", and there's really no doubt that that's what he's doing.

"Assume good faith" is an excellent maxim, but it should not be interpreted to mean "respect the troublesome individual over the health of the community". Trolls exist, I've met quite a few of them on web forums, and I know one when I see one. Panic's behavior really is a classic case, and the fact that the problems he creates are on talk pages (which are essentially small web forums) should open our eyes to this.

"Assume good faith" is a rare maxim, and it sets us Wikimedians apart from the "creepy" part of the internet. I understand perfectly why people would defend a troll and condemn a vandal, because trolls are sophisticated mischief-makers who balance their mischief-making with intelligent and helpful contributions. Hovever: the past few months of upheaval provides perfect evidence of why a troll is more dangerous than any vandal could be (when a vandal becomes a troll it can become even more dangerous... I'll look for a link to exhibit the worst case scenario), because trolls fracture the community, rather than simply making a nuisance of themselves.

So I'll say for the record: I strongly object to unblocking Panic. Yes, he'll just make sockpuppets and go around the block, but it seems that he uses sockpuppets even when he isn't blocked, so not much of a difference there. He'll use the sockpuppets to edit C++ -- and those edits will likely be constructive, -- but when he gets on talk pages he'll do what he's always done, and we'll have a new sockpuppet to block. Containing sockpuppets is a simple maintenance issue, and Herby and I can take care of that: give me a maintenance nightmare or a weekly upheaval of the project, and I'll gladly settle for the maintenance nightmare.

I'm very tired of this game, and a lot of others are tired too. Other projects have had problems like this, but they don't let it tear them apart. We shouldn't let someone take advantage of us, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it go on for so long. He's trawling for suckers, and we need to stop playing into his idea of a good time. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whiteknight you are twisting my words. I never said Panic would do such things although I would completely understand if he did. He may be 'trawling for suckers' but if so he's certainly found them. What exactly has he been banned for and how serious is it really? Who requested the block? Xitas implies that "The complaint I acted on was brought by withinfocus on the administrators notice board" however I couldn't see where withinfocus actually requested Panic's blocking. Panic has given satisfactory excuses for this incident yet we are assuming the worst as always and the "terms" that he agreed to seem wholly unfair (although Panic agreed to them) and we wouldn't use these terms for other Wikibooks users. Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Xania, for the record, whiteknight and I both agreed to the same terms. I have not asked Panic to do anything that I am not willing to do myself. If you cannot see where withinfocus asked for a block then I have no explanation other than to suggest reading glasses. Panic's excuses are wholly unsatisfactory and implausible. The chances of things happening as he has stated approach 0. I will admit that it is not strictly impossible. However it is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt. How does a person who has never made an edit on Wikibooks before decides that an edit made by a much more experienced editor needs to be reverted, figures out which of the three different possible index pages is the best one to use, finds the location of that page, figures out how to revert an edit on a redirected page, and reverts the edit (all in the span of 12 minutes). We would all have to be incredible fools to believe Panic's explanation. I can only assume that you haven't actually checked the logs yourself, or haven't really thought about how that brand new user would have had to have acted in order to make Panic's "explanation" true.

Guys, let's just cool off for a couple days. It's scenes just like this one that make this process so damaging. --xixtas talk 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panic Blocked

I have blocked Panic indefinitely because the terms of his unblock agreement have been violated. We should not set up these agreements if we are not going to enforce them. --xixtas talk 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be out of pocket for a couple hours but will review comments from others after that. --xixtas talk 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion that this should be the final action, and that Panic should not be unblocked again. We have been dealing with panic for a very long time now, and considering that the behavior has not improved in all this time, i dont see a reason why we should continue these efforts. Of course, this is only my opinion and the community can certainly act however they see fit. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a 'by the rulebook' kind of person. The unblock agreement is what it is, not what some might wish that it was. Still having said that, I do not believe that further mediation is going to be productive, myself. The personalities involved are too hardened in their disagreements and the disparity of opinion on the fundamental principles of Wikibooks too great. --xixtas talk 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am unblocking Panic. It has been a week which I feel is sufficient given the small amount of damage done. I am still not satisfied with his responses, and stipulate that any further sockpuppetry should result in an indefinite ban. Also that he make a good faith effort to work on a community version of the C++ book. This is all based on the assumption that he will return at all. He may already be gone. --xixtas talk 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What was the point of blocking him in the first place then?! I am speechless. -withinfocus 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
1)To keep him from continuing to engage in the behavior he was engaging in at the time of his block. 2) To make sure he understood that his behavior was unacceptable. 3) To fulfill the terms of the unblock agreement. 4) To dialog about his behavior. 5) To demonstrate that we were willing to call his bluff, and capable of standing together as a community. 6) To validate any future block by holding to agreed upon procedure.
The question why unblock when he hasn't satisfactorily explained his behavior is tougher to answer. 1) With his last clarification his explanation moved from the realm of ridiculously unlikely to extremely unlikely but barely possible. 2) He managed to go three whole days without saying anything offensive. (He didn't say anything at all.) 3) A lifetime block would have been all out of proportion for the action that the block was brought against. 4) His silence may indicate the kind a sea change that bodes well for the future. 5) It is useful and important to demonstrate compassion. 6) Sometimes the best way to end a fight is to stop fighting. 7) By ending the block now under the present circumstances before other parties start objecting and this whole thing degenerates again, I can end it now without the need for huge public drama.
Then again I might just be overthinking the whole thing. I guess we'll see. --xixtas talk 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Panic understands his behavior is unacceptable, because he's insisted he's done nothing wrong on every occasion that he has been blocked. I think unblocking him is premature and goes against the terms of the agreement. which from what I understood required the people who objected to Panic's behavior to be satisfied with his answers, which even you seem to not be satisfied with. This seems to demonstrate inconsistent use of the terms and invalidate any agreed upon procedure. As for his not saying anything he said he was going to give it a week so presumably he might be taking a break and not be paying any attention right now, I don't think speculating one way or another about what this means is all that helpful. This isn't to say I think he should be blocked again or shouldn't of been unblocked. This is just my thoughts on what reasons you have given. --darkYin yang.svglama 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there's plenty of room for well-meaning people to disagree. I respect and appreciate your opinion. There is definitely a part of me that doubts whether the action I decided on was the correct one, and that part of me says the same things you, withinfocus, and whiteknight have said here. I am trying to find moderate solutions to polarizing questions and it is not always easy to do. --xixtas talk 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "blocked" template?

Is there a template similar to test1, test2, etc to notify a user that he has been blocked? I tried subst:block and subst:blocked, but neither of those exist. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I have never used such a template. If the vandalism is obvious, I tend not to leave a warning at all. If i feel like the person will stop vandalizing and become productive. I tend to say something like "you are blocked because of [bad behavior], and you wont be unblocked again until [time limit or conditions]. Read [applicable behavior guideline or policy] so we can avoid this in the future". That's just me though. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, i forgot about the Wikibooks:Template messages page which lists some of the common templates. This page isn't maintained really, but alot of the information hasn't changed. Some of the answers you are looking for can be found at Wikibooks:Template messages/User talk namespace. This should be more helpful for you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like test5 aka vw5 is what I was after. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict in progress...

An edit conflict is in progress between me and User:Darklama, I have requested the user to address the changes with me as I object to some and have taken steps to provide a list of contributors (this has other implications), I created the template and I use the template in the two books I'm working in, the purpose of the template is to give copyright attribution and list authors (it was not created to list an arbitrary list of contributors), some posts on the subject have been made in User_talk:Darklama. Pages Template:Authors and C++ Programming/Authors another page is altered by using the template. --Panic 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a small conflict it has been splitting people from some time see Wikibooks:Ownership and the actions of Darklama aren't isolated he has removed the authors page from TOC2 and that version print version on C++ Programming, this was already commented by two other administrators in Talk:C++ Programming/TOC2/Print version, and I know some users agree that author pages should not be used and others also share the concept that all contributions enable to users to have rights over the works. --Panic 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had a quick peek at the links Panic provided, and it seems to revolve around the difference between a "contributor" and an "author". We really don't have any policies here on wikibooks defining the difference (as far as I know commons is the only wikimedia project that really mentions it, but it's rather cut and dry there), and the history of this dispute is that User:Panic2k4 insists that only those who contribute "substanitally" (the definition of substantial is equally non-existent) should be considered as "authors", and only if they choose to list themselves as an author (because (apparently) the right to refuse listing oneself as an author is also very important).
Having spent over half of a year trying to understand this dispute, I can only give my personal opinion that Panic is trolling (meaning arguing incessantly in order to bring others to agree with his viewpoint without compromise, even though he knows beyond doubt that others (the vast majotity of others) will nnever see things his way), rather than making a good-faith effort to collaborate. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The last part of that comment wasn't really needed and by now most people know your personal opinion about me, but yes more or less it is that (there are other twists that people don't seem to agree upon, and it isn't only one). I would even make it more generic editors vs authros (as we at the moment count each edit as a contribution, even if it is spam of fixing it) and sorry if you feel that was I that is pushing this issue (I think it is important but not of high priority), not at this time but some conflicting edits have pushed me to state it or probably get me blocked yet again. --Panic 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Not trolling, because I don't think that it is deliberate or malicious; wikilawyering perhaps. --Iamunknown 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter? If "insignificant contributers" are not mentioned - so what? If all contributers are mentioned - so what? Every Wikibookian has the right to have a say in what happens on a particular module - regardless of their length of time spent editing that module. Is this what the arguements have been about? It's not important let alone high priority. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it matters (it is not that important or at least no such importance has been given to the subject so far), but authors have rights over works (and responsibilities), authorship is a requirement of the GFDL (we can say that some books if not authored default to Wikimedia), consider also the discussion somewhere on using other licenses for the works, or any other legal status changes or challenge of any given work, it also has to deal with a core issue to some people of getting acknowledgment for the work or the level of contribution, we shouldn't alienate users that wish to state that they have contributed to a work even if it is not a requirement to do so. --Panic 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I must correct the statement, an active and continued action from Wikimedia and even some users to avoid discussing or dismiss this problem or make it irrelevant, some time ago it was even proposed to remove all author pages from all the books. I don't think such change would be legal but I was not involved on the discussion (it was blocked). --Panic 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Every Wikibookian has the right to have a say in what happens on a particular module this is not the part of the discussion and it was never at least from my part, in this I agree 100% with you on consensus decission. I think Darklama is contesting the definition of authors and the requirements to who gets listed as such, but he should explain his point. --Panic 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just list everyone (usernames not IP) who has ever contributed (small or big). It's that simple. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
...some time ago it was even proposed to remove all author pages from all the books. I don't think such change would be legal... Why? We have the history pages for a reason: so that we can establish authorship. I tend to agree that everyone has a say in building consensus. Of course, if consensus is already established by a large group of editors it is definitely a courtesy to respect it and take issues to the talk page (see this page for an example) but, as far as I can see, there is little established consensus regarding the format of the C++ book. So work to form consensus, do the w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but realize that you, in addition to others, will likely have to make concessions because you all apparently disagree on a number of points. --Iamunknown 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Humm I can try to hunt down the links to that discussion, will post it here later...
History pages it is my view (and I'm not alone here also) don't provide a complete, exact and clear way to differentiate contributors from editors and are easy to corrupt if some editors are able to delete pages. I think there is even a request on Bugzilla to solve this.
Anyway authorship isn't established it is claimed (and verifiable), just because you can determine someone contributed to a work, you may not grant rights that aren't yours to attribute, and on this subject it is clear that there was never a consensus nor a single way to go about it, I have during this years at Wikibooks watched anonymous users adding other users to authors/contributors lists and never did see no one objecting or verifying the attributions, I do this only on the books I'm an author because I know who has done what... --Panic 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors" and I don't even know what you think is the difference. They should all be acknowledged. No individual has any specific rights and you should all work together to make decisions. As many contributions are by anonymous IP users who is to know who has contributed? This discussion is ridiculous - try working on the actual book rather than this petty arguement about ownership. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Should spammer be able to add they name, or any user removing that spam ? What about all other minor editions (text moves, spell checking) are this all contributors that may get acknowledgments ? (I don't even object to have them acknowledged, I would indeed object in calling them authors.)
You would have to agree here that at least making an administrative edit (adding or removing a category/VfD notice, etc.) does not constitute being considered an author. Certainly reverted vandals don't count. Take for instance this proposal [neta:Summer_of_Code_2007#Authorship_determination] made by Robert (at least I'm not alone on the importance I give the issue), or [or this post from three years ago from Richard Stallman] that dismisses nearly all aggregation arguments that have been used for fair use and license combining on Wikipedia, or this bugzilla request here (Bugzilla:2993).
No individual has any specific rights; this is incorrect, why do we have to acknowledge other works or authors to works used ? Just because you give the content away under the GFDL you have still rights over that content (see Wikibooks:Ownership and in particular the talk page).
you should all work together to make decisions; again no one is stating the contrary about this, I agree with you there and this is a requirement of Wikibooks.
anonymous IP users can't claim authorship this is stated on the copyright pages, that was not what I wrote, please check, what I wrote was that I saw users not logged in, adding at times several other user or names to authors pages or similar lists. --Panic 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion anyone who has worked on the book should be eligible to list themselves on the authors page. It should be up to the individual's discretion whether they declare themselves to be an author or not. This is not something that we should attempt to police other than to make sure that those who list themselves have provided some good-faith contribution. This is the way we do it at Wikijunior and it doesn't seem to cause any problems so far as I have noticed. --xixtas talk 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree because author is not synonymous to contributor or even editor and rights aren't open to interpretations and are indeed important and have further implications, that is why we give so much attention to the images copyright, why is not the same care taken with the text?
I'm not here discussing this because I like the subject but because I was having a small reversion war with Darklama and again around the same problem, he doesn't seem to like the authors page and attribution of the copyright, I have failed to show him that this is a requirement...
As for problems at Wikijunior see Wikijunior_Solar_System/Authors the problem there was the requirements needed to be listed as author (but on the personal information required to...) involving Angela Beesley (former vice-chair of the WMF board, you must look at the history and talk page to get a clear idea, but again no consensus on how to do things). --Panic 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Again you are taking a word that has a whole range of meanings and arguing that everyone should understand it in only one (narrow and unconventional) way. There are plenty of examples where a book's "author" did not write a single word of the content. Also authors do not have to be people. Legally, "Wikibooks" is just as valid an author as "John P. Wordsmith". I would like to point out to you that just because one is an "author" does not mean that one is necessarily a "writer" or "creator".
It's disingenuous to point to that disagreement on the Solar System as if it somehow backs up your position. The disagreement is in no way about who should and should not be given credit as an author. It is about whether a Wikimedia project should be asking people for their real names and places of residence.
I believe that a general sense of the community regarding this question based on this conversation and others on this subject is clearly that Wikibooks should use an inclusive definition of the word author. Much more inclusive than the one you advocate. I feel strongly that you should not be removing the names of people who have made substantial good-faith contributions to a book from the authors page if they wish to be included there, whether their work rises to the level of "authorship" in your mind or not. --xixtas talk 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
To me author only means one thing in the context it is being used, for instance, do you also give recognize authorship of a work based on simple edits, as I stated above, for an administrative edit (adding or removing a category/VfD notice, etc.) does it falls in the definition of author or not?
Also authors do not have to be people; I said that above, if no author is declared on a book the authorship defaults to Wikibooks. (I think I was clear and on another discussion with you on user accounts I even provided some info on sharing an account to for exact attribution, for example an employee being paid to work on the content)
as if it somehow backs up your position; I never said it did it only proves to the other poster that no single and exact concept accepted by all exists, no clear guideline or policy or what is required, and how to perform it besides the GFDL and even that seems to have be able to generate several interpretations.
Wikibooks should use an inclusive definition of the word author; I disagree with that concept not is spirit by on the practical side of it and I haven't removed anyone that has added himself, for instance a user even has added WhiteKnight to the authors list (to my knowledge he has only performed a minor administrative task on 1 or 2 pages).
Another problem that present itself even considering your utopical view, there is some reasons to have attribution of authorship, even if we can let anyone add its name but what are the rules to make the information correct or what is the information needed or what guidelines should then exist to allow the removal of names from that list and verify it's accuracy. --Panic 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we have to have a policy for everything? I like to imagine that Wikibookians come together in the spirit of jointly creating books that are the best resource possible for the reader. If this were true, petty arguments about who gets credit on the author page would never arise. My view is that people who have made substantive good-faith edits should be able to list themselves as authors on the authors page if they wish. If someone lists him or herself as an author without substantive edits I would assume good faith and welcome them to the book authoring team. If someone else lists a third party on the authors page, I would ask that person on their talk page if they would like to be included. --xixtas talk 12:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reset

We need some rules when no single and exact concept/procedure is accepted by all as true or the correct way of doing things, this basic, we don't need rules to state consensual and obvious things...
Ok the authors page is a legal document to document the "owners" (no control see Wikibooks:Ownership) of the work and allow the distribution of it under the GFDL. I for my part don't agree with your permissive use of the author interpretation but that isn't even what we are discussing here the core of the issue is indeed that but I haven't opposed no one that has added him or herself as author (this must be clear), what I opposed on this particular situation was a third party adding names (not himself) to the list, as I stated this is a legal document any claiming of rights must be made by the person owning rights on the work and willing to grant and enforce them. --Panic 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My god Panic! Is it important? - no! Let people add themselves as authors if they wish - what bloody difference does it make? Stop taking things so seriously. You're talking about lots of legal stuff when at the end of the day this is just Wikibooks and noone really cares about the legality of one module of this project. Work on the actual book and forget about the authors page - it makes no difference WHATSOEVER. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Xania, "noone really cares about the legality of one module of this project" , that is not correct, that particular book just survived a VfD on bases of copyright infringement, I see several posts a week about copyright discussion about images, and as an author to that book it is indeed important to me, as I said above I haven't objected to anyone add themselves as authors, but will object to anyone else signing it for others (this is basically as letting someone sign posts as yourself). --Panic 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to summarize my thoughts on this and leave it at that.

  1. People who have made substantive good-faith edits should all be considered authors whether their names appear on the authors page or not.
  2. Individual authors (as defined above) should be able to add and remove their names from the author's page at their own discretion.
  3. The page history is a resource defining authorship that is at least as valid as the author's page.
--xixtas talk 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Panic, I think I'm a bit confused now. Are you pushing for a distinction between an author and a contributor? I'm not sure if the GFDL distinguishes between the two. Would you be willing to provide a citation from the GFDL that indicates such a distinction? --Iamunknown 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything, it is the interpretation I make, the GFDL doesn't do a direct reference to contributors , but to authors as rightholders of the work, the licensees, in the meanwhile this discussion was moved to the the Chat page of the Staff Lounge and it was discussed there that very same distinction. It all falls to what copyright law you are using... --Panic 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you get clarification from the Free Software Foundation. I, and apparently some other contributors, do not interpret the GFDL similarly. --Iamunknown 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We may need to do that (did you saw the list on the staff lounge chat page?), it will probably be needed to be done as we update the Wikibooks:Copyright next time, as there isn't a consensus about those points I know at least 4 different viewpoints about those, anyway take a look at Wikibooks:Ownership, WhiteKnight and I have done some editing on that (the point there is not copyright but has some useful information on that to), it seems to be more or less ready... --Panic 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page history merge: 129.21.189.155 ( talk | email | contribs )

Not really vandlism, but admin is required to marge the revision hystoris.

-- MichaelFrey 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WB:VIP.--Az1568 (Talk) 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:CommonsTicker...

...is up and running! Note to admins, CommonsTicker ( talk | email | contribs ) is currently not running perfectly and so there may be some reason we wil need to block. Just make sure to block with autoblock turned off! It runs on the Toolserver, so any autoblock block would kind of not be a good thing... :\ --Iamunknown 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we need to block it? It only edits that one page, doesn't it?--SB_Johnny | talk 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Duesentrieb indicated that it might be necessary but was not specific... --Iamunknown 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange speedies

"Guide to the Wheel of Time" - loads of them. With pages being created including the speedy tag - seems odd to say the least? --Herby talk thyme 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Every page that includes Template:Guide to the Wheel of Time/Intermediate Spoiler includes {{db}} in addition to any other page for which it has been manually added. Apparently they've moved to Wikia. I can't verify that the request is legit, though, and I'm not sure I would support transwikiing it anyways, since we could just fork the content. --Iamunknown 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser nomination

I've nominated Az1568 for Checkuser rights, because he's been doing most of the "gatekeeping" work lately, and it would be easier for all of us if he could just do the checks himself rather than asking me or Herby. Our friends at meta require a minimum of 25 positive votes for this, so please ask any active users you are in contact with to vote in support (or against)!

This is really a convenience measure, because User:Whiteknight and User:Derbeth are both pretty busy these days (as am I), and User:Herbythyme (and, again, I) is more busy on commons these days. Herbythyme has proven beyond reasonable doubt that this tool can be used to protect us from vandals, and Az1568 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) has made it his mission to protect our project. I'll happily continue to use the tool on his behalf (as would Herby, I'm sure), but it would be a lot easier if he could run the checks himself. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switched accounts

Just so everyone knows, I finally switched my accounts (actually just had the admin/cu tools moved to this one). I am now SB_Johnny (with the underline, as it always looked like in my sig). SB Johnny 11:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How did you go about making the change? did you get a steward to help or something? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Seemed easier to just move the tools over than to try making multiple account moves all over the place (the tools were also removed from my other account, if you were wondering). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I only ask because there wasnt a record of it in the rename logs or the user creation logs or anything. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. meta:Special:Log/rights is the place to look for steward actions of that nature. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity to Wikibooks...

Hello. There are many parts of modules within Wikiversity that may be more appropriate as book material (like introductions). If the community consensus decides that some of the material would indeed be more appropriate as a book, is there a way to transwiki pages from Wikiversity to Wikibooks? --Remi 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SB Johnny is the resident expert on all things transwiki, so you should definately ask him about it. I know that the import function was activated for moving pages from wikibooks to wikiversity, although I dont know that the function was activated to allow information to go back the opposite direction. Without the import function, we could do a regular "copy + paste" transwiki, but nobody likes those. Maybe we could vote to activate the import function for this kind of stuff. How much material are we talking about? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
How much material? It depends. It seems much of the other introductory material at Wikiversity may be more appropriate for Wikibooks.
If people decide to take a look at what is there and everyone agrees that moving "Introductory" material to Wikibooks would both improve and expand Wikibooks and also clean up and make Wikiversity more concise efficient and oriented towards its goals then it could potentially be quite a bit of material - more than I might want to deal with right now! =)
Perhaps the matter should just be filed away, and it is not appropriate for any action to be taken at this moment. --Remi 04:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the suggestion to move those introductory texts here, or to copy them? If the latter, then I would suggest that a better approach would be to reference them in Wikiversity from Wikibooks, rather than simply copying them here. Otherwise, you end up with two copies to maintain... unless that is what you desire (e.g. for the purpose of forking a separate version). Webaware talk 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have taken a look at least to the C++ information (hadn't noticed it, txs Remi) and it doesn't seem to be formated as textbook material, I doubt that a simple copy was what Remi had in mind, but there may be indeed some useful content there, the benefits or a "complete" transwiki would be maintaining the history log of contributions (even if the text would later be completely redone or in some sort merged), what are the requirement of rights attributions to Wikiversity material, the same as with Wikipedia ? --Panic 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Remi... we don't have import enabled from Wikiversity, though we probably should do so for learning projects that have evolved on a path that makes them textbookish. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I want to translate Technology on Rural devolpment book into hindi. how should i proceed? Help me.Can i use the same material as given in english?ThanksDanger Amit Mahajan

[edit] Featured books for the front page

The following books have been given a "goodbook" template:

Communication Theory

Special Relativity

Stuttering

European History

UK Constitution and Government

Karl Wick noted that he thought the front page should have a large number of our best books up front. I agree. Would 30 be a sensible limit? RobinH 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like a decent amount of featured books, but 30 might just be too many. How about 20 or so? Also, for that to fit on the main page some further structural development is necessary. We can't just have a super-long column down one side of the page. It should be balanced, and I think we can use some of Main Page/test once we pretty it up a bit. -withinfocus 12:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the current look of the main page, with only 5 or 6 books on it. This gives us enough room to show books, cover images, and their descriptions without cluttering everything or making readers scroll down to find more stuff. Once we get more books with a suitable {{Goodbook}} template we can use a bot or some other kind of template-inclusion mechanism to rotate pages on and off the main page on a regular basis. I can start work on such a project as early as tomorrow, but we still need people to create more advertisements for their books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
PS, the addition of those 5 books to the main page has had a deleterious effect on the formatting. Also, those 5 books aren't initially visible on the screen you need to scroll down to see them, which most people won't do. The previous books can be moved off and the new books can be kept on, but we can't try to jam a million books onto that page all at once. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Or alternatively can make use of {{#switch:{{CURRENTMINUTE}} and show 5 different books each minute or divided by a certain number, causing a rotation effect. --darkYin yang.svglama 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Rotating by minute would certainly make things go quickly, but we could use any of the CURRENTMINUTE, CURRENTHOUR, or CURRENTDAY magic words to rotate things in and out. We could stagger the entries so that the rotate in at different speeds and then the list keeps changing. We could even get more complicated by use of a bot, if that's what we wanted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of rotating through 30-100 books and changing them with substantial frequency. I also like the idea of keeping the selection as random as possible. --xixtas talk 12:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
30, 100, hopefully someday 1,000! 5 books would probably be the best way to keep it from getting cluttered... it might be nice to have some sort of small boxes used for each good book that has a small picture of the cover, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that we should limit the number of books on the main page at once for visibility and aesthetic's sake. If the location is made essentially random anyways then the "addition problem" Rob mentioned a while back wouldn't be an issue. Mattb112885 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another view required

Could others take a look at TekSupport ( talk | email | contribs ) both user talk page and PearPC look a little suspect to me. The fact that it states "TekSupport is merely a WikiBooks user name. Any relation to a business or a trademark of a company is PURELY CONICIDENTIAL" merely serves to make me more suspicious (upper case is a dead giveaway! & there is a .co.uk company of that name with a site that has plenty of links) --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page looks like an installation page from a software manual. Surely the user should be allowed to work on this content in his user space as it is well within the wikibooks oeuvre. The links don't seem either excessive or unuseful to me. --xixtas talk 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

How do you promote a book you've created before it's finished? Tannersf 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content

Hi, I would like to ask if any admin can send me deleted content (with history list) conected with the begginings of Wikiversity. I am preparing a presentation for "Wikimedia Polska Conference 2007" about it. It is for the "proto-history" of this project. Sites:

Hopefully its there. According this edit, there should be something. Many thanks. Reply on my acount on Wikiversity or cs.wikipedia, please. Juan

I dont know how we would "send" it to you, although considering that the wikiveristy pages aren't a big issue it shouldn't be a problem to temporarily undelete them for you. Also, most of the wikiversity pages that were here were imported to wikiversity with history pages intact. User:SBJohnny was a major force in the split, so you may want to ask him for more specifics of where the pages actually went.
I will undelete the pages you listed above, and you can look at them and at the history pages yourself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Ill aks SBJohny.--193.84.33.171 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Well, I have just found it so I dont need to undelete them, no. Thank you very much for your help.--193.84.33.171 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mac OS X Tiger Box.jpg

can somebody check me on this? the software is saying that this image is broken and it wont load. If other people see the same thing we do, maybe we need to delete the image. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page-move vandal

A page move vandal flew in under our collective radar, check out the contribs on User:Ocatecir. Classic WOW page moves. i reverted the moves, but it's my experience that sometimes the move reverter can actually cause more problems then it solves (luckily i dont think WoW has ever learned to exploit the particular situation that causes the problem). So if anybody wouldn't mind, go over these contribs and make sure i didnt screw anything up. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to "edit" block reason

Given the times I do the block quickly and then think "bother" (!!) the idea that we could edit block reasons would be good - I see it is currently a redlink - anyone know anything about it? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown? You can edit it, it is just set to default currently (when it is default, it shows up as a redlink)... Cbrown1023 talk 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The same for Mediawiki:Ipreason-list, but I'm not sure which is being used here right now. Cbrown1023 talk 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check User request

The edits made to Wikijunior Ancient Civilizations/Goths by Dude21928 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) look suspiciously similar to those made by 209.7.121.128 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs). Could a CU look into this and if appropriate, apply a block? -- Jomegat 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing very interesting Jim & not connected (apparently) but I'll keep an eye (as I'm sure others will). Regards --Herby talk thyme 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why removing status from inactive accounts is a good idea...

See w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar. It took 17 minutes to get action from the stewards on Wikipedia (where there are thousands of people watching at any given moment)... --SB_Johnny | talk 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ya, removing the availability of the tools from inactive people just makes good sense. --darklama 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. This is a perennial suggestion, and it is a bad one. I won't re-tread ground that has been trod many times before, merely suggest that you read the past discussions across several projects where this idea has been repeatedly mooted and repeatedly rejected. Knne-jerk reactions to the Robdurbar case are unwise. There have been, in all the years that I've been involved in the Wikimedia Foundation projects, exactly two cases of administrators (in the English projects) going on a rampage and deleting the main page. Incidents that are that rare are not sound justifications for any arguments for change. Uncle G 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The Robdurbar incident is not justification for our administrators policy, but it does confirm a threat that some people had worried about. The possibility of a rogue admin was actually one of the smallest and least-weighty arguments used to justify the de-adminship of inactive admins. I would suggest that you should read the discussions we've had around here where this topic has been repeatedly raised and confirmed. Other projects, while an interesting case study, are not wikibooks and we should not be bound to do things the way other people do. In fact, in many instances it is a benefit for us not to follow the lead of other projects. --Whiteknight (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Its not a suggestion, its an opinion, because it happens to be current Wikibooks policy to remove the tools from inactive admins. I believe SB_Johnny mentioned this not in response to the Robdurbar incident, but rather mentioned the Robdurbar incident in response to comments on the RFA page when an admin is nominated for deadminship due to inactivity. --darklama 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Uncle G. Robdurbar had indicated on his talk page that he was leaving the project yet nobody desysoped him. Also he was only inactive for about a month before he went on his rampage so wouldn't be covered by our de-sysop policy anyway - do we seriously want to remove sysop powers from people who haven't used them for a month? The chances of this kind of thing happening are very slim and changes would be quickly spotted and reverted by our eagle-eyed RC patrollers. Not worth worrying about. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) It wasn't all that long ago that one of our admins was forcably desysopped on Wikipedia, and ran some sort of rollback bot here afterwards (he's since disappeared again), so I don't see this sort of thing as quite so remote a possibility. We're working on a rather different version of an "inactive admin" policy on commons (discussion), which uses a 6 month window instead, but will likely involve just asking the missing admin whether they still want the tools, instead of making a desysop request on the RFA page. If that gets enacted and works out better than our policy, we might want to think about adopting it. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with just asking the admin if they want the tools or not. If they're really gone they won't respond, but a casual browser yet not really active admin can just as well say "I'd like to keep them" and I think that makes the tools like a trophy and the policy won't be effective. This rogue admin issue shows an interesting yet somewhat irrelevant issue; we de-sysop admins here almost entirely (entirely really since we haven't had this issue before) because we believe the admin won't understand how things work after a year of absence, not because we think they'll want to cause harm to the project. If you're gone for a year, it is almost guaranteed that you are quite out of date on how to enforce policy for one. This is protection from book quality and community interaction issues, not vandalism ones. -withinfocus 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMF Privacy Policy Resolution

Kat Walsh posted a message to foundation-l that has some impact for some of our users, specifically the checkusers. I dont know yet what the full effects of this will be, but Kat says we can contact User:Bastique with questions. The text of the foundation-l message is:

The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.

The link to the text of the resolution is here:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data

Just a heads up, I dont know right now what needs to be done. --Whiteknight (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading from the Foundation-l discussion (and from the policy), the main thing is that people with checkuser status must provide "identification" in the form of your true legal name and some basic contact information. In other words, you can't be anonymous and have checkuser status (or some of the other positions within the WMF heirarchy that deal with personal information). I think in this aspect, it isn't a bad policy and something that should have been done earlier.
I still think the concerns about what a checkuser actually does is overstated, and there really isn't any real damage that can be done by somebody "abusing" the checkuser privileges, but I've made that argument elsewere. The main gist of the privacy policy is mostly that the WMF can't be held liable for accidental disclosure of private data, even though they (the WMF) agrees that they will try to take reasonable technical steps to make sure it doesn't happen. --Rob Horning 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows: this does not mean that Checkuser operators' personal information will be made public... they just want to have our names on file for office use. I asked, and was answered :). --SB_Johnny | talk 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, a checkuser can still be anonymous, but the WMF will have a file somewhere, locked away, with your real name on it. --Whiteknight (talk)
Also bear in mind that Wikimedia is based in the United States where protection of data laws are less strict than in the European Union and other countries. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, where should I send all this data? To info@wikimedia e-mail or is there any specific address? --Derbeth talk 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know yet, in fact I dont know exactly yet what information they need. I have to talk to User:Bastique about it, because eventually he is going to be the one collecting the information. --Whiteknight (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bastique specifically asked that no-one send him any mail about this until they work out the details. Keep an eye on checkuser-l for further updates (if you're not on the list, get in touch with Bastique on IRC or via email). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please rename me.

Login error:
The name "Rtc" is too similar to the existing account "RTC". Please choose another name.

Please rename me to User:Rtc. I am w:en:User:Rtc despite of w:en:User:RTC, too. --rtc 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done you are now known as User:Rtc. You can now log on using this new user name, with your same old password. Please make sure you have a valid email address registered in Special:Preferences, in case there is a problem. --Whiteknight (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class project maybe

Heads up really - variations on How to make a good book for children?. I deleted two yesterday leaving one and overnight (to me) three more have turned up! Ideas on how to deal with it (different contributors)? --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, links? --SB_Johnny | talk 12:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How to Write a Good Book for Children, How to write good books for children? + the one above plus two deleted yesterday del log --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, we really need a welcome template that queries people on this... I think I'll make one. That 2nd link actually has a few contributors, all with redlink talk pages (hint, hint).--SB_Johnny | talk 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, done... see {{Welcome-cp}}. Use {{welcome-cp|BOOKNAME}} to try and find more information. It needs some finessing, but will do the job for now.--SB_Johnny | talk 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And I was making a {{DupEffort}} template at the same time. Usage is {{DupEffort|book or page being worked on|book or page that is being suggested to contribute to instead}}. --darklama 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez... did you have to make that so scary looking? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it, hopefully a lot less scary looking. --darklama 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good... probably use that one too for the 2 contributors who made the dups. The one I made probably needs to be split into two actually, because there were also IP contributors and it would be nice to have the cp message below the {{joinus}} template for those cases. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of trying to combine it with a welcome message, why not let the message be independent of the welcome message and let people include it when its needed? --darklama 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please pick strong passwords

You may know now that five sysopped accounts at the English-language Wikipedia have been comprimised or gone-rogued in since April 19: w:User:Robdurbar, w:User:AndyZ, w:User:Jiang, w:User:Conscious and w:User:Marine 69-71, the last two within a half-hour of each other. The first four seemed to have weak passwords (the fifth is happening right now, so I have no info): one was "password" (confirmed by an admin who logged in and scrambled the password and e-mail address), another "password!" and another "fuck you!" (confirmed by the blocked user on his or her talk page). Please, everyone, but especially administrators, use a strong password! See w:password strength, http://www.google.com/search?q=strong+password and anything to give you ideas: use a mnemonic device, use alphanumeric characters, choose a random string, make it eight characters or longer, use non-Latin characters, just make it difficult to brute-force break and make sure it isn't something that would show up on Google. I may seem alarmist, I just hope that this does not come to Wikibooks; if it does, we need to be prepared. It is common sense that many people (including myself) do not think of. --Iamunknown 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I had been using a password that I thought was "pretty good", but have since upgraded to a password that is nearly 20 characters long of mixed alpha-numeric characters. using the word "password" as your password should really be unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
PS I've read on the checkuser-l mailing list that Brion is going to run some kind of a password cracker utility to identify weak passwords. I do not know what the result of that will be, but there could possibly be some consequence for people who have passwords that are easy to crack. I don't know when he will do this, what cracking algorithm he will use, or what the consequences will be. Either way, it would be a good idea to beef up just in case. --Whiteknight (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I read that too, but only in the context of the English-language Wikipedia. Maybe we can get him to scan our passwords too? --Iamunknown 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the point? If you have a weak password chances are you don't know better or just don't care, the only purpose would be to get some statistical info (to know how users go about it), in any case publishing information on that would probably weaken the security of users. --Panic 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that people who have weak passwords will be disabled until the password improves. If you have a stupid password, such as "password", you are a security risk and should be banned from being an admin. They are talking about de-sysoping people until they make good passwords. --Whiteknight (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A better solution would be having a check included into the Wikimedia software that reports the "level" of the password to the users as they sign in (even remembering users to change it from time to time or if a number of failed logins is detected), and blocks users with administrative flags and weak passwords, on the security point a check should also be made to any user with administrative flags (even bots) for the validity and existence of an email.
But again what is the point of asking for a test (like the one Brion proposes to do) to be done on Wikibooks? (Does User:Iamunknown propose an "attack" to each administrator's account (+-36) ?) --Panic 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that we would then be aware that our passwords are weak before our accounts are maliciously comprimised. --Iamunknown 07:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Brion has proposed that the software will not allow weak passwords. This means that when you create a new password, or when you change your password, the software will not accept a weak password. However, this doesnt do anything for the people who already have weak passwords. The point of asking for a password test from Brion is to identify those accounts with weak passwords and to disable them before they are compromised. This isn't an issue for most users, but it is of supreme importance for people like checkusers (who have access to private information), and bureaucrats (who could create an army of bot-admins to go on a deletion spree). --Whiteknight (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Errr - maybe put Stewards in that list!! And yes I've changed mine (tho they were not "weak") on sysop rights wikis --Herby talk thyme 12:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep an eye out...

The Universe Made Simple has recently recieved some work from an IP user, however the "chapters" are just links to wikipedia articles. I left the user a note, but just in case it's a dynamic IP, please monitor WB:RFI for any requests. I'm actually wondering if I shouldn't just import all the pages anyway, but I really don't have time to dewikify them now (real life has me busy). --SB_Johnny | talk 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page protected

I switched the protection for the main page from autoconfirmed to sysop only, as (I was shocked to find) it had been blanked and made silly. I realize that some might find it troubling that non-sysops can't edit this page, but I'd urge keeping full protection indefinitely.--SB_Johnny | talk 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but with the mention that there is plenty of opportunity for non-sysops to propose changes and corrections on the relevant discussion pages. --Whiteknight (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's funny, but I thought we were sort of doing that already (there is at least one "alternate version subpage" floating about. But yes, of course... maybe we can make a nice box at the top of the talk page explaining it.--SB_Johnny | talk 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at what Bfriend did - if there ever was any need for proof that main page need to be protected that's it. --Krischik T 08:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

No time but watch RC - couple of strange new ones around. Block log, upload log & the computer smashing one is on Meta as well I think <g> --Herby talk thyme 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation or public domain?

Could other admins please take a look at THE PRIMARY CLASSICAL LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD. The book says it is a copy of a book thats been nationalized, and someone believes it would be better suited for Wikisource. However I'm concerned that nationalized books may still be copyrighted, making this book a copyright violation on Wikibooks and not a public domain book suitable for Wikisource. Someone I queried about it, pointed out to me that Tamils are a breakaway movement and not officially a government, and are unsure whether or not nationalized means public domain in this case. --darklama 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion on it is that the book should not be marked as a copyright violation but information requested from the editor and information be given that it should be moved to Wikisource if possible. In any case if no information is provided we as a community can be pro active and and mark it for VfD.
One may also note that:
  1. The book on Wikibooks isn't complete.
  2. It seems to be a conversion of this printed book ( should go into Wikisource if license is found valid )
    1. Madras is in India, couldn't find any reference to Tamils (besides the topic of the work and as part of Indian culture/society and state).
    2. Nationalized in general terms means it belongs to the state not in the public domain.
    3. It seems it mentions compensations to the authors and heirs, since we don't know the background of that agreement or what rights were transfered, it falls to the rights holder to provide information or request the pull down of the work.
    4. The book was printed in 1966 in India so w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works seems to be applicable, and depending on local copyright laws that extend it, the copyright is valid for 50 years after the authors death (Devaneya Pavanar died in January 15, 1981).
--Panic 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Tamil separatists (from Sri Lanka). Tamil is mentioned because the works were nationalized by the Government of Tamil Nadu which is a region of India. If this is true then what's the problem? Unless someone complains or we have significant concerns about commercial copyrights then leave things as they are. Nobody would ever sue for copyright violation - all they would do is send out a request to remove the material. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is its a copy of a printed book, thats nationalized, making it possibly the property of a government, which means it can't be distributed under the GFDL or considered public domain, unless the government has given permission to do so. I'm concerned that unless permission was given, that it violates Wikibook's copyright policy and as someone has suggested that it be transwikied to Wikisource, may not be appropriate for Wikisource either. Regardless of whether or not anyone would ever sue for copyright violation, I think Wikibooks needs to enforce its own policy of removing books that are in copyright violation, otherwise there is no point in having such a policy. My question here is, what is the status of this book? Is it copyrighted? Is it PD? I think its important to figure it out, before saying that it is a copyright violation or that its PD. --darklama 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The primary editor appears to be User:Acrajan, I left him a message a while ago suggesting wikisource as an alternative since it appears to be a source text, I too however am unsure of the copyright status of government works in India (I know not all governments release their works to PD like the US one does). By age, it definitely wouldn't be PD as Panic said. Mattb112885 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project+

I'm very tempted to speedy delete this page, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next little bit to see just where this page might go. I'm listing it here to bring this to the attention of other admins, just in case this project subsequently gets re-created later. As all of the edits have been done by one throw-away user account and subsequently by a single anon ip user, I think it is a waste of my time to use the user talk pages to try and communicate to this user except perhaps on the talk page.

I marked this page for a speedy delete candidate, but there is a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that this template is going to remain on the module. I do genuinely want to give this user a chance to try a legitimate contribution to Wikibooks, but this doesn't seem to be anything other than some class notes by a student. --Rob Horning 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not excited about the title, but as it stands it's an good outline for a book on business project management. Such a book would be well within the scope of Wikibooks, so I guess I disagree with the speedy. --xixtas talk 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain for now but I noticed it when it arrived and feel like Robert about it. --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In case folk miss it Talk:Project+. Helps convince me ... that deletion would be correct, but then it is only my opinion --Herby talk thyme 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm Feeding the Troll here, but I did respond, and this looks like somebody who may cause problems in the future for Wikibooks. Still, I'm willing to wait and see what he is going to do next. This individual (with yet another IP address) claims that this is the outline of a book even though I do have my doubts. I seriously doubt that he is that new to wikis as he claims, although he may be new to Wikimedia projects. --Rob Horning 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think i have to disagree with the speedy nomination here. Project+ is a regular CompTIA certification, and we have other books on other related tests (such as A+ Certification and Network Plus Certification). Just because the book is currently an outline does not mean that it is intended to be an outline. According to the deletion policy a book should not even be nominated for speedy deletion for seven days, and the rationale for that (at least in my mind) is to give a book a "grace period" to reach an acceptable level before we start declaring the book to be hopeless. Timeframes aside, many books start life as a simple outline, and from there they tend to progress to something similar to a macropedia, and then they become more cohesive as a regular book. Especially if the book is young and has a regular contributor working on it, there is no reason to suspect that the book will not attain a higher level of quality as time passes. I agree that there is a certain amount of belligerence from this editor, but I imagine anybody would be a little upset if their new book were nominated for deletion for reasons that they don't understand. If there was an active contributor who disagreed with the nomination, it should have been put on VfD instead of being a speedy anyway. The fact that the user has used multiple IP addresses, or has not signed in for every edit is an inconsequential detail, in my eyes. Without some suspicion of malice (we are assuming good faith here) the decision to use or not use a particular account name, or the use of multiple IP addresses (or a single endpoint with a dynamic address) is simply nothing to worry about. I'm going to remove the speedy tag for now (nominations that are contested should always become VfDs instead) and send a message on that talk page warning everybody to be civil to each other. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary style

Is there a style for glossary entries in wikibooks (particularly in wikijunior)? I have not been able to find a style citation and it seems to be being handled inconsistently. Is there a reason that gloosary words in context are not generally linked to the glossary entry itself? I am new to wikibooks, so thanks for the pointer if this is already documented somewhere. Kfasimpaur 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In general there is no consistant style for anything here at wikibooks. It's up to the authors of the book to determine the style of that book. However, Wikijunior generally does have more guidelines as to style then ordinary books do. You can ask at Talk:Wikijunior, for help in general, or you can probably get a response from User:Xixtas who is a bit of an authority at wikijunior. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just curious...is the lack of consistent style by design or default? Kfasimpaur 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Talk

[edit] "Keepin' it real"

WB:AN has become a very useful tool for us, but I strongly feel that it should be used only for administrative discussion, rather than policy discussion or technical inquiries. Topics such as the one above this one should be kindly and gently redirected to the appropriate staff lounge page, because if we allow it to become a habit to always just ask the admins (rather than asking the community on the SL), we really will end up with a cabal.

So I propose the following informal guideline:

The Administrator's Noticeboard should be used only as a way for users to alert administrators about things that require the use of admin tools, and/or for administrators to alert one another of problems that they have found that might require the use of admin tools. If a user (admin or otherwise) brings something up here that doesn't fall under that description, it chould be redirected to the proper Staff Lounge page.

Remember: administrators are just trusted users who have access to a few extra buttons. We are not --and should never be-- official representatives of the community and/or members of the "executive branch" of a government. WK was only doing what's natural to him by responding to that question (i.e., he was helping someone who asked for help), but as much as we might joke about "the cabal" in private, we really do need to be careful to avoid making "the cabal" into a real entity, because on a project as small as ours it could happen without anyone trying to make it happen. Let's please restrict this noticeboard to discussions about maintenance problems that need admin tools to fix them... allowing this page to be used for other purposes is a very dangerous proposition. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, this isn't the proper place for those kinds of questions. When it came down to it though, it would have taken me twice as much effort to redirect to the staff lounge, explain why i redirected, and then to answer his question. If we have a notice written nice and big at the top of this page, We won't need to do any explanations about it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you both (I know this is getting redundant :-P). Leave a notice at the top of the page, but don't necessarily strictly enforce it. --Iamunknown 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would generally agree that this should be either a direct contact page for something that needs to have the attention of an administrator, or something of concern that would require the use of administrator tools in order to resolve the issue at some point. At the same time, I've seen the administrator forum on Wikipedia sometimes go way off topic and get into some policy issues as well, so we aren't alone with this sort of issue. Rather than trying to get so formal, I would suggest something like this:
The Administrator's Noticeboard is a tool for users to alert administrators that may require some special actions not normally used during regular content editing. Also be aware that administrators are usually quite busy with either their own projects or trying to perform general maintenance and cleanup, so posting a message here may not get the attention that it deserves. For more general questions, you would be better off using Staff Lounge page, or perhaps even the Study Help Desk.
I think this gives a more positive tone, and while it doesn't explicitly prohibit such messages it does give the idea that such postings are strongly discouraged, and a place to make such requests. This also implies that you shouldn't feel so hyper motivated as an admin to answer such general questions that do come up on this page...aka if we take some time to respond here as opposed to a similar question on the Staff Lounge, it would also get the message across that they really should be answered in a more general forum rather than here. We all, as administrators (or you wouldn't be doing this), want to be generally helpful and take care of lost users who can't figure out what is going on. I'm suggesting we just need to relax a bit and don't take this quite so seriously.
Perhaps as a suggestion as well is to not even answer these kind of questions here. Now this is just a stylistic point (and shouldn't be policy) but if you wrote something like This question is answered at WB:SL#Silly Question, perhaps that would also get the point across. What we don't want this page to become is another version of the Staff Lounge, and likely to get a faster response due to the fact that admins make this a high priority page to resolve issues that are brought up here. --Rob Horning 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unlicensed images

Looking in corners again! Category:Images with unknown copyright status has quite a lot of unlicensed images with many tagged since the beginning of the year - given policy/legality I think this is something that should be tackled. I have made a start. --Herby talk thyme 09:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The images that have been tagged for some time will have been vetted by a few of us (at least me and Iamunknown) for obvious screen shots, own work, etc. so probably safe to delete. If you notice any newly tagged ones, please leave there and we'll check them out in due course. Webaware talk 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The ones I've done are (mostly) unlinked and April or prior. I'm happy with caution but if we leave it it will take some catching up. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Robots

I see that the robots.txt file previously had:

# Don't allow the wayback-maschine to index user-pages
#User-agent: ia_archiver
#Disallow: /wiki/User
#Disallow: /wiki/Benutzer

but this seems to have since been commented out. I looked through some archives, and tried searching. Is it wiki-acceptable to exclude pages such as User: and User_talk: from search engines and the internet archiver? If so, how?

Thanks. LWan98 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting policy question. I'm not entirely sure if user pages ought to be searched or not. There are some precious gems that do pop up in user pages (and even user talk pages), and I think that one of the motivations behind "commenting out" something like this on a robots file is that it would allow the "Internet Archive" and a few other archival services to be able to store this information in their files. And keep in mind that some very important legal information, such as content licensing terms explicitly mentioned on user pages or a person's real name (needed for some copyright legal actions) can also be found on a user page. From this perspective, the user pages are not only a good thing, but legally required if you are archiving content from Wikimedia projects.
Because of the legal aspects (both privacy and copyright issues), I think I would rather have this decided by the Wikimedia legal advisory group (there used to be a Legal-l list, but I can't seem to find it any more). Brad Patrick was running that group, but I don't know what has happened since his resignation. --Rob Horning 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone else check this

Talk page note suggested that this pdf doesn't "work" - Image:European History.pdf? It doesn't for me but as it is linked in quite a few places I'd rather someone else checked before any deletion is made. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Must of been some sort of bug. The 2nd edition wasn't working for me either, when I tried multiple times. I reverted to the 1st edition, since it was working for me. I then checked one more time to see if the 2nd edition would work and it worked this time, so I reverted again and now the 2nd edition is working fine for me now as the main link. --darklama 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Odd & thanks Darklama, regards --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive3"