Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.34.159.138 (talk) at 12:11, 3 January 2009 (→‎Ethical dilemma: note on UAA block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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



    Deep sock drawer

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

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

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

    The thing is, as you note, you’re going to be blocking innocent accounts that aren’t socks. There’s not simply a chance of this, it will happen. I don’t like the idea of that one bit. People create accounts to change their settings and don’t edit for years, then they might decide one day to make an edit - if they find themselves blocked then they’ll be unimpressed to say the least. We should never block accounts unless they are abusive and we have evidence to show that they are. Here, the only evidence is a 90 minute time frame – that’s going to pull in too many innocent accounts as well. Just blocking the socks as they appear is the best way to go here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is what we are doing now, another issue (that I forgot to mention) is that this individual has solely been editing from IP addresses that belong to the National Health Service, which seems to be something that may affect more innocent users. I'm very aware that innocent users may be affected, but I do not know the probability that users who registered in 2007 and never edited from them will remember that they made an account (the 30 day log out thing seems to affect anyone remaining logged in indefinitely) or remember the password. This sock master seems to be proving this wrong. A good percentage of this user's accounts come from this single time period. There seems to be a low cost/benefit ratio if innocent users who have never editted get blocked, which is why I worded the block message I plan on using the way I did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is nothing more recent (mostly because a lot of the NHS's IPs have been blocked as a result of this user's anonymous edits). And for unblock requests, I would take a look at what has happened at #Is what I did appropriate?.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what if the unblock request has no self-condemning information? The admin unblocks, presumably. Not sure what we've gained. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user, as far as I can tell, has no use to edit constructively (if he did, then my suggestion would not have occured).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sleeper socks from 2007 with zero contributions? Yup, block them indefinite. Legit accounts will have either forgotten the password or even their existence, or have an outside possibility of them created as anti-impersonation accounts (so a block will actually be effective in that situation). I do not see blocking these particular will have such collateral damage potential to count against the likelihood of reducing future disruption. Should there be consensus for blocking I would be prepared to work through a list, using the agreed wording. Other more recent accounts can be tackled either as they pass 1 year since creation, or if others of that vintage start being activated for vandalism/block evasion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that Front of House Gary Howard is one of the socks who is on the list of accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block of all such accounts with 0 edits, subject that any unblock will require a checkuser to confirm it's not working from Hamish Ross's IP address. Additionally, block them with autoblock disabled, so that there won't be any collateral damage from any accounts which are used merely for watchlisting pages and using personalized settings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh there'd better be some collateral damage!!! Dame Sue Napier (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested block on above user. — neuro(talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Not sure how to tag but it's blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do it. — neuro(talk) 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe that it's better to block 270 innocent accounts which will probably never be used to edit, than to leave 330 likely sockpuppets unblocked. (The number 270 comes from the 18 accounts per 10 minutes above). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Block them all. Year-old accounts with no contributions are very unlikely indeed to suddenly start editing productively. In fact, I would be tempted to suggest an adminbot that goes through old accounts and blocks those more than, say, six months old with zero contributions automatically (with autoblock disabled, of course). We would always add a note on the user creation page to say that this will be the case. Black Kite 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense, your sleuthing, why are we on this witchhunt? There is no secret conspiracy for "secret" dormat sleeper socks. If any wake up, block them then. Anyone remember User:!!? This is reminiscent. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean that where at least a few dozen accounts that all come from this range, with more showing up as this user decides to take them out to play, they should not be blocked? These accounts have never edited. This is why I've constructed a block message as neutral as possible and one that says "Hey, you can edit if you want to. Just tell us." and at that point, we can tell if we're working with a sockpuppet or not. I can tell you that the two accounts that have posted in this thread come from the 600 or so that I acquired. And as Od Mishehu says, the cost-to-benefit ratio is fairly low if there is consensus for me to go through with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      User:!! was active, and had edits misinterpreted - these accounts have never been active. Different situation entirely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In the following context: We have found a new and interesting way to block accounts that have not done anything disruptive on the premise that they might.  !! was selected using a new and interesting way, on the premise that s/he was a sleeping sock. That is the context I used to compare and contrast. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a big difference between an arbitrary never-active user, and sych an account which was created in a 2 1/2 hour period when several known socks of a single user were. I strongly oppose blocking the first, and strongly support blocking the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And the second is exactly what I am proposing. I'm not saying "I'm going to pick this arbitrary time period, get every account that never edited, and block them all." I have a known range of accounts created, and have taken a list of them that haven't edited, ones that Hamish Ross has, and proposing that I block them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      NonvocalScream, may I suggest that if the recent spate of SPA/socks do come from this range that we block now - and then continue the discussion on whether we should stop disruption from potential sleepers. Really, if a legitimate account has been unused for such a long time then it is extremely likely it will never be activited - they will have created new accounts by now. In fact, as you seem to be the only voice against it I feel that we should declare consensus, recognising your objections, and get on with cleaning out this drawer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you could wait a couple of days. See nick's comment below. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I blocked a suspected HR sock myself a few days ago. Under these conditions there's a low risk that we will alienate good-faith contributors, and it seems worthwhile to eliminate these as a source of annoyance. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Any risk to a new contributor is too great. Just wait for disruption. I doubt we are going to be overthrown by sleepsocks. They are not going to infest and destroy everything good about Wikipedia. Just leave them be... incidentally, has checkuser assistance been requested here? Perhaps a check can be run on a handful to see if there is technical evidence that they were all created by the same system? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Too old for checkuser. Any with recent edits can be checked (and probably was), and any making a reasonable looking unblock request can, but the others can't be checked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Last time I checked the public site code SVN, checkuser data is maintained for 90 days. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      These accounts are 420 days old. These accounts were created in November 2007 and in a few hours it will be January 2009.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And even then, how would accounts created over a year ago be "new contributors"? In all reality, the only person who has seemed to remember that they had these ancient accounts is Hamish Ross. And his "claims" of having thousands of accounts would very well be quelled once we get rid of a hundred or so based on what he has done so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And this by definition, we are sleuthing for the hidden thousands of accounts, so we can quell them. I don't see a pre-emptive battle strike as a high priorty, in fact, I see collateral damage as an avoidable outcome. We ought not be doing this thing based on a perceived threat, instead wait for disruption. I encourage checkuser participation into this discussion as well. Perhaps the tool can help here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Does cost of the users in this 600 who might begin editing again being blocked outweigh the benefit of blocking this user's sockpuppets, of which there are already several selectively blocked in the range? I don't think so. It is a very small probability that the users, if they would be innocent, would be blocked and then decide that they come back. It's a higher probability that Hamish Ross has more accounts in this 2.5 hour range of which I've already narrowed the field down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Too risky. Why mess with it? Just block them if they disrupt. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I may have found them before they disrupt. Your arguments aren't really saying much here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It would probably be possible to check all such accounts which were created since 22:16 on September 7, 2005 - the earliest the user creation log goes. However, deleted edits are a complication here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blocking the dormant accounts per Ryūlóng and Black Kite. In other areas, we make the tradeoff that we can't stop abuse without inconveniencing some innocent users. This happens with range blocks, where the innocent users will have to make a request to get around the block. Since the case proposed by Ryūlóng has been carefully studied, I think the risk of inconvenience is low enough to be worth taking. In fact, the number of legitimate users who will be inconvenienced is quite likely to be zero. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User Block Templates

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

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

    Protect the userpage in the condition you find it for edit warring, and await outcome from community dicussion or RFAR (if it happens) to determine the template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares is my honest opinion - It's such a minor deal that this edit war is rather silly. Just redirect it to his talk page if anyone else continues it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Ryan, that solution also works. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I wasn't trying to make mountains out of mole hills, I promise. I was just wondering why I got such a scathing response from both an admin and the user on IRC. I wasn't attempting to troll, or make the situation worse, but...Blocking isn't supposed to intended you got "Pwnt" by "Administrative Justice" so I don't understand the strong feelings, maybe it's just me? Either way, I agree with the redirect to his talk page, and the discussions on it. Neuro√Logic 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the indef block template still carry the temporary userpage category? Don't think Betacommand's page should ever be in that particular category, so maybe that was the impetus for the edit war? Avruch T 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not add a similar template to the one on his bot's userpage, with a link to the relevant discussion. I mean, there's no problem with having nothing at all, but it would be confusing to someone who ventured there for some purpose only to eventually work that is he blocked (seeing as he rather quickly archives discussions on his talk page. If I didn't know he was blocked (and to be honest, I only found out when I saw the template on his talk page) then there is currently nothing visible there to suggest it. --.:Alex:. 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside

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

    I would suspect it isn't a user in good standing, rather a troll who's had dealing with us in the past and still lurks here trying to find areas to disrupt. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter
    More likely a user who specifically had problems with Betacommand. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Review Board

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

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

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

    So, another level of bureaucracy? Why do we need it? Why are we imposing more insults and obstacles to the effective fulfilling of the duties expected of our admins, CU's and so on? this effectively says to all the malcontents 'here's another layer of appeals to force others to jump through while you crap up Wikipedia, enjoy it'. As an editor, I thoroughly oppose this notion. ThuranX (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty uninformed comment. At present the only people who watch over CU and OS are other CU's and OS's. That results in the almost inevitable case where the people 'supposed' to oversee their friends are less willing to do so thoroughly AND if responsibility is not noted, everyone will assume that everyone else is watching. This is hardly a level of "bureaucracy" that any normal admin or non-admin will come into contact with. I can't understand this comment of yours. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the idea that we are now creating another level of appeals which will slow down the process of eliminating vandals is a problem. Can't make it clearer than that. ThuranX (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were perfectly clear, I just think that you might be missing the point. This isn't really an appeals process for regular conflicts or infractions. I's there to make sure that some oversight exists for a group of about 20-40 individuals who carry a considerable amount of trust and power on en-wiki. that's all. As such I can't understand the general complaint. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what ArbCom is for, is it not? I would agree with ThuranX that this is needless bureaucracy. Five "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia overseeing the 20-40 "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia is not going to solve much of anything, imo. However, if people wish to tie themselves up in red tape, so be it. I'll be writing articles. Resolute 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom can't be used for this as most arbitrators are also CheckUsers and/or have the Oversight permission. It is indeed an issue of trust: it is hard to trust 40 people, and a bit easier to trust five. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should say that the opposite was true, to be honest; it is only necessary to trust the aggregate, not all the individuals, so it is easier to find a majority you trust among forty than among five. But I still fail to see how this improves on the existing arrangements. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma, you're describing an ArbCom overthrow failsafe system, then. Picking 5 people not trusted to have high privileges to be in charge of eliminating those who go through a lengthy process to become Arbs, CUs, and OSes. It would be a manner of weeks or months till we see the 'CUOSOC' start creating/being manipulated into removing CU and OS privileges from Arbcom members, casting aspersions onto their fitness for the seats, and generally creating another level of chaos. No thanks. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • We already have the checkuser ombudsman. No credible evidence has been presented to suggest that there is a problem to be fixed. This proposal seems to me like a complete waste of time. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. // roux   10:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Checkuser ombudsmen specifically do not deal with complaints of misuse of the tools, only breaches of the privacy policy. ArbCom are a biased group, so they're out as well. There simply is nothing else. Thatcher's essay perhaps gives more background on this. Majorly talk 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the ACs themselves are putting this through, who know more about potential CU/OS abuse than either you or I may ever even pretend to know, what makes you think it's a waste of time? If 75% of the members of your Parliament or my Senate say something is rotten about the Senate's offices, we are not in any position of value or authority to say, "You guys are wrong." rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The entire proposal was written and put forward by Coren and FT2 on behalf of the AC as seen here and at Wikipedia_talk:Review_Board/Archive#A_modest_proposal. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a nutshell as noted here to clear up this confusion and apparent misperception. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom does not currently provide effective oversight (review, auditing, whatever) of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, as described in my essay here. Checkusers and Oversighters could monitor and correct each other, but mostly do not. Arbcom could provide effective meaningful review of complaints of misuse, but mostly does not. The Review Board is a response to my essay as well as similar concerns held by some Arbitrators before I ever wrote the essay. The Review Board would be a delegation of Arbcom's authority to a (mostly) independent committee, to hear and review complaints of misuse (checking without good reason, oversighting edits that should not have been oversighted, etc). Obviously, the Review Board can not function without the agreement of a majority of Arbcom because only Arbcom can hand out access to the tools needed by the board to do its job. The Board proposal seems to have been prepared and to have the assent of a significant number of Arbitrators. Thatcher 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shameful errors on the main page

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

    Someone please go change it to something not unlike:

    it currently reads "Paleontologists announce the discovery, near Zhucheng, China, of a bed of dinosaur fossils believed to be the world's largest fossil site.". that's completely proper english, using a dependent clause. Nothing to fix. The phrase "near Zhucheng, China" modifies the nouun 'discovery', indicating the location of the event. Perfectly acceptable grammar. ThuranX (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but your post is non-responsive since you apparently didn't check the timing. The text you quote reads properly now, thankfully, in direct response to my and previous user's posts at WP:ERRORS. It existed in the prior, garbled version for appoximately six hours. The specific matter of the current posting is resolved, but I do think something should be implemented to ward against future repetition.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be useful to quote the problematic item here, lest one should have to check the history of T:DYK: "A paleontologist discovers the largest dinosaur fossil site near Zhucheng, China". That the inelegant item was up so long is, as you well observe, egregious, but I'm much too tired to offer any grand meditations on the lag that usually attends WP:ERRORS entries, except to note gently that it can never hurt to have more admin eyes at ERRORS, particularly during the times when there are likely to be fewer admins active. Joe 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, It was actually much better in that version than a later version. For the record, the text I was truly on about was: "A paleontologist discovers the world's largest collection of dinosaur fossils site near Zhucheng, China" (which is far more problematic than the first version you quote). Please note that I was not speaking before about the lag time to fix it, but rather the editorial oversight—the lack thereof—that okayed it to be placed. The fact that through this discourse, I have discovered that the first version was not nearly as bad as what it became (quoted above) mitigates my concern to some extent.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If we're going to get into grammar, I'd also like to suggest that the version ThuranX quotes above is of dubious quality considering it splits the noun compound, "discovery of bed" with the phrase "near Zhucheng, China"; I believe it creates a bit of lag in interpreting the noun compound. Furthermore, the topicalization of "Zhucheng, China" suggests that the location is the most pressing/interesting piece of information being relayed- I'd say in this case the fact that a new, record-size fossil bed has been discovered is far more important than the location. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any compelling reason that this conversation is happening here and not at WP:ERRORS? What compelling admin action do we need to be notified of at this noticeboard? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I posted here (which I think is fairly evident from my original post) was that the problematic main page material was still up; that the postings by multiple users to WP:ERRORS had not gotten any eyes on the problem. I had assumed that this page might function to alert more admins where posting to the more arcane errors page had not. The compelling admin action, was to get embarrassingly sophomoric writing off the main page and thus out of view of the general public, which is 1) an action that can only be done by admins, and 2) seems pretty compelling to me.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN team would be glad if more users participated in the debates about the candidates. Usually, when a candidate is nominated, there is also a proposed wording and can be improved then. WP:ITN/C. --Tone 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Menadaliv, no, in fact there ar just two phrases modifying 'discovery', one is the location, (where), the other the thing discovered (what). You could reverse them and still have an equally functional sentence. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment: By the time someone read and responded to this thread here, someone at ERRORS had already fixed the problem. Regardless of the lag time in ERRORS (esp. on New Year's Eve), it was still faster than posting it here. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of Autogynephilia

    Resolved
     – template vandalism--Patton123 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    He has since been identified [1] as User:HerkusMonte.

    The IP user claimed [2] on this noticeboard that he used IPs (and, by implication, only IPs) because he is not a regular contributor to the English-language wikipedia. User:HerkusMonte is certainly a regular contributor; in other words, he seems to have told a lie on this board.

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

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

    internal server error or misconfigeration repair or reset

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

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

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

    Template:File other

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

     Done Created redirect. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected the redirect as well. — Edokter • Talk • 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eep. Thanks for taking care of that, doc. (smile) Horologium (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karnak666 disruptive editing

    I would like to bring this user User:Karnak666 [[3]] to your attention. He continuously removes sourced content from the Andre Agassi page. I have reverted it back to the last edit which was done by User:TennisExpert [[4]]. He has just reverted it back to what was when he edited it. He has done this in past without discussion whatsoever and he continues to push his POV into this article . I would appreciate it if you could do something about this disruptive editing. This page was once a featured article candidate which contained that he was indeed Assyrian here [[5]] until some Armenian propagandists changed back to their POV pushing. I have contacted him and he has not responded, he continues to remove sourced material and he has been rebuked by a tennis expert in this discussion. I think he has already violated the 3RR rule. I have provided many sources and they have been confirmed by and expert in the field, I would greatly appreciate it if someone can wiki-disipline this user for his disruptive behavior, constant edit wars with established sources, and POV pushing without providing any of his own input. He has even gone as far as labeling an entire race as cultureless here [[6]] to prove his naive point. Ninevite (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Case needs review by intelligent and humane person

    Resolved
     – Sockpuppet blocked. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone with the stated credentials please review this case [7]. It seems that the administrator has acted on insufficient evidence. Thank you. TerryFried (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser is not insufficient evidence. By the way, who are you? I see you've registered today, but you seem to already be involved in some conflicts. --Smashvilletalk 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TerryFried obviously part of the sock circle noted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Barryispuzzled_(2nd) as well. Ends here as Barry. Also, his talkpage makes it obvious he's in the sock circle. Block needed. D.M.N. (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Smashville has taken care of it. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, kinda dumb to point out the sockpuppetry, the indef block and then start signing your post with your old name. --Smashvilletalk 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Small Html Error

    Resolved
     – Matt (Talk) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    appeal administrator's ban

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

    What topic ban and discussion? rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    this one. // roux   23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, forum shopping, then? If you'd like to appeal, csloat, that thread is the place to do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hand, see Wikipedia:BAN#Administrator_ban: "Administrator-imposed bans should be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidents is part of the AN, I don't think it is necessary for policies to list every possible common sense permutation. Orderinchaos 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, since there's already an ongoing discussion there, that would be the appropriate part of AN to continue with. I'll strike the "forum shopping" comment, as it was a touch BITEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So is this not the proper place to appeal then? I don't understand. I would like to note that the edit war on the page we were punished for editing has continued in our absence, which makes it even more clear that this ban was punitive and did nothing to "protect" Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason we're pointing you to AN/I is that there's already a thread about this ban there. It's best to keep the discussion consolidated in one place. If there hadn't already been the discussion, this would have been the best venue, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD Survey Results

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

    I am being trolled and falsely accused of sockpuppetry

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

    This is not the place for this, you need our outreach department (down the corridor, past the potted plant, second left.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ok, should I delete this? CABlankenship (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wish, it remains in the page history and will be archived anyway if no-one else responds, but it is a wiki and it was your enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Search bar for AN

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


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

    Excellent; I would get it up on all the admin pages asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, this would come handy. --Tone 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Archimedes Plutonium

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

    Of interest:

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

    The same user recreated the article at Ludwig Poehlmann. I've deleted it again and salted that title. Hut 8.5 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that too should probably redirect to List of Usenet personalities. Joe 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, I think not. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 renamed

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

    For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is, or will be drekkly? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes spelling as per motion. Unless somebody copied something wrong and then made a wrong move Agathoclea (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been accused twice of being a troll

    Drork accused me twice of being a troll. Please take the necissary action:

    1) Here 2) And here

    I trust there is no place for such false accusations here. Thank you. Yamanam (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really see a major issue here. Troll looks to be a stretch as far as your contributions to en.wiki are concerned, but you're clearly doing nothing to help achieve a NPOV in the issue discussed. However, it really doesn't appear that anyone else in that conversation is doing much to achieve NPOV either, so you're hardly alone. In the interest of NPOV, I would suggest that you read the thread you link to again in its entirety. What strikes me as interesting is that everyone is pointing out how different cultural biases are evident in the en.wiki, he.wiki, and ar.wiki articles, but not a single person is capable of realizing that all three articles should be improved, rather than held up individually as examples of how flawed the other two articles are. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Hiberniantears for your input, I am not planning to argue more in this matter, if u think this is not a major issue, then neither do I. But in my defence, please read the thread again and see how did I offer to add relaible edits to Ar-Wi to make it more neutral. I said it explicitly:

    Don't let Drork mislead you, you are ALL welcome to provide me with whatever you want to be added to the Arabic Wiki article (along with the sources) and I'll be more than happy to add the edit. Wiki Arabic is one of the most Neutral wiki I've visited. Thanks all. Yamanam

    This at least shows my good intention. Thank you again. Yamanam (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that Yamanam is one of those who blocked attempts to improve the ar-wp article and did his best to introduce further POVized terms there as "massacre", "martyrs" etc. He also insists on relying on Arabic newspapers only, and refuses any reports from other sources. He is very much responsible for the poor condition of the ar-wp, and it would be sad to see him doing the same on en-wp. As for the he-wp, I stopped contributing to he-wp some time ago, so I can't be hold accounted to what is written there, and yet anyone who reads Hebrew can see that the article there is in much better shape, even though it is far from being perfect. I have no complaints about badly written articles when they are describing ongoing disputable events. This is natural. I do complain about using Wikipedia as forum for publishing political propaganda. DrorK (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is Yamanam's last contribution, see for yourself: Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Here's the opening of his response to me after I edited the ar-wp article (I translate): "Listen Drork, if you want to add you racist opinions which comes from the entity of you racist Zionist terroristic occupying state..." w:ar:نقاش:مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008. Yamanam is the kind of persons who are nice talking in English, but not when talking in his mother tongue. DrorK (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said was: Listen Drork, if you want to add your racist opinions emerging from your racisit occupying terrorist zionist entity state DO SO BUT PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES
    I didn't stop him from editing or adding but I urged him to add sources. It is not a secret that I extremely hate the "state of Israel", but I don't let that influence my edits. And you know that Drork more than anyone else. Concerning the article, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, I can't see what is wrong with it.Yamanam (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I suppose the list of insults and accusations pointed at me personally and at all Israelis was just a tool to motivate me to find better sources. This argument is pathetic. DrorK (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch out Drork, I neither insulted u, niether insulted the Israeli people. Don't add lies here.Yamanam (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, I have recently declined a speedy delete request on the above on the grounds that "propaganda" is not a suitable criteria, and I would likewise comment that the need for better or sufficient sources are not negated by them being wrapped within biased commentary. However, if Yamanam believes that their dislike of the State of Israel does not effect their approach to editing related articles then they are only fooling themselves. I would forcibly point out that while the WP community is helpless in persuading pro and anti Israeli advocates toward peacefully co-existing, the community can ensure that editing of relevant articles by editors of both sentiments will be either done in peaceful co-existence or not at all. I suggest that both (sets of) editors attempt to provide the best references for the article(s) and ensure that neutrally worded content reflects the sources provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    LessHeard vanU I totally agree with you, and would kindly ask you to watch my edits so you can advise me how to improve my neutrality, and how not to let my hate to Israel effect my approach. Yamanam (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yamanam declares he hates Israel, and he insults me as an Israeli, and then claims he actually flatters me, and at the end of the day I'm the one on trial here? Has someone casted a bad spell over Wikipedia in the past few days? If so, we'd better all drink the antidote as soon as possible. If you look at Yamanam edits in ar-wp and in en-wp, it will be clear to you that this person is only here to drag us to turn this project into a battlefield. If you want to cooperate - fine, but this will be the end of Wikipedia as a respectful project. DrorK (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is on trial here, least of all you DrorK. Yamanam started this thread to get an administrator to take action against you, which was declined. Yamanam then proceeds to tell us about his personal hatred, which is essentially tendentious editorializing that clearly crosses the line on civility given the context of this thread. If anything, I am more inclined to agree with you now that he is a troll. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yamanam is clearly trolling. Any time you say "Listen Drork, if you want to add your racist opinions emerging from your racisit occupying terrorist zionist entity state "DO SO BUT PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES", instead of ' I find that too controversial to allow in unless cited when added', you're trolling, and breaking CIVIL and NPA as well. Frankly, I find his language to be excessively bigoted. If he keeps it up in here, I'd even support a civility block, and quoting himself over and over would be a reason to block, since he knows it;'s just going to piss off anyone who reads it. Further, in light of the current Hamas/Israel conflict, any editing on those pages ought to be conducted on the talk page first and only brought to the article with consensus. ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like to defend myself especially when I am not mistaken, what is happening here, is totally misunderstanding of my intention, maybe I am the cause, maybe I should have added more explanations, but I didn't. One more thing, I quoted myself again for one reason to show the big picture, not anyother reason. Anyways, I don't want this subject to be misunderstood again. So I will be straight forwatd: I can assure you, ThuranX and Hiberniantears, that I am not what you think based on this thread. That is why I am asking both of you to take my input in this thread in good intention, and my coming edits will prove that. I think this is the best I can do now in this matter. Yamanam (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

    The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with new messages banner

    I keep getting the "new messages" banner popping up when I have not got a new message. Instead I keep getting the last new messag when I click on the link. Anybody know what is happening? Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#You have new messages bar sticking; seems to be a widespread problem. Happy‑melon 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please softblock 216.118.68.193 (talk · contribs) for a week

    I have a wireless network that appears to have been compromised by a vandal. I will have a computer guy in by next week but until then please place a softblock on my IP (216.118.68.193) until I get a computer techincian to change the code. Thank you--Ipatrol (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that there are recent contribs from the ip. Can you confirm that these are you only (I also changed the header for quicker access). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum - I checked WHOIS who note this was a static address, so I have blocked per request pending response. Any admin who thinks this unwise can unblock without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    continuing disruptive edits

    Resolved

    [8] has been vandalizing pages up to getting a vandalism4 template, and continues. Can someone please block him from editing? Concrete 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has been blocked. Next time, please report vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a generally faster response. Raven4x4x (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Well, it drives me nuts at Wikispecies because we got hit pretty hard lately there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Tony1/AdminReview

    Just a note that I have semi-protected User talk:Tony1/AdminReview for the time being following some editwarring to insert abuse by a succession of TOR Proxy IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. And User:Tony1/AdminReview too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=261660650"