Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.59.237.110 (talk) at 17:30, 11 June 2008 (Undid revision 218667577 by 71.59.237.110 (talk) going have to put this back.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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


    Commons photos of buildings and statues

    I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I can't think of anywhere else. If anyone has uploaded photos of buildings or statues in the USA to Commons, you should head over and download it to your computer as it will be deleted eventually. According to them, buildings and statues in the USA are copyrighted works of art and therefore photographs of them are considered derivative works [1]. I found this out when a picture of the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame (and a statue outside of it) that I uploaded there was nommed for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it, a photograph of the statue outside the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame would be subject to the copyright of the artist, but a photograph of the building would not: "U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a)". - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point us to a relevant discussion. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) That's quite right; freedom of panorama in the United States extends to buildings but not to other permanent installations, toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. The section of Commons:FOP to which NoC links properly observes that the "[t]aking pictures of buildings is...reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect", but only if "the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law"; §120 roughly provides such a right of reproduction. When an image includes both a building (copyrighted but not subject to restrictions on the right of photographic reproduction) and a statue (to which, in the United States, FOP does not extend), the situation is more complicated (as would be the use of non-free photographs of buildings; there are certain circumstances under which photographs of three-dimensional objects, such as buildings, might be understood as not requiring Bridgeman v. Corel's originality, but we need not now undertake an inquiry as to what those may be), but we might safely say, I think, that Commons does not delete photographs of buildings that conform to Commons:FOP. Joe 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I read up on this a fair bit because of a photo I have on commons, Image:Seattle Art Museum 01.jpg. That's the Hammering Man, a copyrighted statue, and it was pointed out it may be a copyvio photograph. But the opinions seemed to be that as it includes other artistic elements, it's fine--it's a photo of the area, of which the statue just happens to be in. If I'd taken and framed the photo to be principally of the statue, then it would be a copyvio, is my understanding. Environmental factors seem to factor in too. That statue is 60 to 80 feet tall, and it's physically impossible to photograph that building or practically that entire street corner without catching it, and in fact you can see the statue for a tremendous distance, depending on how you approach. rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as an aside, if the Commons copyright policies are Foundation level, wouldn't the same ones apply to Wikipedia, or would the fair use angle let you get around it for photos of statues? rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Re the aside, the latter. Commons accepts only freely licensed media files, whilst other projects may, consistent with their respective EDPs, choose to allow the uploading and use of various restricted-use/non-free media. Joe 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes sense, then, for commons to be more restrictive than individual projects, since commons has to serve images to all projects. rootology (T) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This crack-down of sorts would only affect me if there is some way in hell for a photo ("free"-ly licensed by the photographer) of a very old statue (one erected before, say, 1923) not to be 100% kosher. Yes, I did seek advice (not "legal advice" mind you) from one of our resident copyright experts before uploading... — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

    Declaration of involvement to start with, but this SSP has become an unseemly squabble that Luigi 28 has edited 79 times so far [2]. The reason I'm asking for others to look in is due to the accusations of lying [3], later retracted [4], posting of personal info about one of the belligerents [5] [6] and the general urgent need to nail this issue with a CU report. Read through it in all its glory at your leisure. It now runs to seven different threads on my talk page, plus various others at User talk:DIREKTOR and User talk:Luigi 28 This SSP is full of hostile belligerent aggressive posts. Can this be sorted ASAP, with a CU or whatever? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I edited 79 times the SSP, because I speak a terrible English, I'm brand new here in Wikipedia and I don't know the tags, the markups and so on....
    2. The User:DIREKTOR wrote that I can use his name: use it all you want[7]: no violation of Wiki rules.
    3. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 run six different threads on my talk page[8]--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with using my "name" (as I said, its not really my full name in Croatian and should be useless), but the meaningless squabble should be concluded at the soonest possible opportunity. As has been previously reported [9], the User does not discuss the actual evidence of his sockpuppeteering, but instead continues on with variations on the theme: "I'm not PIO, you two are fools, you're crazy, you're a couple of kids" etc... The entire report is indeed now completely cluttered with text relatively irrelevant to the actual sockpuppeteering issue. I admit I may have contributed myself in a minor way but, as I'm sure everyone knows, provocations in bad grammar are lethal for one's self control. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. More than 20 times, User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 said that I'm that banned User:PIO, without any kind of evidence, or reverted my edits. I put here only some examples[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
    2. They harrassed me from my very first edit, only because they think I'm that User:PIO. User:DIREKTOR reverted many, many times my edits (see above), without any kind of explanation. He violated this restriction: [32] and I ask that justice be done against him.--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This SSP report has become long and rambling. If User:AlasdairGreen27 still believes that User:Luigi 28 is the banned editor User:PIO perhaps he could add his own brief summary of the facts (as they appear to him) in the Comments section of the report. Otherwise, since proving the equivalence appears to be such a challenge, we could start from scratch and ask whether Luigi 28 is editing disruptively. For this an WP:RFC/U might be considered. As an alternative, if you think Luigi is slanting articles, consider an article RFC.
    • The evidence offered when submitting the RFCU on Luigi 28 didn't seem to prove much, and Alison didn't find any connection between Luigi and PIO on technical grounds. The IP data was not persuasive. PIO and Luigi both use Italian ISPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have never edited disruptively[33].
    • From my first message here in Wikipedia, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:
    1. When I wrote my first message: User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote immediately a request for checkuser[34]. Only few minutes ago (in Italy are the 03.28 in the morning - Saturday 06.07.2008) I've seen that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi 28 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Here:[35] User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
    3. Here:[36] Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
    4. Here:[37] Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
    5. Here: [38] Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
    6. Here: [39] User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. I have the PIO's style of expression!
    7. Here: [40] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Venetian irredentist radical !!!
    8. Here:[41] ">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray"[[DIREKTOR]] reverted my contribute without any explanation, except: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
    9. Here:[42] DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute, without any explanation.
    10. Here:[43] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time without any explanation, except: you're banned from editing remember?
    11. Here: [44] DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic, wich is for me, 'cause he thinks I'm PIO.
    12. Here: [45] User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    13. Here: [46] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
    14. Here: [47] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
    15. Here: [48] Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
    16. Here: [49] Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
    17. Here: [50] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though...
    18. Here: [51] Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
    19. Here: [52] DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    20. Here: [53] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
    21. Here: [54] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    22. Here: [55] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation

    Restricting the "move subpages" feature to admins

    The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict the "move subpages" feature to admins may be of interest. Happy‑melon 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Query about the Tango (drink) article

    Not sure this is the right place - but when I click on the Tango (drink) link, I get a message asking me if I would like to save something, instead of going to the article. Any ideas why? --204.4.131.140 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tango (drink). Works fine for me :/ J.delanoygabsadds 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you typed it correctly? J.delanoygabsadds 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try WP:VPT. ffm

    1 year schoolblock - 24.244.192.130

    Resolved

    This school IP has already been blocked three times for 6 months, I've now blocked for 1 year. xenocidic (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me, I wasn't far behind you. None of the June edits were of any use at all. Endorse. BencherliteTalk 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also endorse. Looks perfectly reasonable (and unfortunate). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine to me...marking thread as resolved. Tiptoety talk 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflicting blocks

    What happens when two admins block an IP address at the same time? - [67]. Corvus cornixtalk 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Its an interesting glitch, its a good thing that both of them were thinking the same thing, now what would happen if the block lengths were different? would the blocks cancel each other? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The block would be lifted with the expiry of the earlier of the two blocks, i.e. if one blocked for 1 hour and one blocked for 3 hours, the block is lifted after 1 hour. Leithp 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:202.142.220.65

    This IP had been blocked for a year for being an open proxy. The block expired in January. Recently a user has been editing from this IP, and their edits have not been obviously disruptive. So I removed the block notice (as it was out of date) and unprotected the IP's talk page.

    But I am unfamiliar with WP's policy on open proxies. Should in fact the IP be blocked again? I hesitate to do this as it is not currently involved in any disruption. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it, there are several less than enlightened countries from which editors can only edit WP using open proxies, although it's considered advisable for them to create accounts here to do so. Personally, I'd say let it be unless there is disruption. But, then, I may be wrong and I'm sure someone will let me know if this is the case. They usually do. --Rodhullandemu 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a Thailand IP, and it does not show up as a tor agent. Suggest contacting Centrx, who blocked the IP before as an open proxy due to unusual findings; he's an expert in that area. Risker (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of examination shows it is still an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. As you've blocked it again, I've added a tag on the talk page. But I have not locked the talk page. I have also pinged Centrx, per Risker's suggestion. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear to have any proxy ports open, nor is it on the list of tor proxies? Is it a Web-based proxy? If so, it should be stated in the block message. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Grawpery

    Can someone tell me: are these all TOR exit nodes? And should they be blocked accordingly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those (in a check) were US residential IP addresses. In other words, a Zerg rush.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed per user name policy?

    Resolved

    I believe IiiiiiiiiiiiiSEXIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk · contribs) should be blocked per the user name policy? -- RyRy5 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, try WP:UAA. BencherliteTalk 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gwen. Bencherlite, I'll report something like this next time at WP:UAA. I didn't know we had one. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not missing much. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin

    Resolved
     – Page deleted, user indef blocked by Ryūlóng. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you take a look at the WP:MFD at the above link, there seems to be a long discussion of about the the user page of User:Spiritus Nirin. In my opinion, I think that this user thinks wikipedia is a myspace. Well, it's not a myspace. Should any administrative action take place? Opinions? --RyRy5 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RyRy5, is there any particular need to bring this up here? Administrators regularly close discussions on XfD pages - it's not as though MfD is an obscure discussion page. Administrative action will take place in due course. BencherliteTalk 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone should explain to him what Wikipedia is? There's a whole lot of WP:BITE going on there. Did anyone talk to him before suggesting his userpage is deleted? I know its redundant to say, but he seems awfully confused. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) :Well, I was wondering if this user has done any constructive editing to help the encyclopedia. This user seems to focus more on his/her user page than the encyclopedia. --RyRy5 (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the user seems to be a rather troubled person overall, but... assuming good faith here, he's only been around for a day, has made some mistakes and seems to be rather... um... insane. Yes, he's probably indef bait, but maybe if we didn't just template him, he'd stand a chance at being something other than a sad story? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the creator of the MfD i have to say i agree with Kyaa; it will be dealt with in due time. He actually exhibits most of the main signs of schizophrenia and is slap-bang in the middle of the correct age range, but wikipedia is not a GP, so i'll chalk it down to the language barrier and having found god (although some might consider that a sign of insanity :P). Ironholds 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I agree with you about The Sky Moves Sideways, I think you might be straying dangerously close to a personal attack with your previous comment, Ironholds. You may want to consider rewording it or striking some of it. Best, ChaoticReality 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <- I think there are a few issues here, and part of why I waded into the discussion was to bring it to point - the userpage is hinky, this is why, how can we resolve it? It's clear that there is a language barrier, and that's not helping anything. I stand mute on the user's possible mental issues, and WP:AGF requires me to dismiss those concerns in the absence of evidence (i.e. a declaration by the user). I don't actually think there's deliberate trolling going on, mainly because there are so many more effective ways to troll on Wikipedia. The other reason I joined the discussion was to attempt to engage the user in dialog as to what we expect here, including what articles are and how they differ from the userspace. I grant that MFD is not the best forum for that at all, but I also note that the user did not respond to talk page comments, but is responding at the MFD, so that's where the discussion has taken place. I was hopeful that a compromise - one involving removal of the essay in favor of a short statement, and productive editing thereafter - was possible, but that might not be the case. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, should I have not blocked him and deleted his userpage, and help the Commons in dealing with the mess he made over there as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good block, sad to say - I thought there might be something salvageable from the situation, and was keen to undo any WP:BITEing that had gone on. However well-intentioned the individual may be, your analysis is correct in that he is unlikely to work on building the encyclopedia. As for commons - what did he do there? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He uploaded the images he used on his various pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good times. Not much I can do about that on this end, unfortunately - I'll mark this as resolved and put it to bed. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits

    My talkpage was vandalized by anon IP (User:24.205.234.250) sending me multiple 3RR warnings for supposed violations on Superpower and Potential superpowers articles even though I haven't edited these articles for the past 1 week or so. A look at the anon's history shows it is involved in an edit war on multiple articles (see [68]). The anon has already received 3 test warnings (including 2 from myself). The anon's edits are similar to that of User:24.180.3.127 which was blocked earlier for personal attacks and harassment. In fact, a look at this and this makes it obvious that both IPs are run by same person. I request an administrator to keep a watch on the IP's contributions and take any possible actions if necessary. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Better to escalate to higher-level warnings and report at WP:AIV if they don't stop. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request #2 for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

    Once again, could someone have a look at this matter (see above request [69])? Its really relatively simple, however, be advised that the accused User:Luigi 28 has a frequently used strategy of cluttering up a report in order to avoid Admin intervention. The User insists on adding tons of useless irrelevant information, such as a list of times I called him "PIO" to all reports to make them seem a complicated matter, and may do the same to this report. However, I hope this incredibly simple tactic will cease to be effective. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say another time that User:Direktor reverted many, many times my edits, only because he think I'm User:PIO. So, I haven't a strategy of cluttering up a record to avoid Admin intervention: I only want that the Admin can see what's happened: the harassment of User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 against me: a personal war. Best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove that your not User:PIO?
    Show me a country where one guy must prove that he isn't another one guy, and I'll show you a dictatorship.--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Category merge ?

    Resolved

    Hi. Can anyone tell me if Category:California legislation and Category:California law should be merged ? I should point out I've no idea how to do it (even if I have the permissions) :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh hang on, I've just found CfD - I'll submit it through there - apologies :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User account with no accessible contribution history

    Resolved
     – No admin action required. —Travistalk 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertisement.reader (talk · contribs) was submitted to WP:UAA by the bot, because of the "advertisment" string. But I cannot pull up any contributions or deleted contributions for the account, not only as you can see here but from the side of the page. What's up with this? Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could it be that they simply haven't actually made any contributions? --RFBailey (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my thought. Am I missing something? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any deleted contribs? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Nope. Just looks like a newly created but never used account. Like 60-70% of our accounts. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens purely because the name had "advertisement" in it. The bot picks up on this just after account creation, and reports it. It doesn't take contributions into account. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    No. This is the weird thing. Even when the account's never edited you can usually click the contribs and deleted contribs link to check on that, and get a page saying there's nothing there. But neither of these links show up with this account. Not in that template above. Not on the side of the page when you go to their user page. Is this some software bug? It's never happened before with a new account with no edits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, it seems to work fine for me, both the sidebar link to User Contributions and the links in the {{user-uaa}} template. Looks completely normal to me. Perhaps it is a browser or caching issue? --MCB (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a wild guess, but do you perhaps have an ad blocker installed on your computer? I can see how the string "Contributions/Advertisement" in the URL might be triggering some overzealous ad filtering. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I do (AdSubtract) and maybe that's why the word "advertisement" always disappears (I also don't see the linked "ad blocker" above). That could explain things. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean they're not there? Do you mean it's a redlink? If that's it, then you can just click on the redlink and get that same screen you got before- it seems a feature has recently been implemented that makes the contribs page link red for users with no contribs. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, non-existent accoutns will show large red text if you try to edit the talkpage - this doesn't. For an example, see here. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternatively, you could just check the user creation log. --Rory096 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Open Proxies vs. Public Computers

    I recently saw a claim from an admin that a Wifi Hotspot is "effectively an open proxy" and therefore not allowable for editing WP. I wanted to seek input on this issue: Open proxy defines an open proxy as a computer accessible by anyone on the Internet; I think we have a compelling reason to disallow access from those, but a Wifi hotspot, while accessible anonymously, is only accessible to people in the immediate area. It's not much different from an internet cafe or a computer in a public library. I feel that public computers should not be lumped in with open proxies... but I suppose it's a matter of opinion so I wanted to see what others thought. Mangojuicetalk 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If we can let IP's edit then why not users of an open proxy.It's pretty much the same thing. Mr. GreenHit Me UpAbout Me 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mangojuice here; the wide-open abuse potential of proxies does not exist for wifi hotspots, because of the need to be physically present. If a specific hotspot becomes an issue it can be dealt with. GRBerry 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know of an IP of a public computer that is hardblocked (an Apple Store in NY used by a banned user), but that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis (and only if CU shows some very concerning abuse coming from the IP/range). WiFi Hotspots, or school computers, or AOL proxies, don't have to be blocked without evidence of overwhelming abuse. -- lucasbfr talk 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of which there is plenty. Certainly some hotspots, libraries, etc. are proven sites where vandals who are range blocked Anon-only go to create new accounts. Thatcher 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the IP we are discussing is User:204.13.82.149. Can you check whether it has been abused in the past? Otherwise a softblock should be sufficient, isn't it? -- lucasbfr talk 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing recent. Thatcher 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wifi hotspots are hardly like open proxies. The whole problem with OPs is that anybody can use them from anywhere in the world, which is not at all the case most hotspots. They are potentially vectors for abuse and problems should be dealt with, yes, but that's nowhere near anything suggesting we should throw the full weight and fury of WP:NOP at them in all cases. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was softblocked already, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that public computers and hotspots do not need to be blocked on sight because the potential for abuse is geographically limited, and we can also contact the Internet Service Provider and and inform them of the abuse if necessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comparable to an AOL IP or any other floating IP. Blocking these would be a big disservice as they are the only way some users can edit. I'm thinking also of public libraries like the one we have in Largo, Florida, from which I sometimes edit. Dlohcierekim 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eceresa (talk · contribs)

    This user has unfortunately been caught up in a hardblock of 64.88.86.3 (talk · contribs), which I blocked as an open proxy. I've examined this person's contributions and so far, I don't see any concerns of abuse. I'd be willing to grant IP block exemption at Special:UserRights/Eceresa, but WP:IPEXEMPT says exemption from open proxies is only allowed in "highly exceptional circumstances". So I think it's worth bringing this here for a possible consensus to grant Eceresa exemption. Thoughts? Spellcast (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doing my own check, I see no evidence that this is an open proxy. Port 8080 is filtered, 80 and 443 are open, but not usable as a proxy. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two days ago, I was able to edit the talk page using port 8080. If the IP is going to be unblocked, I hope a useable port doesn't end up re-opening soon. Spellcast (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this user is running a server on his/her machine, you might ask them to turn it off for a few hours, and then check back. If the user can do this, s/he owns the machine, and adding an exemption would be appropriate. If not, then the block ought to stay up. A surprisingly easy solution, IMO... The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its registered to Macomb Intermediate School District - grades 6-7 or 6-8, its highly unlikely that its an IP address used by only 1 person. According to the user's page they are a teacher. The IP address is probably used by the whole classroom or the whole school. Trying to use the open telnet port shows that its using a content filter, so its probably used by students. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and unblocked the IP. Although Zenmap shows open ports 80, 23, 443, 21, 554, and 553, none of them are useable. But if I happen to come across this IP again while testing open proxies, I will be hardblocking. Spellcast (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New noticeboard

    For nationalism: Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh no, not more noticeboards. That reminds me after I bitched at you on the mailing list last year for the last one you created I completely forgot to watchlist it. How are things going there, anyway? — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So now who's going to watch this and be willing to hand out warnings and then blocks? For the sake of everything good, we really really need people to hand out more blocks (after warnings) on here, even if it means the blockee will wikilawyer to Heaven. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Principally me, for starters. Hopefully some of the stuff that at the moment is winding up in truckloads on the talk pages of myself, Future Perfect, Elonka, and a few other admins, will wind up here for more general attention. It's not good to have such a small subset of people monitoring such a large problematic area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be glad to help out, had I not been too stupid to apply for adminship a long time ago when I still could have passed ;). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have it on my watchlist - and I am prepared to swing the banhammer on any person who isn't Cornish (they get the Lightning Bolt instead...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User merge/delete

    Resolved
     – Not an admin issue

    I would like to:

    a) usurp User:Missingno000, since I no longer use this account, and b) delete Missingno000 on the testwiki, same reason as above.

    CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, only bureaucrats can perform user-functions, and then only renaming users. Deleting and merging accounts is not possible; usurpation can likewise only be done by bureaucrats. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User contributions

    Resolved
     – Blocked / baleeted - Alison ❤ 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it might be worth considering blocking this user or at least giving them a very strong and specific warning considering the content of their only contribution . I have e-mailed oversight. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No warning, I'd say a block. Also that phone number info would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked indef and deleted the page but it should likely be oversighted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a reply from oversight, they say it's been done. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Alison ❤ 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Username Blacklist

    For ease of email, I wanted to create the user account Radio Wikipedia. However it says it is blacklisted. I haven't requested an account because, it is blacklisted. Could you remove it and tell me, or make it for me? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Usernames containing the word "Wikipedia" or other trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation are not appropriate. GRBerry 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, why do you want to create an account for this purpose? Surely just the one account's enough? PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Stewie, it comes across like this whole "Radio Wikipedia" thing is being used as a method of webhosting. Please note that Wikipedia is not your webspace. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the username, but I don't see how there's a WP:NOT problem here. How is it different than Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, or Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly? - auburnpilot talk 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Grawp sock?

    I just checked the new user log and saw this: User:ZZYYGGYY. It seems to be in character with him. He's created other accounts with all caps and near-nonsense. Might be worth keeping an eye on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps worth keeping an eye on, but the user's not made any edits yet. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Grawp must be pleased with all the attention we've been giving him. Not really directed at you PM, just an observation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I was just thinking the same thing. And from what I've heard of his MO, he doesn't even seem to be that effective at vandalizing. What happened to DENY? --Rory096 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, you're right. Doggone it, I gotta lay off the RC and NPP, or at least not go jumping at shadows. If the guy starts in again, he'll get clobbered. As for me, I really will lay off the RC and NPP. Too much pressure right now. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RCA Corporation

    User talk:Guy1423‎ is tampering with the article about the defunct company RCA Corporation by tacking on information about RCA branded products being made by Thomson which owns the RCA trademark and other companies licensed to use the RCA name. I suggested that he start a new article about the current use of the RCA brand name such as "RCA (trademark)". Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you can show that there is stuff about the trademark that does not belong in the corp's article, then go ahead. But the stub I redirected didn't provide enough material to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far this looks like a content dispute to me. User:Steelbeard1, please be careful about 3rr. The edits you're reverting aren't vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Gwen. As you may have seen, I created the RCA (trademark) article, moving the material on the use of the RCA trademark today from the RCA Corporation article to the RCA (trademark) article. That should settle things, I hope. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CyclePat is being disruptive and pointy towards featured pictures. First, he added {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} to Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg,[70] which is a featured picture. The editor proceeded to list this image for deletion review, which is speedily kept and cited by the closer as abusive DR. A few days later, the editor went to the Features and Admins page on Signpost and hid the announcement that the image is promoted to featured status, citing the image as original research.[71] I would like to ask someone to step in and intervene this problematic user. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is probably also relevant; it's another (unrelated) image he's claiming is original research. --Rory096 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Images are traditionally given some leeway with regard to original research guidelines (see WP:NOR#Original images), but that doesn't mean users concerned over such issues are necessarily being "disruptive" -- it could just as easily be argued that such concerns are important to ensuring the integrity and accuracy of our content. While I do think the Signpost edit in particular was uncalled for, it's worth noting that it's over a week old -- is this an ongoing issue, anywhere? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely don't see how respiratory system diagram is original research. It is actually one of the things on earth that people don't debate about. Just go and flip open any human anatomy textbook and you cannot find any disagreement between textbooks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case the diagram author - or you - would not find it difficult to provide a citation for the image, in the image description page. OR is not about a work being accurate & factual, so much as it is about it being verifiable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is uncontroversial information, and probably not based on a single source. FWIW, CyclePat also requested a source at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It demonstrably is not an uncontroversial image, since there is a controversy about it. I'm sure it is not a plagiarized image taken directly from a single source. But it is clearly, for the reasons cited above, capable of being referenced to any number of other occurrences of diagrams of respiratory systems. Lack of a single source does not diminish its capacity to be referenced. Referencing it is the simplest and most effective way to solve the controversy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the image had no problems on the commons, where it was originally uploaded, then there's no issue with sourcing. This is why the templates for sourcing here specifically mention "this article." Just because this diagram isn't taken from Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean it needs to be referenced to it. CyclePat has had issues with his behavior prior. Let's hope this isn't his new outlet from now on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I slapped a pile of references on the talk page for the image. That should put this absurd attention grabbing to rest. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To state that there is a controversy surrounding this image is laughable. A weak attempt at manufacturing one does not controversy make. Resolute 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiousity, does Commons even have a policy analogous to WP:V or WP:NOR? As far as I know there isn't one. While I suspect that the Commons' community would choose to delete misleading imagery, as far as I know they don't have any policy requiring the sourcing of the information presented in an image (as distinct from sourcing who created the image). Dragons flight (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested undeletion

    Resolved
     – Image undeleted, now redeleted.--Graham87 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an admin please temporarily undelete the local version of Image:HoneyAnt.jpg? (originally deleted as a Commons duplicate). Would like to straighten out/confirm the Commons source/license as part of the FAC on the Ant article, and I need access to the original image to do that. I will flag with db-i8 again once I've finished. Thanks! Kelly hi! 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Graham87 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New User: Torilee8

    I would like to post that this user has committed some vandalism on the Hoodwinked! page by adding unneeded song lyrics and deliberately replaced one of the characters names in the plot summary with the word Tori and replaced other words with similar material. Since this person is a new user I would think a warning should be sufficent. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=218667861"