Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/February

Page Protection Updated
I just wanted to let all admins know that the page protection mechanism has been updated, and there are now more options available when you protect a page. I recommend that all admins check out these new options. We might need to update the text of Administrators to account for this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Expiry of protections is pretty cool, but I definitely think we need to warn about using the cascade feature here. I don't see it as having much use at Wikibooks and it could prove a bit dangerous. -within focus 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you pretty much, cascading protection might be useful in some circumstances, but should not be used often. expiry times should likely become the norm, protection against temporary vandalism, protection during flame or edit wars, etc. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

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

Request: page protection

 * Please create and protect Link title. It has been deleted [ ten times]. --Iamunknown 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.--Az1568(Talk) 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Page consolidation
I want to merge this page with WB:VIP, and have a single source where users can get in touch with administrators. We had talked about this issue before and we all got sidetracked on it. I want to do this either today or tomorrow (i actually have alot of time in these next few days), if everybody is interested. I'm going to start a similar project on the staff lounge soon, to reorganize it all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created a basic outline of my plan at User:Whiteknight/Admin. This page consolidates WB:AN, and WB:VIP. It also posts necessary links to relevant policy documents, and other discussion areas relevant to administration. Comments, suggestions, are welcome. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet watch
Panic has been making a bunch of sockpuppets and then using them disruptively. At least some of the IPs he's been using have turned out to be Open Proxies. I'm not entirely sure what to do about it, but we should keep an eye out, and perhaps hardblock the IPs used as well.

German Wikibooks had this sort of problem about a month ago, and pat of their solution was to semi-protect the pages in the book the puppeteer was interested in. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disruptive is a bit of a overstatement, can you provide evidence of any disruptive behavior ? --Cinap(se) 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Panic :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Open proxies are used by people for many reasons. I know it's Wiki policy to block these on sight (although I refuse to perform such tasks) they are a lifeline for people who lives in countries where Wiki sites are blocked or monitored extensively.  Panic shouldn't be creating these accounts if he's going to use them to "disrupt" the project (the above comment is hardly disruptive though) but I know I'd be doing the same thing if I was blocked and there was no possibility of being unblocked. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is hardly the place to argue about the policy on open proxies. Panic shouldn't be creating sockpuppets for any reason, he has been blocked from editing by general community concensus. That block applies to his person, not just to his primary account. All anybody wants from Panic, all anybody has ever wanted, is a little understanding and demonstration of good faith. People became very upset about Panic's actions, and he refuses to even allow for some wrongdoing on his part. Some people asked for an apology, that didn't happen. Now, all we want to hear is "I understand there were problems in the past, I will try to avoid such problems in the future". Instead of even providing such a non-commital statement as that, Panic decided to create these sock puppets to "prove" that he doesn't need to follow the rules, or be civil in order to edit here. Breaking a behavioral norm to prove a point (even if it isn't hard-coded into policy) is disruptive behavior, and is a remarkably bad-faith alternative to a very easy solution. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks_talk:Blocking_Policy will be a better place, but "he" must point something out, there was not community consensus in several instances, "he" didn't particularly approve User:Whiteknight interpretation of consensus and Sock puppets only prove that it can be easily subverted (also not the proper place but had to be said).
 * "His" patience (not "his" good faith) as "he" hasn't yet done anything wrong, may have run out but as "he" sees people referring to "his" situation as "a party" and talking about consecutive or even permanent block, a demonstration that it will not solve the problem was in order. --Cinap(se) 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to spew your soapbox. You've been blocked nonetheless. -within focus 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to ARM ?
What happened to ARM ? The discussion at Talk:ARM/Introduction leads me to suspect there there used to be a page ARM/Introduction, but it has been (accidentally?) deleted. Is it possible for an admin to dig around in the archives and "un-delete" that page? And check the other red links at ARM, and un-delete them as well? (Although I suspect most of *those* red links were never created in the first place). --DavidCary 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did some digging around for you. The original text of the page was a copy+paste copyright violation, and was deleted for legal reasons. We can't undelete the text of that page, because it's illegal. Unfortunately, you would do much better to just start rewriting it from scratch. I'll look around at some of the other pages, and see what I can find. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Whiteknight, for checking it out. Looks like we will rewrite it from scratch. I have no doubt it will end up better than that other non-shareable version. --DavidCary 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a break...
After the sheer insanity of the past few days, I'm feeling a bit fried, and need to take a break for a few days. Since I don't think there will be much support for unblocking Panic this week, I assume my absence won't be a problem as far as the moderation goes.

I have, however, asked a friend and fellow administrator from commons (Cool_Cat) to talk to him in my stead, since I think a truly outside point of view would be helpful here. Aside from being willing to become meat for the grinder, she is also better versed in copyright stuff than I am (most commons admins are... I'm the ignoramus of the lot around there). I'll check in, but for the most part I really need a week afk, because this has become way too much work! I think she's planning to start "from scratch" rather than readin through all the garbage, so please be patient.

Panic has said that he will not use sockpuppets outside of the puppets' user spaces, and I think we should take him at his word on that. In the meantime, I'm switching his block to indefinite (since that's the reality now), but I hope to appeal that block sometime soon. -- SB_Johnny | talk 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And an update on that: Panic is no longer blocked. If this yields no results, I will of course reblock, but I hope that won't be needed. -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic cannot be unblocked based on his most recent actions as well as the community decision to keep him blocked until he completes a resolution process. I have notified Az1568. -within focus 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this has taken such a toll on you, Johnny. I really am. But I have to say that I oppose non-binding mediation as a method to solve this issue at this time. It has gone far beyond that. Whatever the next stage of resolution process it needs to be community sanctioned, fair, thorough and binding. Also, important decisions (like whether to unblock Panic, an action that was previously agreed to by community consensus in a very public forum) should not be made by a few individuals on IRC. There is no easy way out, and particularly this easy way out is destined for failure. One more failed attempt to resolve this issue is the last thing the community needs. I cannot see any resolution that some party or parties would not object to and various parties have already demonstrated their willingness to ignore previous mediation agreements and attempts at mediation. -- xixtas talk 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Since I do not want to criticize and not offer alternatives, I would suggest:
 * using binding arbitration instead.
 * using the existing proposed arbitration process in a trial run.
 * Cool Cat be asked to be an arbitrator.
 * Others be asked to join as arbitrators. A few people I can think of who are either uninvolved or only peripherally involved are Derbeth, Herby, Robin, Iamunknown, myself and Az1568.

As for myself, I would be willing to be one of several arbitrators if people would have me. I realize that some would think I've been too involved to arbitrate this but I believe I can be fair. My interest has always been in doing the right thing. -- xixtas talk 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block of User:Panic2k4
Sorry it's come to this, but Panic is violating the WB:CIVIL policy on too many fronts now, and it's time to call an end to it. The three blocks I imposed on him were for "trolling", by which I mean trying to get someone involved in an argument with him rather than being productive (such as contributing to Wikibooks), having a conversation with someone else, or just trying to avoid the person doing the trolling.

This has gone over the top this past week, Examples include:
 * Using sockpuppet accounts without identifying them as such (and of course using them to go around a block).
 * Naming sockpuppet accounts for the purpose of making personal attacks (User:NoJonny, User:WithoutFocus, User:FallenKnight)
 * Composing a fictional story on his talk page which clearly implies that I am an evil person who gets his kicks out of oppressing innocent people
 * Making legal threats against me

Until today, I was offering to moderate with Panic in the hopes that he might agree to get along, but I'm not willing to do that now. Unless someone else wants to try (which I don't recommend), I think he should be permanently blocked. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the feeling around here and Panic's recent actions which definitely overstep being civil I am willing to block Panic very soon. I would be interested in hearing what people think should be an appropriate length for such a ban.

(Xania had asked for opinions on IRC, and recorded the responses below. I was there, and he is reporting correctly.-- SB_Johnny | talk
 * user:Xania - 1 month ban
 * User:SBJohnny - indefinite ban (to be unblocked if Panic agrees to change and addresses the previous problems)
 * User:Darklama - indefinite ban until such time as there is community consensus is unblock him and he has addressed all previous problems.
 * User:Az1568 - indefinitie ban (to be unblocked if Panic agrees to change and addresses the previous problems)
 * User:Withinfocus - Infinite, but we can call it indefinite if we want. This is much more than a six-month issue now. Panic adds little to no value to the community here anymore and I'd say I would find him impossible to work with here. Maybe in a long time he can try talking to the community again.
 * User:xixtas - I never agreed that Panic should be unblocked. His block should resume until he fulfills the stipulations the community has set for him. But not necessarily for the reasons described above.

I have now blocked Panic indefintely. Please can someone check that the block was made correctly as I usually mess up somehow. Panic's block can be reveresed at any time if he changes his ways, agrees to work with others and there is community approval. --Xania talk 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of Panic's recent comments in response to questions posed by Whiteknight, I would support the unblocking of Panic once again. I'd like to hear what other Wikibooks users and administrators think about this. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How many rounds does this need to go? If you're going to take action on something then stick with it. His most recent block occurred two days ago and was set to infinite. People need to take a break and stop scrambling for new solution after new solution. I don't support an unblock whatsoever and don't think this issue should even be discussed for at least two weeks to a month. The more switch toggling that happens the less useful the block tool becomes and with things like this it has little worth. This is not a game. Leave it be for a little while until something new and substantial actually happens. In this short a time period and by what I've seen Panic say, not much has happened and there's no reason to change the block. -within focus 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic's recent comments have certainly been a good (and surprising) change in attitude, and I do agree that there is progress being made. However, I agree with Matt that the block tool is not a toy, nor something to be taken lightly. People need to step back and cool off from the issue because it is through rash decisions that mistakes are made. I don't necessarily think however that a month needs to go by before we start making changes (sorry withinfocus).
 * Give it a week, and if everybody is cool and calm by then, we can work to get the block lifted. A week of everybody being nice and good-natured will be a good sign that the problems are all solved and that we can get back to business as usual. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to wait... Panic's current attitude is indeed promising, but has he acknowledged what it is about his behavior that has cause harm in the past? How can he avoid that behavior if he's either unaware of it or thinks there's nothing wrong with it? While I certainly support as speedy a resolution as possible, the issue needing to be resolved is not the block, but the issues that brought the block about. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Administration Rights? Transwikis...
Among other things, I am interested in developing Introduction to Psychology. It seems the best way to do that would be to integrate a variety of articles from Wikipedia, at least to start.

How is it that I can gain rights to Transwiki items from Wikipedia? Do I need admin rights or could I simply be granted just that privilege? I don't believe I am already able to transwiki with my privileges as they stand. I was looking on the request for administartor rights page and the administrator page and did not see any references to transwiking. I also looked at Transwiki and pages to be transwikied.

So if the community trusts me, for the sake of efficiency I would like to be granted rights to transwiki pages from Wikipedia. If I need to request admin rights, then I will do that, but I thought I would check it out here first. Thanks. --Remi 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the pages are coming from wikipedia, we have a special tool called "Import", that allows us to bring pages from wikipedia to wikibooks, while preserving the page history. Only administrators have the ability to use import, however.
 * Towards the top of this page there is a heading "Requests for Import", and you can list the pages you want to bring over, and the admins here will take care of it for you. If you are frustrated by how slow we do it, you can nominate yourself for adminship at WB:RFA. Good luck with your project! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Better yet, use WB:RFI to make the request... a couple of us keep a close eye on it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the rational for making Import an administrator privilege? Is there a danger in allowing non-admins to do this? -- Jim Thomas 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, to be honest with you, it's a software thing. Ask the developers why they wanted it this way. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are some bandwidth issues where the developers are concerned that if too many non-admins start to pull pages between projects, that the whole server farm could collapse. While an individual admin might experiment a few times, they quickly tire of the experimentation and only do requests or page imports where there is a geunine need.  It does suck up quite a bit of bandwidth in the server farm in order to do a real page import.  In addition, the tool was experimental and tempermental, and the developers didn't think that the page import tool was "ready for prime time".  In fact, I didn't get to use it at all until Wikiversity finally was approved and the number of pages that needed to be imported was so large that the developers felt that Wikiversity was a good pilot project to see how it would affect the current server configuration.  --Rob Horning 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The tool actually still is quite tempermental, and is prone to hicupping half-way through an import. One advantage of having the other admin tools handy is so that you can delete the half-imported pages before trying again (though I've learned through experience to check #wikimedia-tech on irc before retrying... if they're talking about problems with squids (or any gastropods for that matter), don't bother trying again for a while). -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Strange thing with import: Was just transwikiing Transwiki:Gypsy moth, and got the "wikimedia is having problems" page. I went to the page to see how much of the history had been brought over, and it was only up to October '06. I then reloaded that page and it was up to November. Reloaded a third time and the entire history was there. Just another thing to keep an eye on, I guess :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Integrating Transwikis
If I had two or more articles transwikied here from Wikipedia that need to be integrated together for a chapter, how would I go about doing that properly? Thanks. --Remi 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I'd like to know the proper way to integrate transwikied pages into an existing Wikibook chapter.  I ended up moving a transwikied page, chopping it down to the essentials that I needed, and transcluding it into my chapter.  I anticipate the future need to split a transwikied page into multiple parts, but have no idea how to cobble that together. I'm coming to the opinion that it would be a lot easier to just paste the history into the talk page. The current import approach appears to assume that you are using a Wikipedia article as a starting point rather than as a source of additional information. -- Jim Thomas 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Image:Snowcub.jpg (tagged November 21)
 * Image:Manulkitten.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Ocelotkitten.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Cheetahcub.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Cloudcub.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Tigercub.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Servalkitten.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Caracalkitten.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Jaguarcub.jpg (tagged January 10)
 * Image:Panthers.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:Swiftcheetah.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:Cloudedleopard.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:Manul.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:Sandcat.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:Rustyspottedcat.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * Image:European wild cat.jpg (tagged January 14)
 * 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)

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 to read the instructions. If one is created, I will definitely add it to my watchlist. --Iamunknown 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Standard Meta Templates
Would it be possible to have a update made to the 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. // Fra nkB 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)