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

CSD Survey Results

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

• … but not changed your signature. ☺ The singular of "criteria" is "criterion", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did change my sig, but only after I posted here ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Search bar for AN

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

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

Excellent; I would get it up on all the admin pages asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, this would come handy. --Tone 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Now I can see who's been spreading rumors about me. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It will make it easier to find archived threads if you know the name. Now we just need to put it in the header here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethical dilemma

Suppose I initiated an email conversation with an administrator concerning conduct on the part of said admin which I believe to be unethical. Suppose during the exchange of emails, the admin sends a message labeled "in strictest confidence" which contains copies of emails from another admin to this admin, not only confirming the matter in question but showing that it's scope is broader than I suspected. (Of course, the admin and I disagree that the conduct is unethical.) I believe that the admin needs to make full restitution by making a public statement of the facts--expecting that he will argue they do not reveal unethical behavior but giving me the opportunity to argue before the community that they are, and giving the community the chance to make an informed decision. He has neither agreed nor declined to make such a statement, and much time has passed.

Can I file an RFC referencing the private material sent to me by the admin? (I do not need to quote from the emails, but I do need to state what they said.) He volunteered the information, after all. Does he have the right to bind me to not reveal embarrassing or damaging information by prefacing his email with "in confidence" when I did not know what he was sending me until I read it? Or should I respect his request/instruction for confidentiality and simply pass this on to Arbcom, which would otherwise not be the appropriate venue for this matter? Thanks. Anklet (a very small sockpuppet) (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Email the ArbCom, with or without copies of the correspondence you refer to, and see if they will accept a private case. You might wish to discuss this course of action, by email, with the admin concerned first. Disclaimer; I have long maintained a position that confidentiality of communications is superseded by the interests of the project, so don't take only my opinion into account before deciding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What LHvU said. Past experience indicates that it will be handled sensitively and you should receive sound advice. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note: bravo on the username. Very nicely done. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record. 78.34.159.138 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked Smashville to reconsider the block terms, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So changed. Soft-blocked now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll see him again - I think this is a throwaway account to post this without linking to his real account, and without taking the chance that the admin in question will recognize who this is and figure out this user's IP address. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hi, Good site." type vandalism

Hello, I have seen a recent increase in these type of vandalism, not only here but on every other wiki as well. I would like the admins to not "block account creations" when blocking these IP's because most of these ips are from China and we all know that China has a strong policy against Internet as well as Wikipedia and if you do an ACB on those ips, you disallow users from China who are using that proxies from editing wikipedia and thus we become just as bad as their government, For those that don't know about these new type of vandalism that happening, this is actually a Malbot, a type of Xrumer bot known for spamming links on forums and wikis alike and just because in the last 2 years, the developers of wikimedia had made it harder for these bots to function, so they end up with that silly vandalism that we see today. So please admins, Don't block account creation., cause many chinese wikipedians depends on proxies like these to edit wikipedia, thank you ...--Cometstyles 03:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For examples, 195.96.131.66 (talk) and 202.106.121.134 (talk). What do you suggest, then? Gimmetrow 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies are open proxies. Just because we may be affecting people who require proxies to edit does not mean we should not block them. There are dedicated servers, WP:ACC, and ipblockexempt that we can use to help those normally affected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

unless people using individual ones are actually doing harm, I think we might well want to continue our present de facto method of not being too aggressive in shutting them down. DGG (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Open proxies should be hard-blocked, as should tor output nodes. This is our policy and it is in place for a good reason. It doesn't somehow make wikipedia "just as bad as their [China's] government". If, in practice we don't search for open proxies that's fine, but we still block on sight. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it drives me nuts at Wikispecies because we got hit pretty hard lately there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be some sort of running gag. Just had one from Germany: [1] [2] ----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was adding the text, I might be inclined to agree that the softblock is OK, but since it's also blanking the page and using a clearly randomized edit summary, hardblocking is correct. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It's a spambot and will stop all vandalism when it can no longer edit anonymously. Anon-only/hardblocks and account creation won't make any difference at all. The only reason to hardblock an open proxy is because it will be used by accounts created by sockpuppeteers. It's a problem most other Wikis don't have to deal with to the same extent. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with the anon ip above. Unless they start using accounts to do their work it's not a big deal wether you softblock, or hardblock. As the bot will likely just use other open proxies on other IP ranges. --Kanonkas (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit count tool

I apologize that this is not the right place to put this section, but I wasn't sure of the best spot. Soxred (X!)'s edit count tool has been down for a few days, while the other tool seems to be working fine. Should they be switched and replaced again? Again, sorry for posting this in the wrong spot. ayematthew @ 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver is having issues at the moment; not sure where you're thinking we'd switch them at, but it's a temporary setback. Also of note, wannabekate isn't perfect either; with the recent Image: to File: switch, the File: and File talk: namespaces no longer show up on the reports. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant on the User templates. ayematthew @ 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought soxred told me that tool uses the API. — CharlotteWebb 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

iirc the api was too slow so he moved it over to the database. --Chris 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I got bored and made one which does use the API:

importScript(User:CharlotteWebb/editcount.js);

Seems reasonably fast and it won't be subject to outages. Let me know how well it works. — CharlotteWebb 12:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Please could the admins provide some input on Dnepropetrovsk maniacs? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What input do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything you like, just join in the discussion. This is a very interesting ongoing situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests need to be slightly more specific to be actionable.Geni 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Junkers Ju87

We have some new users trying add material without citations. They insist including trivial information in the lead for this article. It is uncited and highly inappropriate for an article let alone a serious one and an introduction! They don't understand how Wikipedia works, they have been "educated", but have refused to take a scrap of notice. It is turning into blatant vandalism now. Could someone do something? Dapi89 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is being trolled, and certainly socked. I will place a short semi-protect on the page and clear up the sock drawer at the same time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3

incivil conduct on Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League Final, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, persistent edit warring on that article and other CL final articles. refuses to debate edits, refuses to compomise, makes wild claims to articles being 'his'. not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but something needs doing Jw2035 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is harsh, you are the one who is persistently edit warring, in fact I think you are quite enjoying this situation. You have removed large tracts of sourced information, which you claim to be trivia, well if it is trivia then why has the media covered it. You talk at PeeJay referring to articles as his, well you told me on my talk page to leave certain pages alone so you are contradicting yourself. To be honest I'm quite sick of this and hope this is cleared up quickly NapHit (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this is something of a pots and kettles situation (PeeJay's language is not beyond reproach, certainly) as regards policy violations - but ultimately this is a series of content disputes, and AN is not part of the dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look. It appears at first sight that you, Jw2035, are being disruptive. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd deletion

Recently, the automated deletion summary for csd and afd tags disappeared and was required to choose from the droplist. Now most of the items are back but when I want to close some afd debates, there's no automated link to the discussion in the summary. Impractical, really. Anyone knows how to get that function back, it's really time saving. --Tone 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a change in MediaWiki:Sysop.js as far as I remember. Or else Mediawiki itself. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but can it be brought back? --Tone 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Sorry :( If nobody else posts here, try WP:VPT. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That will be the best, indeed. Thanks. --Tone 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

Another user, Tb (talk) has taken over my Userspace Talk page. He keeps placing rude and offensive remarks there and has refused my polite but firm requests to leave. He also keeps reverting me -- on my own Talk page -- and has taken control over it. Since the vast majority of this user's edits are edit warring with others throughout Wikipedia and since he is edit warring in my own Userspace against my frequent requests to stop, I ask that he be banned. Thank you. Ad.minster (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted only to remove my own comments after they became the occasion for personal attacks on me, and when they no longer served any purpose. Since I did so, I have engaged in no further conversation with User:Ad.minster except for [3] which was an attempt to resolve this very discussion directly. I have hardly "taken control" over anything. Any user can examine my own edit history and see that the statement made on that regard is incorrect. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I counted at least 6 instances of reverting me on my own Talk page in 12 hours, so at least you can block him based on the Wikipedia:3RR rules. And then there are the issues of taking over my pages and hounding me there after he was asked many times to leave, to justify banning. Thank you! Ad.minster (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:3RR rules are explicit that they do not apply to an editor reverting his own edits. I have only reverted my own comments, and left the rest untouched. By contrast, your reversions are not reverts of your own edits, and likely do violate WP:3RR, though I think that's really beside the point here. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At a casual glance, I see no justification for banning. How about you just stop squabbling? I see some pretty questionable behavior on your part here. Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for. Friday (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked to stop squabbling, but he will not. Further, edit warring on my own pages is still against WP. These are not articles, over which I am the moderator. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, there is no need to conceal that. Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)He seems to be trying to remove his comments and withdraw from the conversation, which you are both edit warring over. This doesn't seem to be productive. I'd suggest you allow him to strike his comments, rather than remove, and both of you consider the matter finished. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for." A user talk page is for communicating about things to improve the encyclopedia or to leave non-harassing messages. If a message is left and removed by that user, the communication was already made. There's very little reason to put it back except to be harassing. And if a person says such edits are not helping, there's nothing to be gained to putting more of the same kind there, so the other person should respect those wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, you may have misunderstood the situation. This is not a case where I left a message, he deleted it, and I keep readding it. It's the opposite. I left a message, he read it, he added a personal attack, and I deleted the original message I had left when it seemed to be pointless to keep it around and the occasion for personal attack. Tb (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He is removing his comments, but not withdrawing from the conversation. Who controls your Userspace? Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop reverting and just leave it alone. I hope this will fix the immediate problem. No one editor has absolute control over your user talk page- this is a wiki, so it's a collaborative thing. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You do, to a limited extent anyway. Admins can put permanent notices on it in certain circumstances, or remove copyright violations or whatever. Certainly this other person doesn't own your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a certain amount of control over your talk page, as you do over your comments. I've left him a message suggesting he strike the comments, which hopefully will end the discussion. Also, I've informed him of this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, I am permitted to revert my own changes according to WP:3RR. I may have misunderstood, since this situation seems rather unusual. Another editor suggests that I should strike through my comments, as a compromise, but I believe this is not sufficient. I believe that User:Ad.minster's comments constitute personal attacks. I note that he has now created User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people in which he thus identifies me as a "difficult person" by name--already not allowed--and continues the attack. As for whether I have withdrawn from the conversation, I believe I have. I have made only one edit other than to remove my comments, which was here [4]. This was an attempt to discuss it directly, following upon the suggestion I received in response to an admin help request here [5]. A satisfactory resolution for me would be for User:Ad.minster to agree to the removal of my comments from his pages (both User talk:Ad.minster and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, and he should feel free to edit or remove his comments however he wants provided he leaves me out of it. Tb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ad.minster has now put the same comments in User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, labelled a "permanent record". ATM, User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people is only partial. Since the purpose of these pages is purely to continue to post the personal attack against me, I object to them. I would normally simply open a RfD on them, but it seems more productive to wait for some resolution of this complaint. Tb (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just stop squabbling? No one is attacking you, my friend. Since you started squabbling, I am obligated to maintain a record. Had you dropped it like I and everyone else asked, there would be no need for that. If you had behaved appropriately, you would not be worried about the record of your actions, good sir.

Please stop! Ad.minster (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit logs are a sufficient record if that's what you want. In accord with WP:Assume good faith, I take you at your word that all you want is a record (preserved in the edit log) and the comments removed (which you say was your goal all along). I ask that you now

* delete my comments from your page, which you say you wanted, and could always have done, and

* allow the edit logs to be a fully sufficient "record" of whatever you think needs recording. Tb (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution. I am distressed by this whole matter, and I am particularly distressed that resolution is so slow to occur. I believe it is clear that Ad.minster insists that his pages with attacks against me be left in some way. He seems willing to push the bits around, but always provided it seems that there is some attack left. I would like the whole thing simply removed, and I insist that I believe that WP policy is perfectly clear that I am permitted to revert my own edit, and that he is not permitted to add comments under my name. I would be entirely satisfied by the removal of my edits and the agreement by him to drop the whole thing from his user page. No admin here has seen fit to object to my actions--though I readily confess that there must have been a better way for me to deal, I could not find it, and when I asked, I was simply pointed as WP:DR, and I'm doing that the best I know how, miserably perhaps though it may be. I believe it's transparent that his comments constitute personal attacks, and equally transparent that the comments I left on his page do not. I would like to hear some kind of approach to a resolution. I believe what I think is a fair resolution is clear. It is also perfectly clear that "hey, you two work it out" is not going to happen. I do not appreciate being attacked, or laughed at, or treated as an object of ridicule, and that is what Ad.minster is doing, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has a "story" which purports to tell the tale of my horrific actions, again with a link to the edit log--still a personal attack. He says "you're not mentioned in it", and then all a user must do is click twice to see my name, and his attacks against me. I would like an administrator to help me understand what I can do to have the attacks removed rather than obfuscated, moved to sub-pages, linked-to-in-edit-log, or otherwise kept. Tb (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he is deleting my own comments, not his own!

Please stop. That is a very gracious story. Furthermore you are not named at all. The worst thing you could say is that I called you -- or someone -- my friend. Are you my friend?

Further it is not a personal attack to say here or in a talk page that you are a difficult person.

Several people have asked you to stop squabbling, please stop. Ad.minster (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are not my friend. The story contained a link to me. Without the link, I have no objection, but with a link saying, "oh, and this is the original", it is disingenuous to protest that I'm not mentioned. The story, which you find so gracious, labels me as ego-ridden and unable to get over myself. If you were genuinely willing to let the matter drop--that is, dropped without any commentary on your pages, I would be quite content. Failing that, commentary without my name, without pointers to my name, and without my words, is an acceptible compromise to me. Tb (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested what I thought was an easy way to get past this, neither party went for it. Just for Ad.minster's reference, I think what you've done is questionable in nature and shows very bad faith against this editor. Please don't take my suggestion as endorsing your side of the discussion. This is not an instance of one side being right or wrong, this entire situation is ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Let's drop it as I have been asking from the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "you" you're referring to Dayewalker, can you clarify? The story in question labels me as ego-ridden. Tb (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my silly story, the ego part of it is in the first person, thus taking the onus on me, not anyone else. At most it labels an anonymous person as "my friend." But since you say you are not a friend, can you drop it now? Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)To clarify, I was speaking to Ad.minster, since his above comments seemed to imply that editors were asking Tb to stop, and by inference denying his own involvement.

Ad.minster, I see no productive reason why you would want to keep a record of this incident, but if you want to keep it without directly referring to Tb (as the page stands now), I see nothing wrong with that. If you insist on keeping his comments after he has repeatedly tried to end the discussion and delete them, this may enter into the area of personal attacks and edit warring, and admin attention may be required.

According to WP:3RR, you're both in your rights as to reverting what has already happened. However, not breaking WP:3RR does not mean that edit warring hasn't taken place. If you both can just say now that this is over and leave things as they are, that would be best. If an admin has to waste time sorting through this one, blocks may be handed out. It's best to handle this between the two of you. As I said, the way the page is now seems fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster???

I've never seen Ad.minster before, but I do have problems with his name and wanted to see what the rest of you thought. He is not an administer, but his name implies that he is. He has been established for about 3 months now, but wanted to see if others felt his name is problematic?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is officially approved and edits go back to 2006!! Approval: [6] and Establishment: [7]Ad.minster (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, I assumed it was less of a admin thing and more religious, since he seems prone to religious tracts on his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that it has been discussed previously, does not mean that the name is acceptable. It still implies that you are something you are not, which is IMO problematic. The reason I didn't bring it up at UAA is because you do have a history here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the name that the RfD board decided in the final resolution. It was Wikipedia's choice for me. Ad.minster (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link you all are looking for is here [8]. Note sure what the 2006 date is about; that was the old user name "Adminster". Tb (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend(?). And please laugh at me. Ad.minster (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for 2 weeks. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the news, it is perhaps not surprising that this article is getting a huge amount of vandalism as well as useful updates from IP editors. I was considering semi-protecting it, but would be glad to get the opinions of others on the wisdom of this.--Slp1 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no fault in your logic. Semi-protected for 2 weeks caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from a fellow canuck! I'll be less cautious myself another time! --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD! Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin eyes on ANI thread requested

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CadenS thread has had a lot of input from non-admins and request is for admins to offer some insight. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you're advertising an ANI thread here; most admins look at both anyway... Stifle (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely not because he wants a different answer to the one he's getting over there? Oh, how cynical of me. For shame. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the leap of bad faith there. I posted a request here as it was requested, as I stated, neutrally, that input from admins was sought. I don't lurk here often to know who looks at what, apologies if this wasn't needed. If you're an admin and willing to take a few moments to read the discussion some input would be welcome. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who only reads one of the two main admin noticeboards, but what do I know? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's no good reason for the bad faith comment. Most of us aren't admins, so we aren't often aware of what you guys read and watch. In addition, AN/I is a subpage to AN, so it may seem reasonable for someone to post a note to the "main page" to gain wider visibility. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy problem: posting of IP address that were previously concealed

I am not sure if this is the correct place to report a privacy problem: i.e. the posting of an IP address that was previously concealed. When an autoblock is lifted, the unblock success notice reveals the IP address. Please can the IP address be removed from the template? Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address is already revealed by the user posting the unblock request. I don't think that they can be unblocked without giving up that part of their privacy. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is actually some number like #XXXXXXX, which is not a real IP address. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The block message asks the autoblocked user to provide the IP address and the blockid as part of the unblock request. For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP. Woody (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what the complaint is actually about, is that afterwords the unblocking admin leaves the IP address written on the page. I believe that the solution should include replacing the body of {{unblock-auto}} (the box with the block info and the admin instructions) as I did here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now fixed {{unblock-auto}} per above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I just have two points of clarification:

• The IP address was formerly revealed as part of the request.
• The IP address was formerly revealed when the request was granted.

What is the situation now? Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now:

• The IP address is revealed as part of the request.
• In granting a release from an autoblock, the recommended message no longer contains the IP address, although in other blocks the recommended message does. (Note that the admin is free to use a different message in the case of granting an unblock).

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Please see the discussion here, in relation to these edits. I am very unhappy that this admin has threatened to block me because he disagrees with my edits, when I have been reasonable in discussing them. This seems to be an abuse of his positition. His attitude to another editor here also seems less than helpful. Mister Lady (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked you twice from your IP address and once from this account to stop deleting sourced info. If there was any kind of consensus to remove the link, that would be another story. As it currently stands, there is no such consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you TOLD me not to remove, kept re-adding it yourself, and then threatened to block me. Why did you do that? Did you feel that I was vandalising? Did I not give clear reasons for removing the single sentence? Why didn't you discuss with me, rather than resorting to threats? Should you be trying to enforce your opinion by using your ability to block? Mister Lady (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're removing sourced information, and edit warring to do so without a sufficient explanation. You're at WP:3RR on the page right now, so I would suggest if you feel the information needs to be removed, take it to tha talk page to try and change the consensus. ONIJ was absolutely correct in his actions, you are edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie hopefully would have chosen not to block Mister Lady himself, but edit warring is edit warring and it should stop. Mister Lady, discuss your reasoning on the talkpage and try to get other editors of the page to agree with your position. Avruch ^T 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't suppose it's possible both of you could be partially in the wrong, would be willing to admit it, and could use the article talk page to work it out or get more input, or anything like that?
  • Jamie, I must say you started escalating things. The template you dropped on the Mister Lady's IP talk page wasn't really fair; it suggests using an edit summary (he did use an edit summary), and discussing controversial edits on the talk page first (there's no reason to think this was controversial). The IP did nothing wrong with their first edit.
  • Mister Lady, WP:BRD isn't policy, but it has a long history of acceptance here, and I strongly encourage you to use it. Jamie did nothing wrong in reverting your edit. Once you knew an editor disagreed, the proper response was to discuss on the talk page, not revert to your version with another edit summary.
  • Jamie, this isn't vandalism (and indeed Mister Lady has a valid point IMHO), and dropping templates on someone's talk page when, from their edit summaries, it is clear they are trying to improve the article is unlikely to make things better. It's particularly tricky when an admin drops a template implying blocking; it's reasonable for an editor to interpret this as "do it my way or you get blocked", even if that wasn't your intention; and it sort of seems it was your intention.
  • Both of you: this is a content dispute. You're both edit warring (indeed Jamie is on the cusp of 3RR). Please leave the article as it is, and discuss it on talk page like the calm, rational adults you both are.
• --barneca (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki history merges?

There is a request at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG to merge the history of a Meta page with its. However, after deleting the page here and attempting to move the Meta page, I got an error message telling me the interwiki link was invalid for movement or somesuch. Does this action require a en-wiki and Meta administrator? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Import is disabled on enwiki AFAIK, so no, no one can. You'll need import right activated. Majorly talk 21:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to maintain GFDL compliance you can make a talk page sub-page and add the history text to that sub-page (in other words, who edited what when). But yeah, Majorly is correct: no importing on en-wiki. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Long term Citation Spamming and SEO

Seems LuckyLove8 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA account using wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a website (gamblershandbook.net )

• gamblershandbook.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • +site:wikimedia.org meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• LuckyLove8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  

• • first edit 08:10, 19 January 2008
  • second edit 08:30, 19 January 2008
  • third edit 02:09, 20 January 2008
  • 4th edit 05:15, 21 January 2008
  • 5th edit 05:28, 21 January 2008
  • added two 10:49, 31 January 2008
  • 06:07, 3 February 2008
  • 12:30, 4 June 2008
  • 04:55, 9 June 2008
  • adds three 14:07, 16 June 2008
  • 05:46, 17 June 2008
  • 12:36, 17 June 2008
  • 13:39, 23 June 2008
  • 05:48, 22 December 2008

What action is appropriate here, given the obvious nature of this accounts intention? --Hu12 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Talk to him first (I didn't check the talk page to see past discussions in the history). Let him know that the website is probably not an RS and that the impression of SPAM is a bad one. If he changes his tack, then no problem exists (it appears that editorial considerations are keeping the text off the page, since the content of most of the edits seems marginal). If he doesn't, or it appears that promoting the site is the primary or sole goal, indef the account as a spammer. But that's only after a full and complete conversation about policies and practices germane to the issue with the account. Don't want to BITE someone who might just be enthusiastic about a particular "source". Protonk (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• This won't help his SEO much, given the paucity of links and Wikipedia's NOFOLLOW on all external links. They have not been spamming at a high rate. There is a chance this user will respond to clues, per Protonk. Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can regular editors decline blocks?

For clarification - can and should non-admin contributors decline blocks? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to defend myself here: the case was clear cut, and I was helping to keep the backlog down as much as possible. Non-admins are encouraged to close AFDs and decline CSDs where it's obvious no admin action is needed; why not extend this to blocks and protections, if it isn't already (in very limited cases, mind)? What's the harm? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, Afds and Csds are on highly watched pages. Unblock requests are not. Don't do this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blunt answer - people will only complain if you get it wrong. Long winded answer - I don't mind, to be honest, although there's two camps, some editors believe you need to have the trust of the community to deal with blocks, so you need to have passed RfA, whilst other editors would argue turning down a block is something any editor can do as long as it's done properly. The reaction you'll get will depend on what you do, whether it's right or wrong, and the persons philosophy. Nick (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet a bit of clue suggests that non-Admins can't and shouldn't do this. Suppose a non-Admin decides that unblocking is appropriate? We're no further forward. --Rodhullandemu 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, things like ability to view deleted contributions can be an important factor in unblock requests - if the user reviewing the unblock can't see the 3 attack pages a user has created and then goes onto agree unblocking is in order, they're not really helping either, but if it's a straightforward unblock request that will only ever be declined, say something like a prolific sockpuppet or something, there's not much a non admin can do wrong if they're doing things properly. Nick (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I declined it. If there was any reason why the unblock would be granted for that request, I would've not declined it. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not power, but responsibility. Whereas all editors are accountable in some way, Admins are given the trust of the community to be able to take these decisions, and that trust is based on their perceived experience, ability and, er, trustworthiness. I'd say that whereas many non-admin editors *could* exercise that discretion equally properly, the community has not given it to them. One reason is that whereas de-sysopping is a very real sanction for inappropriate use of discretion, which concentrates the mind, there is no effective sanction for other editors and thus a rogue editor (as opposed to a rouge admin) could refuse unblock requests, thereby taking them out of the category and preventing their review by admins. I don't think that's what is intended by WP:BLOCK. Worse if they purport to grant them, because the blocked editor then wonders why they can't edit. I take the view that unblocking is not an asymmetric function of an admin, and therefore should not be delegated. WP:SNOW Afd closes are quite different, because a discretion doesn't really arise. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons. (seriously, we have a lot of really dumb admins atm, this was never different). Everything else is determined by consensus. So sure, 2 or more regular editors can discuss an unblock request, and it be upon the head of the admin if they then go against the consensus! (up to and including losing the bit). An admin does not delegate their responsibilities to the community, the community delegates certain responsibilities to the admin. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about rogue users, well, they can already do that kind of thing right? Even if nothing else, the probably the template needs to be hardened against that particular abuse? Would you be able to think of a way to do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there now (or ever) a significant backlog in this category? If an unblock request that's going to be denied anyway sits in the queue for a while longer, no harm will come to Wikipedia. If an unblock request that should be granted sits for too long, there's nothing that a non-admin can do (directly) anyway. Feel free to add a short comment or recommendation (if you must) to requests that should be denied, but you probably shouldn't close them yourself. Frankly, the really clear-cut closes cases don't take very long to examine, and while your intentions are good, I suspect that you're probably not saving anyone very much time.

If there's an unblock request that you think should be granted, then drop a note on AN/I. Those are the requests that are worthwhile to answer quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely so! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I can make a coherent argument too ;-)

Gainsaying is not helpful. If you are interested in making a cogent argument on the subject, I'm welcome to it, though what is in place immediately below doesn't really cut the mustard. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always seemed obvious to me that non-admins shouldn't be responding to unblock requests; as I recently warned Ncmvocalist, non-administrators do not have the technical capability nor expressed community trust to block and unblock users. While I have no issues with non-admins leaving comments for blocked users on their talk pages to offer advice or something else, the backlog of requests is never so long that non-admins need to be attempting to take care of them. GlassCobra 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound. I've never had any trouble doing so.

It is extremely important for normal editors to be able do as many tasks as is possible and safe, to avoid a situation where we creating an elite that effectively rules over the wiki. We want the community to be in charge and stay in charge. There's no reason to disenfranchise ourselves.

I also really like Nick's answer. "No one will complain as long as you get it right". Heh, wikipedia in a nutshell! ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound." This premise is not true, or I can find no evidence of it at WP:BLOCK. Also, since block reviews are a stickier sort of matter--the review of the block may result in a situation where an administrative decision will be reversed or revised against the will of the original administrator--more care must be taken than with simply recommending blocking. Since that skirts WP:WHEEL, the utmost care must be taken by administrators in reviewing and discussing block reviews. Specific, detailed coverage of this exists in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews. The function of the block review is to get the process right and to proceed gingerly. Simply getting the "outcome right" is shotgunning and relying on getting that outcome "right" to justify the act itself fundamentally misses the point. Further, {{Unblock}} notes: "Administrator use only: If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.", templates are not policy, but common practice and a lack of positive identification of administrator status in signatures would lead a rational person to believe that a non-administrator should not use that template. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nail, head; head, nail. --Rodhullandemu 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was fine, turns out it's not. No harm done, really. And we've got clarification on the matter :) Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Why would the judgement of an administrator be any better than that of anyone else in this case?

This is not a disingenuous question: You see, you can't argue that "the community said so at RFA" because rfa is judged mostly on numbers of edits to paticular pages, which says absolutely nothing about admin ability to actually judge an unblock request.

If you happen to accept the current RFA criteria as sufficient to become an admin, you can't then turn around and claim that admins are more capable of judging this kind of thing than any other person.

But this leaves the question as to what grounds there are to actually have this template only be used by admins.

My own take on this is that admins are trusted to not use their buttons to abuse the wiki. I agree that the current admin criteria at RFA don't exactly test for this either (and in fact, I have complained about this). Nevertheless, new admins do get the buttons put into their hands, and they are expected to not break the wiki. So de facto, this is true.

I would then at least put forward that anything that *can* be done safely by a none-admin should be doable by a none-admin. This has actually been how wikipedia has worked for as long as we have had admins.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) One reason for having my admin bit set to "off" is that it is a lot easier to catch these situations as they occur. If I'm forced to make a choice between telling people off, or having my bit set back to "on" to retain a particular functionality; I'll try telling people off first :-P

You are turning this into an existential question where the matter at hand neither requires it nor is our discussion sufficient to resolve it. We cannot tell whether or not your decision making capacity is "greater" than mine simply by looking at the admin bit. You could list a host of reasons why you aren't an admin or why RfA is a bad proxy for "decision making ability". None of that is in question. We live in a micro-society. As such, we have to dole out responsibility within the community to certain individuals. Some process must exist to do that and some distinction must exist between those who have that responsibility and those who don't. Most of the things on wiki are lightweight and look nothing like processes to determine "responsibility" in the outside world. Often, the process is (by design) self-selection. In most cases that works well. Sometimes there is a formal selection process, sometimes there is an informal selection process. Where RfA fits in that taxonomy of processes is not important to the fact that some process exists and some distinction exists. I note above that you say that "Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons." At the risk of being tautological, I would have to disagree. We can't just have admins responsible for that or otherwise we wouldn't need administrators--there would be no one to block, ban, or otherwise restrict in a world where admins are only responsible for policing themselves. Since we aren't in that world, we have to deal with the fact that some responsibilities get parsed out and some (see Rodhullandemu) are less devolvable than others. As such it is not useful to diverge from speaking of responsibility to speaking of pure decision-making capacity. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First up: you ask what we still need admins for, and the answer is really that we hardly need the separate flag at all anymore. Adminship has been thoroughly nerfed. Originally admins got particular buttons that could actually damage the wiki (deletion was permanent, you could run arbitrary mysql SELECTs, including queries that could run forever, etc.) So we really don't need admins for many tasks anymore. What we do still have admins for is for the split-second decisions: block a vandal before they make a bigger mess, or to speedy delete the pages the vandal just created.

Practically anything else can be done at a more leisurely tempo by the community. So also an unblock review. If we review the process you linked to yourself, you'll see that most of the steps involve discussions and gaining consensus. This can de facto be done by any user: discussing and gaining consensus are things any user can do, after all.

You are only supposed to edit the template as the final step in the process. If you have followed the process correctly, then you already know that what you are going to say in the template has consensus of the involved admins, and of the community. If not, you have made a mistake (it doesn't matter here whether you are an admin or a normal user either).

The only thing that a normal user can -not- do is that they cannot hit an unblock button if it turns out that unblocking is necessary. If they have been discussing with the admin in question, they can ask the admin to do the unblock. (once again, if this is being done by an admin, it would still be wise for the admin to get a second opinion from another admin who might then push the unblock button themselves, so once again, the difference between an admin and a regular user is minimal)

So checking the process itself, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to require that the template be edited by an admin. Any conscientious user can do so safely.

Is there anything I've missed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) This is essentially part of my argument why the admin flag is redundant for sufficiently experienced wikipedians. I think I already demonstrated that the basic argument is correct a long time ago. I'm getting bit tired of demonstrating though. So I'll admit that sometimes I'm terribly tempted to just ask for the flag back and tell people "see? I'm an admin, look at my shiny flag, now stfu", but that would set a terribly bad example. I do not think admins should be able to do that at all.

I'm a strong supporter of devolving administrator rights. I believe that almost every part of the "bit" that can be technically moved to specialist usergroups and controlled through a less...colorful process than RfA should be. However, we have not devolved the right and responsibility to block/unblock so we should not act as though we have simply because we feel we are better judges of who is responsible than RfA. And frankly, discussing the unblock (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) is a far cry from declining/accepting it and removing the trancluded template. It doesn't even bear on the subject to say that any non-admin can discuss blocks--we aren't talking about that. The responsibility of declining/accepting unblock requests or 'dealing' with them substantively rests with administrators--not because of some special gift in the person between the keyboard and the chair but because the community has already determined that will be the case. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)TL;DR, but, there is no written policy anywhere that non sysop persons can or cannot deny unblock requests. Its worth noting two things. First, that sysops are the only ones who can accept unblock requests - you need the tool to lift the block so there is a certain amount of parity expected that sysops are the ones doing the unblock requests - if for no other reason than it may (unintentionally) confuse the blocked user. Second, pretty much everything on Wikipedia relies on an editor's ability to "get the message." when they're acting outside of what a relevant portion of the community wishes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. I'm looking at this from the pov that (I hope that) the unblock review is being done by at least some small group of people, rather than by an admin all by themselves (that's what typically happened/happens when I did/do unblocks, with/without admin buttons). In that case it doesn't really matter which member of the group really does the typing in the unblock review template. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes - in practice many unblock reviews are done by a single (user acting as an) administrator --Tznkai (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

*Nod* and that might not always be a great idea.

Naturally, it would be foolish to tell people off for following the best practice, while allowing a common-but-not-so-good-practice to flourish. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to accept on faith that claim. You would have to provide some compelling evidence to say that a single user accepting or declining an unblock is inferior to a group of users doing the same thing. In some cases I can see how that would be the case, however in others I can see how the result would be worse. So what is your evidence that group discussion of unblocks represents best practice? Protonk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly one to put the "role" of admins on a pedestal, but this like closing an AFD as "Delete" is one of those things that only admins with tools should be doing. The wiki-way, besides being a talking point, obviously does not and was never intended to go to "all things", or else every IP user would have the tools. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I am often critical of our admin concept here in Wikipedia, I admit that there are some functions that need to be the perogative of admins. Making an unblock decision is one of them. Non-admins should stay away from unblock requests except to help advise the deciding admin on the decision to make. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an additional problem here with desyopped ex-admins? Hasn't the community (in that case) explicitly noted that they do not trust that class of editor to be involved in broom work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get it, why are there all these drama why are there all these technical fuss over something so insignificant. This user is obviously trolling around with the unblock requests. Are we trying to create some-sort of burocracy for how things are done here? If we are saying that only admins can decline that sort of unblock request, we might as well say "you can't revert vandalism unless your an administrator" as well, because he might as well placed an unblock reason like this, {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} and are we saying that the only person who can respond to that is an admin? Y. Ichiro (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I must not see it. Where is the drama? A general question was asked and people are debating it (as we are wont to do). No one is getting butthurt over it, no one is slinging invective. This is a reasonable discussion of where people feel comfortable with admin/non-admin rights. If you want drama see the thread below. Protonk (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I should reword that then. :) But it's all these techinical fuss that makes us so buerocratic. We need no admin to say that unblock is invalid, anybody with common sense can see that. Yet why is an administrator needed to respond to this. I think it's all these little things probably making Wikipedia administrators more of a position of power than just being a janitor. I thought adminship was no big deal. Y. Ichiro (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fair. I think that the literal issue isn't a big deal, but that the abstract one is. We can both think of examples where a declined unblock would be obvious--a vandal making a facetious unblock request or a vulgar one, or an obvious sock posting an unblock request that names the puppeteer. But we can also realize two things, one practical and one founded more in principle: First, there is rarely a backlog of any significance in the unblock category and an administrator can most easily deal with the abuse of the unblock request (roll it back and modify the block or protect the page). Second, we void the premise of unblocks as a 'review' of administrator action if we leave the declining of an unblock up to the judgment of any editor who feels that the issue is clear-cut. To whit, we have editors who misuse the speedy keep criteria frequently, confusing (deliberately or otherwise) a 'keep' vote with a call that the nomination be cut short procedurally. Those editors see a clear cut case where most of us see nuance. To say "we leave the decision of whether or not the unblock request is remotely reasonable" to any editor is (in some cases) tantamount to just leaving an unblock up to that editor. We then only rely on a third party having the blocked user's talk page watchlisted as an oversight mechanism--that works rather poorly, especially for IP editors.
    • As for the janitor vs. NBD, those two thoughts are not in opposition, nor is it universally accepted that admins are best thought of as janitors (I prefer plumbers). Blocks and unblocks are pretty contentious areas, so that technical 'power' feels a lot like interpersonal 'power' and shares a lot of its characteristics. I think the claim that the tools are agnostic vis a vis those power relationships is not always true (for good or ill). As such we can't proceed from that premise and argue that only technical capacity should drive distinctions, IMO. Protonk (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} should be handled only by admins, as we might decide that the abuse history in the user's talk page warrants readjusting the block or protecting the talk page. Besides, generally speaking, there's no real upside to having non-admins do this, as there's a) no way a non-admin can unblock someone, b) a user might [somewhat validly] make a fuss about having someone who has been judged to not have the community's confidence (or at least not judged to have it) reviewing his unblock. That's the same reason non-admins shouldn't close controversial XfD's: It just causes less headaches all around. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's probably a case to be made for NAD (non-admin declines) based on NAC; when it is mindbogglingly blatantly obvious that an unblock will not be issued, there's a reasonable argument that any sufficiently clueful user could decline the unblock along the lines of 'no admin action needed'. Stuff like CU-verified socks, blatant incivility in the unblock request, etc. I've seen a bunch of unblock requests that, had the community indicated that everyone could decline requests, I would have declined on sight for the aforementioned reasons. That being said, though, the points above regarding lack of community visibility are not only compelling, they are much, much stronger than any arguments in favour of NAD. When a non-admin closes an XfD, hundreds of eyes see it, and any problems come to light more or less immediately. When an unblock is declined, only talkpage stalkers see it. For new users especially, that may well be a grand total of zero eyes. This is an obvious concern, especially given that blocked new users tend to be upset anyway; having an unblock declined capriciously (in their view) could mean the difference between a new user who learns their lesson, and a new version of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

If it were possible to have unblock requests transcluded via bot to a page that all admins watch (as opposed to the cat they're in now), with a note (via bot) when the unblock is declined and by whom, I think we could probably support at least a trial of non-admin declines. 1600 people would see when unblocks are declined, and if there's a trend of bad decisions then the experiment could be stopped and policy updated/clarified to reflect the practice. If, on the other hand, unblocks are declined reasonably, perhaps it's not a bad idea. But again, as with NAC, only in blatantly obvious cases where no admin action is required; CU-verified socks and incivility in the unblock request. Given the enormous headaches in setting up that sort of situation, the simple issue of visibility of actions is enough to state categorically that non-admins shouldn't decline unblocks, quite apart from issues of trust, usage of the tools, etc. // roux   10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) After ec, Titoxd makes an excellent additional point.

Sceptre and Rollback

I have given User:Sceptre back the rollback button. He has used popups and avelmand since it was removed several months ago and continues to fight vandalism. I understand the reasons for why it was removed but Rollback is no big deal, and in the event it is abused it can be taken away as quickly as it was given. Seddσn ^talk 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

6 months ago since it was taken away, I've been told. Is that correct? If so, I think we're ready to see if Sceptre can be more responsible now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I am making a few slip-ups, pressing 'r' or 'q' when I mean to press 'y' in Huggle, but I'm being much more careful. I'm default-reverting based on how similar edits are reverted using Huggle. Therefore, can I ask people not to jump on every single mistake I make, or every edit I rollback that should not've been? I'm only following standard practice. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, remember that this is a user who's been blocked twice since then, once for 3 months and last week for three days. Rather risky, I'd say.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Any admin can take it away again, it's not a big deal. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd naturally poison the well. You still haven't gotten over your desysopping (and you should). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I have extended you good faith in doing this, I would appreciate if you could pass this on to others. Seddσn ^talk 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here. But, in the case of Bedford, it is relatively hard to. He has a low opinion of me after he got desysopped, and has an annoying tendency to demonize me in any threads on AN(I) :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. The message is more important than the messenger here, and I am beginning to lose patience. --Rodhullandemu 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the block log. I'm still a bit of a "no-big-deal"-er myself, but I understand the position of people who want to say no in this case.--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohkay... and see below... --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Small SNAFU from both sides: he forgot to indicate he was archiving, so I thought it was arbitrary removal of talk page threads. It's all resolved, so it doesn't really need dredging up. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre

Resolved

 – Why are we in this basket and where are we going? Jehochman ^Talk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was archiving a talk page and user:Sceptre reverted me with a vandalism warning. I cannot explain that I forgot to comment, becuase his talk page is protected. I find this highly unsatisfactory. Further he did a rollback instead of a revert, since my previous edit to moving the text off was to add pertinent stuff to the talk page, so it should not have been a rollback. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looked to me like you were removing a discussion from a talk page, not archiving it. The wikicode in the diff summary indicated to me that you had removed text arbitrarily. In any case, it was a mistake, and you can remove the warning. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, simple mistake; happens all the time. :) In the future, 76, most folks are friendly enough that you can just try talking to them directly first. On the other hand, I understand it's freaky to get a vandalism warning you don't deserve, so, no harm either way. --Masamage ♫ 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a commenting mistake, but I couldn't explain to you directly, since your talk is protected. Well, all cleared up now. :) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Masamage: He can't edit my talk page because it's indefinitely semi-protected because of harassment (yes, really) and vandalism. I think it's time to bring back my RC patrol FAQ I had, in which I apologised in advance for any accidental misfires, and said IPs can remove any mistaken warnings, which was created because IPs couldn't message me. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sceptre, have you gotten the feeling that the way you've been doing things lately is stirring up too many worries, too often? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit. I don't tend to bring up issues, though, unless I really think they need to be resolved. I'm also trying to refrain from swearing in my posts, too. Fucking hard, though, I'll tell you that ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the bringing up, it's the stirring up. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just noting the same thing, Gwen. He's sure appearing in a lot of AN type places lately, rarely for model behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When do people appear in AN-type places for good behaviour, exactly? ;) I think arbitrator/checkuser/oversighter/clerk announcements are the only times... Sceptre ^(talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice, Sceptre: Please lay off the automated tools for a while. Do things by hand, carefully, using preview, and if you get that tingle of adrenaline as you are about to hit the save button, hit the back button instead and don't do whatever you were going to do. Maybe try editing a nice quiet article for a change. Jehochman ^Talk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this statement get templated or turned into an essay or something? I have the overwhelming need to have this comment dif ready when dealing with people. JPG-GR (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adrenaline junkie -- Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:junkie}} ~~~~

Copy-paste the above to spead the wisdom of Jehochman :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's some service! :) JPG-GR (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't allow IP editors to communicate with you, maybe you should consider not interacting with them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's an interesting concern. RC patrollers using tools like Huggle are perhaps not in a position where having their talk pages semi-protected indefinitely is appropriate. Sceptre has concerns since he's a target for something or the other, but perhaps in that case he should not be using huggle en masse without unprotecting his talk for feedback. rootology (C)(T) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I know several users who maintain a couple of talk pages. Their main User talk:* and then a User talk:*/IP talk page that is linked from the top of their main page, saying "If you cannot edit here, go here". Saves on the orange bars from vandal IP edits, but ensures there is some communication (also assuming the person watchlists the IP talk and reads it). MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of two blocks issued by me for continuing disruption to Talk:Ayn Rand after explicit warnings to all about conduct

I would like to request administrators to review and comment on two blocks for 24 hours issued by myself just now to User:Kjaer here and User:Idag here. These blocks were for continuing to misuse Talk:Ayn Rand after sufficient warnings had been issued about working solely to improve the article, rather than continue to make inflammatory comments about one "side" or another in a long-standing dispute. This dispute led me to fully-protect the article for edit-warring (involving Kjaer, who has been blocked for this on another article before) and one other editor, not Idag. The history of the events after the full protection was invoked can be seen here, where it can be seen that accusations of bad faith continued, and led to me making a further warning, which both editors ignored, though Idag responded to a continuation of inappropriate behaviour from Kjaer.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Following discussion with a number of editors, including an uninvolved administrator, I have unblocked User:Idag as "time served" on the grounds that the message which prompted that user's block was a reaction to the one by User:Kjaer which prompted the block of that user. The block on Kjaer, as of now, remains in place.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These seem like a good decisions to me. That page and the talkpage is a nightmare, and so it would be good if uninvolved administrators could keep an eye on it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

SingNet ranges blocked

I have anon-blocked two ranges on SingNet (220.255.7.0/24 and 220.255.4.0/24) for 3 months for their persistent vandalism coming from anonymous users. I am aware that these ranges are extremely dynamic yet still act as proxies for the computers' true locations, but the damage arising from these ranges have been constant. I've allowed account creation. These ranges apparently produce a lot of collateral damage when account creation is blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please protect Rodney King

I know this isn't the right place, but WP:RFPP isn't monitored enough and it's getting out of hand. Thanks, Matty (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Already protected., although next time try WP:AIV too for on-going cases of cross-ip page vandalism, many administrators watch that page reguarly. Y. Ichiro (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've anon-blocked the ip editor for 48 hours who was most prolific in the edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX: "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk"

While John took the time to open a discussion at WQA in regards to this matter, I am growing concerned that ThuranX might be of the inexact opinion that suggesting a fellow editor "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" is anywhere near acceptable behavior. This was part of an article discussion wherein the JNW (talk · contribs) acted with exceptional reserve in the face of behavior that would have sent anyone else packing. ThuranX' behavior there, and elsewhere with increasing frequency seems to be be growing problematic of late. While this advisory is of one situation occurring in one article discussion, ThruanX seems to be unwilling/unable to render his opinions and dictums in a socially acceptable way. JNW has been here almost as long as ThuranX, and yet he has nary a single block, whereas ThuranX has been blocked repeatedly for precisely the same behavior he is displaying yet again. I think some sort of intervention might be called for.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have pretty much given up interacting with the user, as he has been unremittingly unpleasant for the two-plus years I have been here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow... that entire exchange is stinging, including the thread at ThuranX's usertalk page as well as Egon Schiele. All I see is John being reasonably decent (though the suggestion to "find another hobby" might have been better left unsaid), while ThuranX was harsh from the git-go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What barbarism! I suggest we tar and feather ThuranX, and remove one of his awards every time he stops by here and tries to defend himself.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

By successful motion of the Arbitration Committee, all sanctions against Everyking in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 are lifted, excluding Remedy X (Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner). This is effective February 22, 2009, at which point the case page will be updated by a Clerk to reflect the lifting of the remedies in question by the motion.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)