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

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part VII

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Ray Charles (cropped).jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it was for less than 1 minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

thats because I have an IRC bot that started screaming bloody murder and I was quickly able to find J Milburn and get it protected. Had I not taken action it could have been there for a lot longer. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean MPUploadbot uploaded it locally and protected it less than a minute after it was added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've protected main page images after being alerted by Beta's bot a Hell of a lot of times- plenty of times when Beta hasn't been here to trout about it. Just look at that log, then tell me there isn't a problem. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't an occasional problem that needs fixing; I'm saying that there wasn't one this particular time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that unprotected Main Page images=bad, but trouting AN every time is perhaps not the best way of fixing it. Maybe we should cascade protect the TFA templates, that would solve most of the problems. ITN is cascade protected, DYK images are protected by cascade protection while they're in the queue and on Main Page/Tomorrow, TFP and OTD should be protected via /Tommorow, so that jsut leaves TFA images added after midnight UTC as far as I know. Cascade protecting the TFA blurbs for their stay on the MP would solve that problem. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...Unless I've missed something, cascade protection does not work cross-project. You'll note the protections log I linked was my Commons protection log. J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been a problem in the past, but MPUploadbot seems to have really improved lately; are there recent problems (say, in the last 1-2 weeks) that it didn't take care of? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the image after a protected edit request, and it was protected on Commons by J Milburn right away. I only did it because I knew I had a Commons admin, J Milburn, accessible on IRC and he actually got it done right as I was asking (so no, it wouldn't have been up longer than another 2 seconds, Δ). Although it might not seem like it always, I generally know what I'm doing, and I didn't see much bother in reuploading locally if both the local and Commons pages were protected right away. In any case, I didn't even realize that MPUploadBot would automatically upload a local copy each time. —fetch·comms 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with what your doing, except before adding it to the main page make sure the image is protected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Would X! consider expanding the purview of MPUploadBot to locally uploading and protecting the Commons images on tomorrow's main page instead of today's (subject of course to BAG approval), thereby preventing the current race condition?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it already did? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This image was added by a protected edit request, so the bot didn't know. I think it already does, as HJ said. —fetch·comms 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OIC, never mind then. How about encouraging dual admins (here and Commons) to handle image-related protected edit requests for the Main Page?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not who does the edit requests. It's just forgetting to either protect on commons or reupload before they press "save" (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does. Of course, due to the multiple API calls and lag, server load, etc, it can take up to a minute for the images to be uploaded. The bigger issue at hand here is that people put images on the main page without protecting them. I also agree with HJ that trouts are not the best way to fix this, because by trouting every single one of the 1500 admins for the actions of one, you're just irritating the others every time you do this. (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the bigger issue and the trout. I work extensively ITN and frequently add images to the Main Page as part of that, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to copy the Commons image and upload it locally. I don't mean this to seem personally directed, but I can't understand why people are still adding Commons images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to truly make people responsible is to make an abuse filter that asks for them to confirm if they add an image that wasn't there before. (X! · talk)  · @505  ·  11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to clarify that I do not think anyone updating the main page is doing a bad job. Hope no one took it that way. J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion: User:Orsahnses?

As the list of socks grows, and considering that this has been occurring now for over a year, is it now time to discuss a community ban of the user? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What's there to discuss. He's been blocked indefinitely for a full year, and has no chance of coming back given his continuing behaviour. Looks banned to me. --erachima talk 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked indefinitely for a full year? It's an oxymoron - no offense... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the term indefinitely, Doc. Indefinitely doesn't mean permanently, it means "without a foreseeable end". The implication, I believe, was that he was blocked indefinitely a year ago and has remained blocked since then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking he understood, but he wanted to point out the oxymoron (indefinitely definite)...not going to speculate on why though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but a community ban gives editors confidence to revert. WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting banned users, but does when reverting indef blocked users. Arguably, an indef'd user with no admin willing to unblock is de facto banned... but I wouldn't want to revert repeatedly and risk myself getting blocked. TFOWR 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: on top of sockpuppetry, even after a year, he has not learn to be civil. This personal attack recently, and an attack from last year. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: per what TFOWR said; I used to just say editors need this protection, but if no progress is made on a recent (but separate) matter, I may have to revise this opinion to mean "both admins and editors need to be protected". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. TFOWR 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. User is de facto banned; let's make it de jure, per TFOWR's concerns. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per arguments by Elockid and TFOWR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Pretty easy call, really. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per Salvio. —fetch·comms 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Here again, uncivil multi-socks that have no redeeming qualities need a ban to encourage good-faith editors not to be afraid of WP:3RR. I see unanimous support for a ban, which is encouraging. Jusdafax 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Technical problem with sections in new format

This is probably not the right place to report this, but I could not find another. (Where should technical issues be reported?)

The issue is with the placement of the [edit] link in sections.

In the new format (dunno if it also exists in the old), the article Vermont Republic has several sections (History, Founding, Constitution and frame of government) that have images to their right. When the browser (tried FF 3.6.6 and IE 8.0.6001) is relatively narrow, everything looks fine, but if the user widens the window, the [edit] tag moves down (relative to the section's text). It looks as though these tags might be staying in place relative to the images, while the text is reformatted to fill the browser window.

Bloody Viking (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Village pump (technical), for future reference... –xeno^talk 14:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not related to the new format, it's the old "bunching" problem, fixed by using {{FixBunching}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now  Done, though the size of the thumbnails should probably be increased to fill up the white spaces. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim

I feel that the NAC closure of this AfD as "nomination withdrawn" was inappropriate and in violation of WP:NACD which clearly states that non-admin closures are reserved for clearly non-controversial situations. This AfD was anything but. Although the nominator has changed his mind regarding deletion, at the time of the closure there were a substantial number of non-retracted "delete" !votes. The AfD had another day to run at the time it was closed. While I am not sure if relisting or reopening it for a day will do much good, I request that the closure be reviewed by an admin and be changed from a procedural close to a substantive one (keep/no consensus/delete). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're quite right; controversial AfD discussions are not suitable for non-admin closure. I've reverted the close and will explain why on the user's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd still like an admin to take a look at this AfD to see if anything administrative needs to be done (re-closing, relisting or whatever). Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a keep !vote in that AfD and I, too, felt the NAC in this case was poorly-applied, even if it essentially accomplished my hoped-for outcome with this particular discussion. The AfD in question is/was way too hotly-contested to be closed as "nomination withdrawn." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I have closed a few as "nomination withdrawn" with an outstanding "per nom" delete !vote or 2 (and clearly stating in my closing rationale that I understand that there is a rule and I'm ignoring it) but this one had too many delete !votes with extended rationales to be closed that way, admin or not. This one should have been left to continue with one less delete !voter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Check his contribs: Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) Today alone he has closed or relisted nearly 100 AfD's. I haven't checked if many of them were inappropriate or not, but I find it hard to believe that over 100 AfD's are eligible for an appropriate non-admin closure in one day. In particular, he closed an AfD that I was watching: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company. He re-listed it once and then closed it as no consensus, despite there being only a single vote! I have reverted his closure. I strongly believe this user should refrain from non-admin closures except in extremely obvious circumstances, like uncontroversial nomination withdrawls. I request that an admin go through his contributions and revert any inappropriate non-admin closures. SnottyWong ^gossip 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • • Er, a "single (!)vote" looks like a no consensus to actually delete it to me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I checked quite a number of his closes/relists and they seem all to be very good -either he closed 100%-keep discussions as keep, or he closed as no consensus (making it clear that it can be speedily renominated) when, even after a relist, no other editor showed up. In my opinion, excellent work for the AfD backlog. Of course if something inappropriate comes out, it should be reverted, like for everyone. --Cyclopia^talk 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ron is our most prolific NACer and his closes are generally speaking quite sound; I don't see a problem with the particular close SnottyWong referenced, either. Also, I don't like the idea of the AfD nominator reverting a close, even if it's an NAC; either take it to DRV or find an admin willing to revert it. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Resolved

 – WP:DNFTT - Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A couple of anonymous editors are trying to report suspected socks of GoRight and other involved editors keep ignoring it. It's clear that a number of people suspect these accounts are socks, so why can't we all AGF and keep the listings up? There is no requirement beyond that someone suspects they are a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.171.176.249 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I've fully protected the userpage for the time being. I will add only that mere suspicions shouldn't be left there indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Umm, this is about his socks, like SafelyAnonymous and STOATblog and Ricky81682, not about GoRight's page. Everyone knows GoRight is socking. It's such good socking that people can find the socks even the CU proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.170.210.155 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

User NW issued an "indefinite topic ban" for what he believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. If you look at the time line below, after the second editor stepped in I backed off and went to the talk page (the way wikipedia is supposed to work). I accepted the consensus and walked away as over the next 6.5 hours I did nothing to the page in question. The topic ban issued by NW does not follow the same logic, severity of offense, or level of fairness that other admins have issued on [1]. Indefinite topic bans in every case except mine have been sockpuppeting or shorter incremental bans leading up to a total ban. I have never before had a topic ban of any length of time or even a warning. I request the ban be lifted with time served, or something much more reasonable.

My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [2]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [3]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [4]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [5]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [6]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [7]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [8]

I was blocked for one week as of 08:00, 4 July. [9] --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick review of the log of sanctions [10] shows that most bans have been for six months, one for one month. Why not come back after a month and ask again? In the meanwhile, continue to edit Wikipedia productively, and after that time I am sure you will find a much more sympathetic audience here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. However your assessment of the log of sanctions is utterly incorrect. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. I do not see a single user with a six months ban. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given indefinite.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is probably because other administrators are far more lenient than I am. I, however, have little patience for source misrepresentation and other generally disruptive behavior. NW (Talk) 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit I thought (WND) Worldnetdaily.com was RS and it is not. However I did not misrepresent, or intentionally misrepresent anything. My first edit where I inserted the two new topics however did need more research and better grammar before I put them in. Please show my misrepresentation, I am always open minded in learning and bettering my self.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the difference between my assessment of the sanctions log and Duchamps_comb's is based on the distinction between a block and a ban, which I assume Duchamps_comb didn't take note of. The blocks are of many and varied lengths (depending of course on all sort of criteria; see WP:Blocking policy); the topic bans I've seen were for 1, 3, or 6 months - and note that Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation doesn't impose any limit on discretionary topic bans. Seriously, come back after a month. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist. --Duchamps_comb MFA 02:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I advised Duchamps_comb to wait for awhile before requesting a lifting of the restriction. I see that they fail to take good advice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely no reason to lift the topic ban at this time, considering the edits that were the subject of the edit war above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Source misrepresentation should lead very quickly to an indefinite block, not just a ban. Still, this seems like an appropriate action on NW's part, and supported by the community probation. Duchamps_comb, people really do tend to be pretty lenient around here - if you edit productively on some unrelated topics and ask again with the new year there is a good chance your appeal would be successful. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

Admins, there is currently a backlog at sockpuppet investigations which need good and responsible administrators to go over and make those tough calls. Remember that any administrator can take action on any SPI case and mark as closed if needed. If anybody needs any help as far as whether or not CheckUser is needed, feel free to let us know or, if privacy is needed, via email if necessary. Regards, –MuZemike 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan

Timothy Sheridan has been around since early 2007 and has endlessly tried to promote two websites (theubie.com and AmericaSmokeless.com) in the Vaporizer article. So far we got:

• At least a dozen of IP sockpuppets and two accounts.
• Both websites on the spam blacklist, though evasion attempts are still made.
• At least two reports to the unblock-en mailing list (I have only been in there for three months, but i believe older reports were also made) , with at least an equal number of reports on OTRS, all of which were refused for obvious reasons.
• Persistant personal attacks and conspiracy theories (Example) as to why his spam is not allowed, combined with semi-legal threats.
• General nonsense such as modifying other people's comments and AFD votes(AFD Diff) in a pointless attempt to have his spam article's undeleted. Ironically the AFD closed 5 years ago, after which it was changes to reflect "past consensus".

The user keeps coming back every few weeks at least, each time trying to add his link or rant somewhere that his product is being "unfairly treated". Be it the article talk page, Jimbo's talk page or some other location. he is more or less community banned as is (With no indication that his edits will ever change) so i would propose to formalize the current "De facto" community ban on User:Timothy Sheridan into a "de jure" one. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am sad that it has come to this but it really seems that we cannot get through to Mr. Sheridan. If he didn't lace every single talkpage comment with links to his sites (now edited so as to avoid the blacklist), and wasn't so strident in his paranoia that we were all in the pay of The Man I think that he could have been a productive editor here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I guess my cheque must have got lost in the post :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• theubie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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 • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• americansmokeless.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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 • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Blacklist evasion and spam on that scale isn't particularly remarkable -- I see it all the time. However a persistent refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia is an encyclopedia + all that abuse = ban. MER-C 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, user clearly is not willing to discuss reasonably, long term spammer, blacklist evasion, etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support basically per MER-C. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support User is useless, he won't help the project, and isn't interested in improving. --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  I wouldn't go so far as to say he is useless. IMO thats a needless ad hominem. Syrthiss (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree - that part is making things too personal (and is needless). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Dirk, and Rockstone (in nicer words). —fetch·comms 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Return_of_longtime_disruptive_user_under_another_new_sockpuppet_user_account_.28Filmcracker.29_registered_for_the_purpose_of_Wikistalking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL requested

Could somebody please do a quick REVDEL and remove this[11] from the history log? Certainly qualifies as RD2, especially given BLP considerations. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Review of my action welcomed, but I'm damn certain RD2 is appropriate here. TFOWR 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely redactable, but please try not to post diffs of these things on public noticeboards, where they only attract more attention. —fetch·comms 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick block review for an IP

I'll be off for a bit, and just blocked a persistently uncivil IP for 3 days. Somebody can feel free to lower the length, but considering they started their incivility, and edited over a period of over 24 hours, and proceeded to call people nazis, blank talk pages and the like after multiple final warnings, and the fact they don't think they've done anything wrong, I blocked for 3 days. Others feel free to change the block. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look. Calling people "nazis" and "furher" is clearly in violation of WP:NPA. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the two subsequent unblock requests i am inclined to agree with that assessment. Good block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD

Hello, there is a backlog about a week deep at WP:MfD. Not horribly pressing, but could use some attention. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages? and comment. –xeno^talk 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved for now Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to resolve the proximal issue but this general issue comes up rather often so comments are still invited. –xeno^talk 12:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion needs closing

Could someone uninvolved from the Ireland/British Isles/Troubles disputes please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LevenBoy and close it as they think fit, please. It's been sitting there with little input for a couple of days. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only briefly scanned it and will probably leave it to someone else to close, but I'm a little concerned that this seeks to instate general sanctions based on a not-very-well-advertised ANI discussion. –xeno^talk 12:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)