Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Template:Unblock reviewed

It's hard to believe it's over two years since I created {{unblock reviewed}}. I'm glad it seems to be useful. I have a suggestion, and I'm not sure whether it would be best in that template or a new one.

There exists a class of blocks where the user requests unblock, and we then call the blocking admin (who is most familiar with the case). In such cases, and to keep the unblock category clear (and thus avoid wasting people's time) I would suggest we should perhaps have a template called "unblock pending" or some such, which will put these requests in a sub-category until the blocking admin has had a chance to review.

Such cases are generally the non-obvious ones: not blatant vandalism, but blocks for patterns of disruption that require knowledge of the history, which the blocking admin presumably has. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes all sorts of sense. // roux   20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea, really. Would be very very useful. — Aitias // discussion 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good (er... Is there an opt out situation re "assumed knowledge of blocking admin?") LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point (slap me, slap me, bad man, not Dec 26 yet) . Do you mean where the admin has not left a note on the talk page saying the conditions under which they would support unblock? Incidentally, I think a statement of that nature is a great idea for long blocks, in case one is on Wikibreak or some such when the appeal comes. Nothing wrong with letting the user know the realities, and if the unblock condition is the heat death of the universe then we should say so right up front. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... not really. More like, "when blocking admin knew it was the right thing to do when reported, but after all this time - perhaps days, maybe hours - is a little foggy on the reasons why..." sort of thing. Y'know, past the hot white heat of the present situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this should be triggered manually by a reviewing administrator, such as by adding a parameter like "needscomment=1" to the {{unblock}} template. That should leave the unblock request open, assign the talk page to a subcategory of Category:Requests for unblock and add text to the effect of "the blocking admin has been notified of this request at xx:xx UTC" to the {{unblock}} template. The actual notification could be done by bot, perhaps by DavidWSBot (talk · contribs), who already does block notification.  Sandstein  08:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the reviewing admin should be the one to leave a message - he can, in addition to notifying the blocking admin, leave a personal opinion (i.e "a block of six months seems to be too much for a single [link_to_diff personal attack] by the anon" - a real case I handled, where I found out some useful information by contacting the blocking admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Created

I have created Template:Unblock on hold and Category:Unblock on hold. — Aitias // discussion 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tested everything, works well. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to NOT be substed - otherwise, it's a painful amount of wiki-gibberish to figure out what to replace with the decision template. Just like the unblock template, this one needs to be left in place as is until someone replaces it with unblock reviewed. --B (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed that. :) — Aitias // discussion 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of old IP talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About 45 minutes ago I left a message on the talk page of MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regarding his mass deletion of IP talk pages (is that supported by policy?). Over the next half-hour, I left him two more messages ([1], [2]), however none have elicited any response. In the meantime, he has deleted approximately 300 more IP talk pages at a rate of 5 - 7 per minute. Since past experience with MZMcBride has shown him to be a very diligent and responsive admin, I am concerned that he may not be in full control over his account (either due to some run-away script or the account being hijacked). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Christmas Day. One could safely assume that he's not watching his talkpage minute by minute. Give it some time... I don't see any reason for this to be here, given that you have contacted him on his talkpage. // roux   18:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That is actually part of my point. I am not aware of any admins that would ignore the orange "you have new talk page messages" bar for over an hour all the while continuing to delete pages by the hundreds. If these sorts of deletions are not supported by policy (and I do not pretend to know either way ... hence my query on his talk page), then we are going to have an awful mess to clean up since he has deleted over 4000 IP talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehh.. I dunno. There are times when I (not an admin, obviously) ignore the New Messages thing because I'll deal with it later. I think it's fair to assume others do the same. Note I'm not commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the deletions. // roux   18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The point is correct though, I never heard of mass-deletion of IP talk pages being housekeeping. He responded at User talk:MZMcBride#Mass deletion of talk pages though, but I fail to see why this is done by him. It looks like a standard task for a bot to me... Regards SoWhy 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride continues to delete IP talk pages despite users (myself included) voicing their concern over those deletions. That's rather inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless the IP is static (such as a school or corporate firewall) there is very little point in maintaining a history of warnings when the offender moved on to another IP ages ago. Although I generally only blank the page ("archive to history") I do not see anything broadly harmful in deletion. Thatcher 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that with people voicing concerns over this, it is rather inappropriate for the bot to be continuing. Bots are not supposed to be run without permission. If people are unhappy with the idea of a bot deleting old talk pages, it should not be running. What do we do now? Majorly talk 19:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If he does not respond, maybe it will be needed to block him until he responds? SoWhy 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is little harm in deleting the IP pages, I agree, but then again, what do we gain from deleting them? It seems rather pointless to me. Blanking seems like the more sensible option, if one wants to empty a rather crowded talk page. Anyhow, this is besides the point. No admin should use a bot (unauthorized or not) without responding to user's concerns. This is definitely not the first time this has happened with MZMcBride, either. --Conti|✉ 19:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have left this comment at MZMcBride's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite has blocked MZMcBride for 12 hours. I find this appropriate, all things considered. Majorly talk 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he left his bot running by accident - no big deal. As soon as he responds someone can unblock him, we just need to know he's in control of his actions. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate this noticeboard. Anyway, I've responded to several posts on my talk page over the past few days about these deletions. :-) (That's mostly in reply to Conti.) I think everything else is pretty clear. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please point those of us who are unfamiliar with this practice toward the policy or guideline that prescribes these deletions as being standard housekeeping? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure anyone's bothered to write it down yet. (Much like CAT:TEMP, I suppose....) Is there a particular issue you have? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While blanking of IP pages is fine, deleting seems problematic as non-admins will be blind to any past warnings an IP has received. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it. Also, without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see? There's also the issue of the new messages bar and a quite confusing diff... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see" - well, then what's the harm with just leaving the pages intact? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a nice experience to come to Wikipedia and be accused of something like: "Racism is not amusing. Kindly refrain from posting it, or you may be blocked." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it Just curious as to how you are determining the length of the DHCP lease? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? And if so, how? (Short answer: I'm not looking at DHCP records at all.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is a long-term abuser, deleting the talk page deletes the history. Some ISPs assign their IP addresses with long-term reservations, 6 months, longer or perhaps even permanently. It'll still be same person behind the address. Will we be able to determine a long-term abuser if we (non-admins) can't see the history? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How many long-term abusers have 0 blocks and 0 edits within the past year? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to this practice as long as we only employ it for "old" talk pages and then do it consistently, this cannot exactly be called "standard housekeeping" if no one has ever bothered to write it down. Without some form of standardization here, I could see new but highly enthusiastic admins running with this idea and deleting month old talk pages, which I am sure we would all agree hinders instead of helps the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. With things like CAT:TEMP, we wrote down the instructions on the category description page. With IPs, is there a similar place? Perhaps a project-space page somewhere? Wikipedia:User page, perhaps (as that covers user talk pages as well)? That seems pretty reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Started a conversation there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bluntly, I for one consider this to be worrying enough. — Aitias // discussion 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Scripts are far, far more accurate than any human could ever be... (Addendum: I suppose it would also be prudent to mention RSI here too. As much as I enjoy this project, I'm not going to hurt myself for it. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of deletion over blanking. Deletion ensures that only admins can see what has happened in the past, and most of the people who work against vandalism aren't admins. It would be useful for them to be able to click on the history and see patterns of abuse, if any, which will inform whether they will warn or get an admin involved to investigate whether e.g. it is a school IP and needs a longterm block. // roux   20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, you're browsing Wikipedia, clicking around and suddenly you have a new messages bar. You click "last change" and this is what you see. How is that fair to our readers / potential editors? I know if I weren't familiar with Wikipedia, that would be incredibly confusing. Look at the right-hand column.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at, but if you just had your bot blank the pages with either an edit summary or a note on the page saying something like "Everything older than X has been removed, as this is the talkpage of a dynamic IP" there should be no issues I think. And maintains transparency for non-admins. I just don't see why deletion is necessary. Or, even, the bot could make a double edit; one to blank, one substing {{null}} into the page. Then the IP would see nothing untoward in the diff. // roux   20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems rather silly given the dynamic nature of editing anonymously (and wasteful with all of the extra revisions). The German Wikipedia deletes these pages; and without any edits in the past year, any talk page activity, no blocks, etc., I just don't see the need for them to stay around indefinitely. And then of course there's the issue of blue links leading to blank pages which drives me mad. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You're making a common error. Wikis are not filesystems. Deletion does not free space, nor does it reduce the size of the database. Deletion of a page actually increases the database size. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What? Dynamic whatsit? A fair bit of the planet would still have no idea what you are talking about, for sure. Even more confused, on top of seeing something about how they've been abusing the site, are racist, an edit warrior, "sockpuppet", strangle puppies, etc. I can see plenty of benefit to deleting these over blanking them, in 99% of cases. SQL^{Query me!} 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well.. I dunno. I just don't see why we should be reducing transparency for non-admins. There's a general permanent backlog of things that need admin attention, and I'm not sure that adding "Can you please look at the deleted history of this talkpage for problems?" is something we need to be adding to that list. No great harm is caused, but no great benefit is gained, by deleting instead of blanking. Alternatively, couldn't ClueBot (or clone) be configured to visit IP talkpages and archive after X period of time? // roux   21:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you may be forgetting that any contributions by an IP are still completely visible to any user... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That just puts the onus on people looking to comb through the IP's contribs and figure out what they may or may not have been warned for in the past. Leaving the page undeleted lets non-admins skim through edit summaries looking for things like 'warning' and 'monthname year'. Again, what I'm saying is about transparency to non-admins; why make it more difficult to suss out patterns of abuse? // roux   21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides that: I don't think MZMcBride's deletions can be justified here at all (cf. WP:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages). There is no reason why this policy can't apply for IP talk pages as well. — Aitias // discussion 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users and registered users are treated (sometimes very) differently in the software and in our social customs. I don't see the point you're trying to make. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)User talk pages are normally not deleted because they have content that might be relevant at some time in the future, such as a discussion or sockpuppet templates (though I question the usefulness of putting a sock template on an IP talk page). In this case, any content is going to be completely irrelevant. For example, my current IP address is 71.227.54.220, one address in a block of 16,000 dynamic-ish IPs used by Comcast in Michigan. It was used for vandalism in 2006, then again nearly a year later in 2007, then a few months later, it reverted some vandalism. In the time between the first instance of vandalism and now, its probably been reassigned at least 3 times. Any message on it or in the page history (how many vandal patrollers seriously check the page history for warning?) is going to be completely irrelevant after each reassignment. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZM deleting IPs which have had no posts or blocks or contribs for a year seems innocuous and perhaps beneficial. Thre should be some consensus that 1 year is the correct time, so someone does not run around deleting IP warnings from 1 month or 1 week ago. Does deleting the talk page remove the block log? I look at the block history to decide how long of a block to give an IP. Edison (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't delete the page if the IP has ever been blocked. :-) But to answer your question specifically, the block log (and user contributions) remain visible and fully intact regardless of whether the IP has a talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering [3] implies that the issue was not clear-cut last week, and is likely not clear-cut now. MfD seems quite capable of dealing with problem pages, and has not been overwhelmed with requests to delete the (thousands?) of pages unilaterally deleted. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork for the sake of paperwork? ;-) Seems a bit antithetical to our principles of (trying!) to avoid bureaucracy. And I think quite a few more people have commented here than that Village_pump thread (understandably, really). --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep talkpages around, especially for IPs, where vandalism might be spread out over a period of months or years. We routinely block school IPs for a year at a time, so it would cause a hardship on other admins if the entire page, including the {{SharedIPEDU}} template, were deleted for inactivity. --Elonka 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Err.. you seem to be missing a key point or two. :-) If the page has any templates, it is skipped. If the IP has ever been blocked, it is skipped. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From time to time I get a message from an irate anon giving me grief because I have left a vandalism warning when he has never edited WP before sample 1 sample 2. It usually turns out that the warning was left in another age for another person. So, I can see some utility in clearing IP talk pages, and I'm fairly sure there used to be a bot that did it. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think blanking the page can be equally confusing and irritating to an anonymous user, if not more so. Did you see my diff above about this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think an anon who is knowledgeable enough to look at a diff is knowledgeable enough to know that the earlier message was aimed at a prior user of the page. I agree that we ought to have a policy for clearing out old IP talk pages (I actually just finished blanking a batch of about 20,000). I'd say a one-year-old warning should be blanked, and anything over two years should be deleted - even if the IP has been blocked, or was identified as a school IP or the like. Any school-assigned IP address from which no edits have come in over two years is likely inaccessible to students anyway. bd2412 T 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? A bright orange bar with two bright blue links to click isn't too difficult for most of our anons. ;-) But I think what you're saying makes sense, though I do see a glitch or two. (For example blanking the pages essentially resets any clock...) Discussion of this should probably continue at WT:UP, though. I've started a thread there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While many of MZM's arguments are sensible, I have not been convinced that deleting these pages is preferable over full transparency for all users. Whether messages are 1 day old or 1 year old, whether an IP has been used yesterday or last year, history of use and interactions should not be purged. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These aren't "interactions." In 99.9% of cases they're template warnings that probably received no response, or vandalism in response. They were left for a person who is by now using a different IP. Please tell me what possible use the content of User talk:71.227.54.220 is, keeping in mind that that IP has probably been reassigned to different people at least 4 times since 2006? Mr.Z-man 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the content of that page has little utility, which is why I (and others, I believe) support blanking the page in such cases. But I strongly feel we should strive to keep the historical record of all messages left for all users (exceptions for privacy violations, etc). To me, the argument that "because they are old and reassigned" might be true, but is not sufficient to merit purging all history. Transparency and openness should be paramount. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? There is no use for these pages. What's the point of useless transparency? MZMcBride has pointed out several small, yet real benefits to deletion here and/or on Wikipedia talk:User page with regard to making maintenance easier. This is like making the foundation employees post what they had for lunch on their userpages. Its transparency, but its information that no one's going to use. This though is just template warnings, its not even interesting. You keep talking about "interactions" and "messages" like there's conversations or something. Its just the standard vandalism warnings repeated on thousands of talk pages with no incoming links. You seem to agree that the content will never have any use. If we have an article that's completely incorrect (its attributing vandalism to the wrong person after reassignment), we don't blank it, we delete it. Usefulness and reasoning based on logic and cost-benefit analysis should be paramount, not ideals for the sake of having an ideal. Mr.Z-man 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ARGH... I hate forum shopping... I don't mind this if it were to inform this page that a discussion is ongoing elsewhere: hereand here --- Plus Mz's talk page. I think we need to consolodate these three conversations into one area an hash out specifics for incorporating this into G6 or a new criteria.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deep sock drawer

Posted above at #Is what I did appropriate? and described in short at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#Request for unblock of a 2-year IP block, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Palm Tree Tommy, and several accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Man with a tan (user whose name the RFCU is for is unrelated), there have been a slew of accounts created by Hamish Ross (or someone simply easily linked to that name) were created in an approximately 2 hour period on a day that I will gladly give out if necessary. Lately, a few of these accounts decided to show up again and harass some users, and my blocks of these accounts made me one of his new targets. I've been bugging checkusers to try and shut down this idiot (Sam Korn, FT2, and Coren have all helped out) and I've got a list of approximately 400 accounts created in this range that have no edits (Hamish Ross seems to like creating several accounts in a short period and let them be unused for a year). When new accounts showed up, they all came from the list that I initially compiled.

As I previously stated, these accounts have zero (0) edits. The user's most recent sock posted this and this account is on the list I have. What I am looking to do is put this list through a script to indefinitely block these accounts with a message along the lines of "This account has been blocked to prevent abuse from a user who has created possibly dozens of accounts in a specific time period. If you wish to edit, please use {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page, and someone will get to you as soon as possible."

I'm aware that this is extremely controversial, which is why I am proposing it here, first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, as you note, you’re going to be blocking innocent accounts that aren’t socks. There’s not simply a chance of this, it will happen. I don’t like the idea of that one bit. People create accounts to change their settings and don’t edit for years, then they might decide one day to make an edit - if they find themselves blocked then they’ll be unimpressed to say the least. We should never block accounts unless they are abusive and we have evidence to show that they are. Here, the only evidence is a 90 minute time frame – that’s going to pull in too many innocent accounts as well. Just blocking the socks as they appear is the best way to go here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While that is what we are doing now, another issue (that I forgot to mention) is that this individual has solely been editing from IP addresses that belong to the National Health Service, which seems to be something that may affect more innocent users. I'm very aware that innocent users may be affected, but I do not know the probability that users who registered in 2007 and never edited from them will remember that they made an account (the 30 day log out thing seems to affect anyone remaining logged in indefinitely) or remember the password. This sock master seems to be proving this wrong. A good percentage of this user's accounts come from this single time period. There seems to be a low cost/benefit ratio if innocent users who have never editted get blocked, which is why I worded the block message I plan on using the way I did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably support a move to do this for the 2007 accounts, but not for anything more recent. However, one thing I'm curious about... how would a helpful admin know how to respond to an unblock request? --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing more recent (mostly because a lot of the NHS's IPs have been blocked as a result of this user's anonymous edits). And for unblock requests, I would take a look at what has happened at #Is what I did appropriate?.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And what if the unblock request has no self-condemning information? The admin unblocks, presumably. Not sure what we've gained. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This user, as far as I can tell, has no use to edit constructively (if he did, then my suggestion would not have occured).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper socks from 2007 with zero contributions? Yup, block them indefinite. Legit accounts will have either forgotten the password or even their existence, or have an outside possibility of them created as anti-impersonation accounts (so a block will actually be effective in that situation). I do not see blocking these particular will have such collateral damage potential to count against the likelihood of reducing future disruption. Should there be consensus for blocking I would be prepared to work through a list, using the agreed wording. Other more recent accounts can be tackled either as they pass 1 year since creation, or if others of that vintage start being activated for vandalism/block evasion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Front of House Gary Howard is one of the socks who is on the list of accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support block of all such accounts with 0 edits, subject that any unblock will require a checkuser to confirm it's not working from Hamish Ross's IP address. Additionally, block them with autoblock disabled, so that there won't be any collateral damage from any accounts which are used merely for watchlisting pages and using personalized settings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh there'd better be some collateral damage!!! Dame Sue Napier (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested block on above user. — neuro^(talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not sure how to tag but it's blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. — neuro^(talk) 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsupport for the blocking of newly created accounts unless checkuser supports that they are socks. I do not like collateral damage. Due to a bug in the software, I was blocked yesterday while logged in, and I was disappointed. Imagine the feeling for a new user who is legit but never edited logged in. They log in and they get the block message? Wait for the disruption, then block. We are not on a hunt here. And we are not at a game. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  This is standard WP:DUCK. It is utterly blatant. — neuro^(talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  It's not standard DUCK - in one 10 minute period about a year ago (same time period which we're talking about, although the specific 10 minutes have nothing to do with the 2 hours), there were 18 accounts created with currently 0 edits. Assuming that all times of day are equally represented in creation of accounts which will never be used, this would mean somewhere around 216 innocent accounts out of 400. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There are no newly created accounts at all. They are all older than one year old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, I completely misunderstood Nonvocalscream. I thought he was in opposition to the blocking of socks reiterating the message on this page. — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to recent sockpuppets, I have extended the range I searched in an additional hour and now have 200 more unused accounts, two of which I've already blocked due to a match with this user's other account names (there are very little similarities, but those that do exist I've picked up on). This now brings the count to a little over 600 accounts made in a 150 minute period over a year ago. These accounts still have zero edits to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's better to block 270 innocent accounts which will probably never be used to edit, than to leave 330 likely sockpuppets unblocked. (The number 270 comes from the 18 accounts per 10 minutes above). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Block them all. Year-old accounts with no contributions are very unlikely indeed to suddenly start editing productively. In fact, I would be tempted to suggest an adminbot that goes through old accounts and blocks those more than, say, six months old with zero contributions automatically (with autoblock disabled, of course). We would always add a note on the user creation page to say that this will be the case. Black Kite 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense, your sleuthing, why are we on this witchhunt? There is no secret conspiracy for "secret" dormat sleeper socks. If any wake up, block them then. Anyone remember User:!!? This is reminiscent. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  You mean that where at least a few dozen accounts that all come from this range, with more showing up as this user decides to take them out to play, they should not be blocked? These accounts have never edited. This is why I've constructed a block message as neutral as possible and one that says "Hey, you can edit if you want to. Just tell us." and at that point, we can tell if we're working with a sockpuppet or not. I can tell you that the two accounts that have posted in this thread come from the 600 or so that I acquired. And as Od Mishehu says, the cost-to-benefit ratio is fairly low if there is consensus for me to go through with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  User:!! was active, and had edits misinterpreted - these accounts have never been active. Different situation entirely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  In the following context: We have found a new and interesting way to block accounts that have not done anything disruptive on the premise that they might.  !! was selected using a new and interesting way, on the premise that s/he was a sleeping sock. That is the context I used to compare and contrast. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between an arbitrary never-active user, and sych an account which was created in a 2 1/2 hour period when several known socks of a single user were. I strongly oppose blocking the first, and strongly support blocking the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And the second is exactly what I am proposing. I'm not saying "I'm going to pick this arbitrary time period, get every account that never edited, and block them all." I have a known range of accounts created, and have taken a list of them that haven't edited, ones that Hamish Ross has, and proposing that I block them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  NonvocalScream, may I suggest that if the recent spate of SPA/socks do come from this range that we block now - and then continue the discussion on whether we should stop disruption from potential sleepers. Really, if a legitimate account has been unused for such a long time then it is extremely likely it will never be activited - they will have created new accounts by now. In fact, as you seem to be the only voice against it I feel that we should declare consensus, recognising your objections, and get on with cleaning out this drawer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think you could wait a couple of days. See nick's comment below. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I blocked a suspected HR sock myself a few days ago. Under these conditions there's a low risk that we will alienate good-faith contributors, and it seems worthwhile to eliminate these as a source of annoyance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Any risk to a new contributor is too great. Just wait for disruption. I doubt we are going to be overthrown by sleepsocks. They are not going to infest and destroy everything good about Wikipedia. Just leave them be... incidentally, has checkuser assistance been requested here? Perhaps a check can be run on a handful to see if there is technical evidence that they were all created by the same system? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too old for checkuser. Any with recent edits can be checked (and probably was), and any making a reasonable looking unblock request can, but the others can't be checked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Last time I checked the public site code SVN, checkuser data is maintained for 90 days. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  These accounts are 420 days old. These accounts were created in November 2007 and in a few hours it will be January 2009.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And even then, how would accounts created over a year ago be "new contributors"? In all reality, the only person who has seemed to remember that they had these ancient accounts is Hamish Ross. And his "claims" of having thousands of accounts would very well be quelled once we get rid of a hundred or so based on what he has done so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And this by definition, we are sleuthing for the hidden thousands of accounts, so we can quell them. I don't see a pre-emptive battle strike as a high priorty, in fact, I see collateral damage as an avoidable outcome. We ought not be doing this thing based on a perceived threat, instead wait for disruption. I encourage checkuser participation into this discussion as well. Perhaps the tool can help here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Does cost of the users in this 600 who might begin editing again being blocked outweigh the benefit of blocking this user's sockpuppets, of which there are already several selectively blocked in the range? I don't think so. It is a very small probability that the users, if they would be innocent, would be blocked and then decide that they come back. It's a higher probability that Hamish Ross has more accounts in this 2.5 hour range of which I've already narrowed the field down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too risky. Why mess with it? Just block them if they disrupt. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Because I may have found them before they disrupt. Your arguments aren't really saying much here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to query the db to see how many dormant accounts (say dormant for 1 year or more) begin editing (and don't end up blocked). It seems to me that we're shooting in the dark and some information would help in making an informed judgement on whether or not we should be blocking potential socks. Nick (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to check all such accounts which were created since 22:16 on September 7, 2005 - the earliest the user creation log goes. However, deleted edits are a complication here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking the dormant accounts per Ryūlóng and Black Kite. In other areas, we make the tradeoff that we can't stop abuse without inconveniencing some innocent users. This happens with range blocks, where the innocent users will have to make a request to get around the block. Since the case proposed by Ryūlóng has been carefully studied, I think the risk of inconvenience is low enough to be worth taking. In fact, the number of legitimate users who will be inconvenienced is quite likely to be zero. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be running the script (which is freely available in my monobook.js) sometime tomorrow, during which I will be blocking the now ~600 accounts that have 0 edits among which several sockpuppets were created by this sockmaster.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ignorant question Which Checkuser is doing all these checks to confirm this? rootology (C)(T) 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  The accounts are too old to be linked to any existing accounts, although I suppose it might be ascertained that they were created from the same range/isp. I have no idea what form of information can be retrieved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Too much time has passed. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Safe to say, I'm currently blocking these accounts that were listed under this section by the banned sockpuppeteer.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User Block Templates

I am wondering what the policy is on USING them. There is a revert war going on at User:Betacommand's page over his indef block template, is it appropriate to keep his userpage intact, though he is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia? I was looking for some sort of policy/consensus discussion about the issue. If it's not required, why do the templates exist? Then clearly the block log is the only useful item in that situation.

Could I get a non-biased opinion please? Neuro√Logic 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect the userpage in the condition you find it for edit warring, and await outcome from community dicussion or RFAR (if it happens) to determine the template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares is my honest opinion - It's such a minor deal that this edit war is rather silly. Just redirect it to his talk page if anyone else continues it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan, that solution also works. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't trying to make mountains out of mole hills, I promise. I was just wondering why I got such a scathing response from both an admin and the user on IRC. I wasn't attempting to troll, or make the situation worse, but...Blocking isn't supposed to intended you got "Pwnt" by "Administrative Justice" so I don't understand the strong feelings, maybe it's just me? Either way, I agree with the redirect to his talk page, and the discussions on it. Neuro√Logic 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the indef block template still carry the temporary userpage category? Don't think Betacommand's page should ever be in that particular category, so maybe that was the impetus for the edit war? Avruch ^T 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside

Whoever created User:Betacommand is stupid, throw rocks at him! is obviously an established user. If it weren't fishing, I'd be asking for a CU to be run and for the perpetrator to be severely chastised in public for being such a WP:DICK. It's not okay, it's not appropriate, and it's just taunting a user who has been blocked. I think it's relatively fair to assume, whoever you are, that you're watching this page. So I have two messages for you: the first is to grow up, the second is about sex and travel. // roux   18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect it isn't a user in good standing, rather a troll who's had dealing with us in the past and still lurks here trying to find areas to disrupt. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}

More likely a user who specifically had problems with Betacommand. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sloe eyes

Why does this topic redirect to Prunus Spinosa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faucon24 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The plant is also known as the "sloe" and its color is the origin of the phrase "sloe eyes." If you want to write an article about the phrase, you could give it a whirl. Avruch ^T 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that a whole article is needed. The "Cultivation and uses" section defines the term "sloe eyed" and gives its origin, and there's not a whole lot more to say about it. --Masamage ♫ 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File Name Uploading Conflict

It has been some time since I have uploaded an image to this site. Since that time, it seems that people have changed things aroung a bit. I am interested in keeping the formatting of unit emblems in the Air National Guard the same as I have uploaded them before. A quick glance at any modern Air Force Unit page will show that the names of the emblems follow a kind of standardized order. I'd like to upload a file to the site that is named AFG-080109-029. Keeping the name makes it easier to find what one is looking for on the site. It also doesn't significantly mess up what the government did. I would like to keep this system in place and I know that I have more files to upload, that begin with the AFG-080109-0 designator. In keeping with a spirit of not having to go against what I have done before and to keep with the style of others, I would thus like to have permission to continue loading unit emblems with this name style kept the same. I would also like to thank the one who responds to me beforehand for any help that they might bring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. Honestly I don't like those filenames as they're really non-descriptive. e.g., File:AFG-080109-092.jpg might be better called "192nd Airlift Squadron emblem.jpg" with the string "AFG-080109-092" in the summary; you'd still be able to locate the file by that string via searching. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically I there is a sort of way that they are uploaded, and this is more like a list fashion. I'm trying to keep their names as close to the others that were uploaded before the policy change. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably hitting the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (and rightly so in my opinion). Please use descriptive file names. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation

Would an uninvolved administrator please check Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where the article's title is being discussed. Things seem to be going in circles and getting disruptive. I encouraged one editor to start an RFC, which seems to have helped establish a consensus, but now there are multiple threads being started and an allegation has been made that proponents of a fringe view may be attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way.[4] A community article probation is in effect. Perhaps it is time to issue warnings about the possibility of topic bans. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you think "that proponents of a fringe view" are "attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way"?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm writing here to request input on a form letter for reporting possible threats of violence to law enforcement organizations, which can be found at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. I'm hoping to make the page more like what's found at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, at which point I'm guessing it should be moved out to the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks in advance for your help! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Review Board

Consensus having been reached on the core of the WP:Review Board (with the scope limited to auditing CU and OS use only), discussion should proceed to making this policy once the last details have been hammered out:

• Method of selecting candidates for the board;
• Exact name; and
• Procedural details.

Wide community participation is encouraged on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, another level of bureaucracy? Why do we need it? Why are we imposing more insults and obstacles to the effective fulfilling of the duties expected of our admins, CU's and so on? this effectively says to all the malcontents 'here's another layer of appeals to force others to jump through while you crap up Wikipedia, enjoy it'. As an editor, I thoroughly oppose this notion. ThuranX (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty uninformed comment. At present the only people who watch over CU and OS are other CU's and OS's. That results in the almost inevitable case where the people 'supposed' to oversee their friends are less willing to do so thoroughly AND if responsibility is not noted, everyone will assume that everyone else is watching. This is hardly a level of "bureaucracy" that any normal admin or non-admin will come into contact with. I can't understand this comment of yours. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the idea that we are now creating another level of appeals which will slow down the process of eliminating vandals is a problem. Can't make it clearer than that. ThuranX (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You were perfectly clear, I just think that you might be missing the point. This isn't really an appeals process for regular conflicts or infractions. I's there to make sure that some oversight exists for a group of about 20-40 individuals who carry a considerable amount of trust and power on en-wiki. that's all. As such I can't understand the general complaint. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what ArbCom is for, is it not? I would agree with ThuranX that this is needless bureaucracy. Five "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia overseeing the 20-40 "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia is not going to solve much of anything, imo. However, if people wish to tie themselves up in red tape, so be it. I'll be writing articles. Resolute 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can't be used for this as most arbitrators are also CheckUsers and/or have the Oversight permission. It is indeed an issue of trust: it is hard to trust 40 people, and a bit easier to trust five. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say that the opposite was true, to be honest; it is only necessary to trust the aggregate, not all the individuals, so it is easier to find a majority you trust among forty than among five. But I still fail to see how this improves on the existing arrangements. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, you're describing an ArbCom overthrow failsafe system, then. Picking 5 people not trusted to have high privileges to be in charge of eliminating those who go through a lengthy process to become Arbs, CUs, and OSes. It would be a manner of weeks or months till we see the 'CUOSOC' start creating/being manipulated into removing CU and OS privileges from Arbcom members, casting aspersions onto their fitness for the seats, and generally creating another level of chaos. No thanks. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• We already have the checkuser ombudsman. No credible evidence has been presented to suggest that there is a problem to be fixed. This proposal seems to me like a complete waste of time. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. // roux   10:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Checkuser ombudsmen specifically do not deal with complaints of misuse of the tools, only breaches of the privacy policy. ArbCom are a biased group, so they're out as well. There simply is nothing else. Thatcher's essay perhaps gives more background on this. Majorly talk 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• If the ACs themselves are putting this through, who know more about potential CU/OS abuse than either you or I may ever even pretend to know, what makes you think it's a waste of time? If 75% of the members of your Parliament or my Senate say something is rotten about the Senate's offices, we are not in any position of value or authority to say, "You guys are wrong." rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing on the policy page indicating this was started by ArbCom. It looks more like one user's perception of a problem pushing this entire wheel. ThuranX (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire proposal was written and put forward by Coren and FT2 on behalf of the AC as seen here and at Wikipedia_talk:Review_Board/Archive#A_modest_proposal. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a nutshell as noted here to clear up this confusion and apparent misperception. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Shameful errors on the main page

I went to the error report for the main page intended to detail that the first entry in "In the News", prominently displayed on the entry page of this top ten in the world internet site, seen by millions, is broken English, almost gibberish, and no real sense can be parsed from the language used, even putting aside the grammatical problems. To my surprise, I see that a number of people have already commented and yet the entry still appears unchanged. You really should remedy this and not at your leisure. I think it is a terrible reflection on the site to see such unprofessional writing appearing on the main page. I also think you need to do something about whoever is in an editorial oversight position who let that material through. I would think this should be treated as a very serious matter by those who care about the reputation and integrity of Wikipedia.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone please go change it to something not unlike:

• Chinese paleontologists announce discovery of a massive dinosaur fossil bed near Zhucheng, China, believed to be more extensive than any site previously unearthed.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

it currently reads "Paleontologists announce the discovery, near Zhucheng, China, of a bed of dinosaur fossils believed to be the world's largest fossil site.". that's completely proper english, using a dependent clause. Nothing to fix. The phrase "near Zhucheng, China" modifies the nouun 'discovery', indicating the location of the event. Perfectly acceptable grammar. ThuranX (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but your post is non-responsive since you apparently didn't check the timing. The text you quote reads properly now, thankfully, in direct response to my and previous user's posts at WP:ERRORS. It existed in the prior, garbled version for appoximately six hours. The specific matter of the current posting is resolved, but I do think something should be implemented to ward against future repetition.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to quote the problematic item here, lest one should have to check the history of T:DYK: "A paleontologist discovers the largest dinosaur fossil site near Zhucheng, China". That the inelegant item was up so long is, as you well observe, egregious, but I'm much too tired to offer any grand meditations on the lag that usually attends WP:ERRORS entries, except to note gently that it can never hurt to have more admin eyes at ERRORS, particularly during the times when there are likely to be fewer admins active. Joe 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, It was actually much better in that version than a later version. For the record, the text I was truly on about was: "A paleontologist discovers the world's largest collection of dinosaur fossils site near Zhucheng, China" (which is far more problematic than the first version you quote). Please note that I was not speaking before about the lag time to fix it, but rather the editorial oversight—the lack thereof—that okayed it to be placed. The fact that through this discourse, I have discovered that the first version was not nearly as bad as what it became (quoted above) mitigates my concern to some extent.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)the item for tomorrow reads "The discovery of a bed of dinosaur fossils near Zhucheng in Shandong, China, putatively the world's largest fossil site, is announced." ie verb comes 19 words in and passive voice construction to begin. Not a good look. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to get into grammar, I'd also like to suggest that the version ThuranX quotes above is of dubious quality considering it splits the noun compound, "discovery of bed" with the phrase "near Zhucheng, China"; I believe it creates a bit of lag in interpreting the noun compound. Furthermore, the topicalization of "Zhucheng, China" suggests that the location is the most pressing/interesting piece of information being relayed- I'd say in this case the fact that a new, record-size fossil bed has been discovered is far more important than the location. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason that this conversation is happening here and not at WP:ERRORS? What compelling admin action do we need to be notified of at this noticeboard? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I posted here (which I think is fairly evident from my original post) was that the problematic main page material was still up; that the postings by multiple users to WP:ERRORS had not gotten any eyes on the problem. I had assumed that this page might function to alert more admins where posting to the more arcane errors page had not. The compelling admin action, was to get embarrassingly sophomoric writing off the main page and thus out of view of the general public, which is 1) an action that can only be done by admins, and 2) seems pretty compelling to me.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ITN team would be glad if more users participated in the debates about the candidates. Usually, when a candidate is nominated, there is also a proposed wording and can be improved then. WP:ITN/C. --Tone 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Menadaliv, no, in fact there ar just two phrases modifying 'discovery', one is the location, (where), the other the thing discovered (what). You could reverse them and still have an equally functional sentence. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment: By the time someone read and responded to this thread here, someone at ERRORS had already fixed the problem. Regardless of the lag time in ERRORS (esp. on New Year's Eve), it was still faster than posting it here. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Autogynephilia

Resolved

 – template vandalism--Patton123 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed a bit of vandalism to the article Autogynephilia. In the first line of the article the text "== Bold text ==Cole Cochran" appears. It does not appear in the editing window. I just noticed this a few minutes ago even though I have edited the page since it's addition. I edited sections further down and did not see this. What can be done? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The offending text was actually on the {{Sexual orientation}} template, which is transcluded onto the page. I have reverted it.--Patton123 14:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND IP user identified (User:HerkusMonte) -- made false claims in Administrator's Noticeboard

A few days ago, I reported in this noticeboard (relevant ANI thread (archived)) on disruptive behaviour on the part of an IP user whose IP user kept shifting. He replied by making claims that were prima facie false. (Sometimes their falseness was shown by the very diffs he cited - this verges on the frivolous; apparently, he was hoping somebody would not follow them, and was trying to create an impression of bilaterality, at least among casual readers.)

He has since been identified [5] as User:HerkusMonte.

The IP user claimed [6] on this noticeboard that he used IPs (and, by implication, only IPs) because he is not a regular contributor to the English-language wikipedia. User:HerkusMonte is certainly a regular contributor; in other words, he seems to have told a lie on this board.

The range of IPs is wide, and blocking them would cause much collateral damage. I request that action be taken against User:HerkusMonte, that the fact that the IP user (84.139.*.*) is identical to him be stated by an administrator on the talk pages of the articles the IP user has edited and on those User:HerkusMonte tends to edit the most -- generally as a representative of a faint but consistent German nationalist slant -- and that we wait for further activity before taking any further action on the IPs as such. Feketekave (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(As a complete aside, it's bizarre how extremists of any colour all seem to use the same tricks to further their stance on here. I had one on another project who was doing exactly the same thing with diffs. Do they all go to the same school or what?) Orderinchaos 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

internal server error or misconfigeration repair or reset

Resolved

 – No admin help possible. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

need help in rewpairing or reseting my internal server error or misconfigeration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albablatt60 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, we can't help you here. Have you tried Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - preferably with more information? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:File other

This is protected from creation with the comment "Due to planned change from "Image" to "File" for that namespace, this name is reserved for the move of template to this name." 'Template' presumably being Template:Image other. Can an administrator either move it there or make Template:File other a redirect to Template:Image other? -- Gurch (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Created redirect. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected the redirect as well. — Edokter • Talk • 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eep. Thanks for taking care of that, doc. (smile) Horologium (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Karnak666 disruptive editing

I would like to bring this user User:Karnak666 [[7]] to your attention. He continuously removes sourced content from the Andre Agassi page. I have reverted it back to the last edit which was done by User:TennisExpert [[8]]. He has just reverted it back to what was when he edited it. He has done this in past without discussion whatsoever and he continues to push his POV into this article . I would appreciate it if you could do something about this disruptive editing. This page was once a featured article candidate which contained that he was indeed Assyrian here [[9]] until some Armenian propagandists changed back to their POV pushing. I have contacted him and he has not responded, he continues to remove sourced material and he has been rebuked by a tennis expert in this discussion. I think he has already violated the 3RR rule. I have provided many sources and they have been confirmed by and expert in the field, I would greatly appreciate it if someone can wiki-disipline this user for his disruptive behavior, constant edit wars with established sources, and POV pushing without providing any of his own input. He has even gone as far as labeling an entire race as cultureless here [[10]] to prove his naive point. Ninevite (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for reporting problems, which may be just as well since the message you left on the above editors page would likely have got you into a bit of trouble anyway. I realise that people pursuing an agenda can make life frustrating, but it does appear that you have quite an agenda yourself - and you are not shy in voicing your bias. There are several steps in dispute resolution which you may apply in this matter, but the very first thing to do is WP:AGF and act WP:CIVIL. Take it to WP:ANI if dispute resolution doesn't work, and hope your comments are sufficiently buried and in the past so no-one considers sanctioning you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Case needs review by intelligent and humane person

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the stated credentials please review this case [11]. It seems that the administrator has acted on insufficient evidence. Thank you. TerryFried (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not insufficient evidence. By the way, who are you? I see you've registered today, but you seem to already be involved in some conflicts. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

TerryFried obviously part of the sock circle noted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Barryispuzzled_(2nd) as well. Ends here as Barry. Also, his talkpage makes it obvious he's in the sock circle. Block needed. D.M.N. (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Smashville has taken care of it. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda dumb to point out the sockpuppetry, the indef block and then start signing your post with your old name. --Smashville^talk 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Small Html Error

I apologise if this isn't the best place to report this. There is a small html error at the bottom of most pages, in the sentence " Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity." The period after "Inc" should obviously be part of the immediately preceding link. All you have to do is move the </a> in between the period and comma. Please fix this, it's rather annoying. 99.250.62.40 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed We pride ourselves on service :D Happy‑melon 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

appeal administrator's ban

I'd like to formally appeal the topic ban placed on myself and Amwestover (talk · contribs). A three month topic ban was imposed on both of us with no debate and very little discussion -- the entire process took about 24 hours, and nobody solicited or listened to the input from myself or Amwestover. The length of the topic ban seems unprecedented, as is the fact that nobody encouraged any other form of dispute resolution. The only discussion was about the wording of the ban. There was no indication of any specific violation of rules other than edit warring (which neither of the affected parties had been blocked for recently) and there was no evidence presented that the dispute resolution process was not worth trying. The ban was clearly punitive rather than a means of protecting Wikipedia. While I understand that some other editors have been frustrated by the length of the dispute, I think it would be preferable to try to resolve the content of the dispute rather than simply blaming both editors. csloat (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What topic ban and discussion? rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

this one. // roux   23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, forum shopping, then? If you'd like to appeal, csloat, that thread is the place to do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hand, see Wikipedia:BAN#Administrator_ban: "Administrator-imposed bans should be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents is part of the AN, I don't think it is necessary for policies to list every possible common sense permutation. Orderinchaos 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, since there's already an ongoing discussion there, that would be the appropriate part of AN to continue with. I'll strike the "forum shopping" comment, as it was a touch BITEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Survey Results

Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am being trolled and falsely accused of sockpuppetry

A user Kjaer has maliciously and falsely accused myself and another user of sockpuppetry. He has engaged in disruptive behavior and intentionally tried to antagonize me over a citation I added to the Ayn Rand article, which he jealously guards. He made a trivial and self-evidently absurd objection to one of my sound sources on another article relating to Nietzsche (he said he didn't believe the quote from a book I cited was accurate, and continued this assertion even after I provided a googlebook link to prove it was accurate), and tricked me into a 3RR dispute (a rule of which I was unaware until now). Please help me resolve this malicious trolling. He is being opposed by several users who are telling him that he is clearly wrong and who agree that this is a personal vendetta on his part over an unrelated matter. CABlankenship (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Search bar for AN

How's this, maybe for the header? Try it out.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

We deleted Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2007 as a BLP violation and created a protected redirect to List of Usenet personalities. A user, Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disputed the deletion at the time. Indefinite protection of the redirect was changed to expiring protection, and shortly after the protection expired, Likebox recreated the article with the edit summary "if at first you don't succeed". I looked at the history; Likebox was also the user who re-created te article after the third deletion debate closed as delete. The page has been reverted to a redirect and I have now restored protection.

Of interest:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination) (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination) (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd) (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (keep)

• Past noticeboard discussions

I do not propose to take any further action at this point, but it is clear to me that Likebox is not going to accept a redirect any time before the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, reinstate as a redirect and then protect that. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 renamed

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 is renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European Disputes by motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)