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. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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

Self-reverting and topic bans

It is my understanding that when a user violates 3RR or 1RR, and self-reverts immediately, it is treated as a good-faithed mistake and gives no reason to block (or report). What about a situation where a user under a topic ban violates it, then immediately self-reverts? Could and should we treat it is a topic ban violation (punishd by a block), or is the self-revert enough to treat it as a good-faithed mistake with no action required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider self reverts which are timely and unilateral to be not normally counted toward 3RR (or less where agreed) or topic bans unless they are obviously part of a disruptive pattern. If an editor is topic banned I may also consider a self reverted edit to the main article to be disruptive, unlike to an article which may be considered peripheral to the ban - the topic banned editor should know that they cannot edit one of the main pages. Except for fairly obvious gaming of restrictions it is likely less disruptive not to enforce any self reverted violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An occasional slip-up followed by an immediate self-revert is likely OK. If, however, a user is doing this dozens or hundreds of times, something is up... --Jayron32 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. This (last thread on the page) is a recent case of an editor self-reverting to game the system and copping a firm sanction. It all depends on the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Use common sense" is the essence of IAR, is it not? Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above. Self-reverts can be used to cure unintentional xRR or topic ban violations; knowingly violating a xRR rule or a topic ban is always blockable. One particularly clear example of the latter is this case. T. Canens (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  Sandstein  20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one "Accidentally" violate a topic ban? I was just reading that page and my mouse slipped and hit the edit button. Then I tripped and as I was falling I hit the keyboard and typed all that content. As I struggled to my feet I was pawing at the desk and the mouse came down and hit save.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If one is topic banned from the area of edit conflict A/B because of partisan editing to the B aspect, it might be possible to edit article Z in good faith without initially realising its connection to A? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ps. I would thank you not to advertise my content editing method, either.

How about accidentally hitting a rollback button instead of a diff on a watchlist? I know I do it every few months, at the very least :) Or how about when you are doing some wikignoming, like AutoEd or article quality assessment on a new article feed or a category, and around article 250 you realize that one of those you just did might have intersected with the blurry boundary of a poorly-defined topic ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between accidentally clicking two buttons side-by-side and banging out content on an article you're banned from. I would say the onus is on the person who is topic banned to be fully aware of the articles they're banned from and if anything is fuzzy seek clarification before editing a particular article. Other than vandalism there is nothing that is an emergency that requires they edit it that moment if there is any ambiguity.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Auto-blocking by default?

Currently, the default block settings will block IP addresses recently used by a blocked user (per the "Auto-block any IP addresses used" check box). I've recently encountered a number of cases where this lead to problems. As a result, I think we should discuss if we want to enable auto-blocking by default, and if we should give clearer guidelines on when and when not to use auto-blocking. On the one hand, auto-blocks can be very useful for dealing with generally disruptive users who are willing to sock to evade a block. But on the other hand, we have many users who get temporarily blocked due to minor infractions, and who accept the block, probably not happily, but with a reasonable degree of contentedness. Since more and more organizations use Firewalls and Network Address Translation, very often many legitimate users are behind an institutional IP used by a blocked user (think university, company, library). On the other hand, many residential users can get a brand-new IP-address via a reset of their DSL modem, so auto-blocks are not a sure-fire thing. I personally would suggest to avoid auto-blocking for established users who have no history of socking or block evasion. This may be achieved by changing the default on the block page, and/or by adding an appropriate explanation on that page. I'm happy to hear pros and cons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I myself have probably caused innocent bystanders to be autoblocked due to recent fair blocks on my account and my dynamic IP address (I can "get a brand-new IP-address via a reset of their DSL modem"); I support this suggestion. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple clarification of policy that tells admins when and when not to enable autoblock would be fine. It doesn't matter if it's default as one can uncheck the box. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if the blinker is on by default, because the driver can always turn it off" ;-). Sorry, but this would make a large difference in practice. If there is a consensus that auto-blocking is the rare case, we should support this by this simple technical means. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I don't think it should be the rare case—we can always turn it off later if clicked by accident, but if we leave it off by accident, then we can't prevent the same person from continuing to vandalize. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dedicated vandals and trolls will get around it either way, so I don't think that should enter into our thinking. What it will stop is the casual vandal who is willing to log out to continue vandalizing, which probably describes most of the vandals at Wikipedia. I agree that it should be left "on" by default, its likely to cause more problems by being left off than on. --Jayron32 16:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Jayron32. I presume that when the use of the block button was devolved to admins it had already been found that a blocked vandal account was likely to immediately "exact revenge" through disruptive editing via the ip, and thus it was decided to default to autoblock. A decent block notice on the user talkpage, which the auto block refers to, will advise the non disruptive ip editor what the situation is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At one point, I experimented with unchecking the autoblock button when blocking vandals. It became quickly apparent that the common response was just continuation of the same vandalism from an IP address. So I think the autoblock button should be on by default. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should have a CheckUser bot keep track of which IP ranges have this problem (I don't think that giving the community a general picture of "127.0.0.0/16 has 2000 IPs autoblocked" would be a violation of anyone's privacy), and add them to MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist. Beyond that, I think that all blocks except for AGF usernames, role accounts and malfunctioning approved bots should be autoblocked.

I don't think a CU bot would ever be approved. Too risky, marginal benefits. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Resolved

 – Cleared, twice now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:UAA, if an admin familiar with the intricacies of the username policy would like to get block some of the vios. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleared (mostly). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; it's now built up again, if someone would like to take a look. Doesn't really require an admin though; I don't want to unilaterally remove a horde of reports, but there are many added in quick succession which are unactionable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Sorted GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New account making null edits?

Boi O Death (talk · contribs) just popped up on my watchlist; seems to be making null edits. Could be a vandal account trying to get past some tresholds...? Or could be something innocent... I haven't seen anything similar. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it may possibly be a user who thinks that one becomes "Autoconfirmed" by doing enough edits, and not knowing that he would also need to have 4 days. Note that his may not be only som,ething a vandal would do - some of the reasons for creating an account listed at Wikipedia:Why create an account? require a user to be autoconfirmed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Notify the discussed user anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified here. Jarkeld (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Making null edits is not a violation of policy, there are several reasons for doing that, so AGF, even if the user is just doing it to get autoconfirmed there are reasons for wanting that other than to vandalise or similar. Secondly, it's not exactly nice to tell a new user that they're already being discussed on the admins board, it slaps of WP:BITE in that it's not exactly welcoming and may deter the user. In this instance the proper course of action would have been to sit back and keep an eye on the user yourself, I hope you are capable of that, and then report to ANI/AIV if and when the user does become an issue. Until such a time there is nothing no one can do here. Case closed.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I was not familiar with a case like this, I wanted to bring it here and ask for advice from active admins who I assumed may be more familiar with such cases. I don't see myself suggesting a block or anything like that, so BITE hardly applies - other then, apparently, in being bitten for daring to ask a question here. Next time I'll consider the benefits of stumbling in the dark or doing nothing instead of seeking advice. PS. Thanks to Od Mishehu in particular for giving useful advice. As far as I am concerned, that should've been the end of this matter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I believe they're not null edits (which would not be recorded in the articles' histories or in the account's contributions) but dummy edits. The last two of his edits at the time of my writing this—and presumably all the other edits as well—involved adding unnecessary additional word spaces, between the first two sentences of the section here and between "c." and "1915" here (the changes don't show up in the diffs; one has to look at the edit windows for the versions before and after the edits). Although the changes may be minimal, it would be interesting to know what the person thinks he's doing. Deor (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I see this was somewhat settled by Promethean a couple posts ago, I felt that I should at least acknowledge and respond to the charges by which Piotrus is persecuting me. I just want to know if what I was doing is a crime, and if so, I will halt my actions immediately. And if not (and even if so), I would like that you please contact me of my actions or any other grievances you have toward me privately before you attempt to grab a pitchfork-wielding mob to crucify me. Thanks in advance! Boi O Death (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For starters you're screwing peoples watchlists up. Real edits are being hidden from your null edits. I think it'd be a good idea to stop...RxS (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"persecuting", "crime", "pitchfork-wielding mob", "crucify"? Sounds like somebody is overreacting. Do I hear quacking? Yworo (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask if that was a necessary post that contributed at all to this discussion, Yworo? It just so happens that that is the way I talk. And excuse me if I may seem a tad paranoid, but I have already been attacked by multiple people, as it seems (which includes you). Boi O Death (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to tell us why you're scattering isolated spaces about in an indiscriminate manner? Deor (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep this discussion going, so unless there is something substantive on which I can comment, I am going to ignore this - and I suggest you all do the same. Boi O Death (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Substantive... how about answering Deor's question above? @Yworo: I think I am hearing it, too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, according to what I have always been taught, it is right and proper to add two spaces when following periods. Nothing more, nothing less. So please, just let me be on my way to editing more grammar and spelling mistakes, and I will stop my space-adding. Boi O Death (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you put a double space, the MediaWiki software will trim it back to one space. See MOS#Spaces following terminal punctuation. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOS#Spaces_following_terminal_punctuation. Although in proportional typesetting, for decades, only one space has been used (not two spaces), the wiki software treats two or one spaces as only one space when rendering a page. There is no reason at all for adding two spaces to terminal punctuation on Wikipedia. Two spaces is mostly a leftover from the days of typewriters, most of which used non-proportional characters. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boi, you are more than welcome to help with copyediting the Wikipedia, but as Gwen mentions above, familiarizing yourself with Wikipeda:Manual of style would be helpful. I'd also suggest you check the guides and activities of projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Well-meaning but misguided actions can lead to discussions such as the ones here. Lastly, please avoid personal attacks - check out policies such as WP:AGF and WP:CIV. And good luck with your future copyedits, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a couple decades out of date. While it used to be two spaces in the days of typewriters, there's no reason for it in the computer age, where fonts can vary so widely. A single space is all that you need after a period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD backlog

There is a growing backlog at MfD going all the way back into November 26 that need to be closed. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And SFD has a major backlog, including one discussion from October. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

Moved to WP:ANI § User:HelloAnnyong

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved administrator re-close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations

Resolved

Please also be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19 in re-closing.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Spartaz.  :)—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edits

Please help Can someone create Talk:Academy_of_Public_Administration_(Belarus) and add {{WikiProject Belarus}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Help closing a discussion

Is there "a technically-competent, fair-minded administrator who hasn't been previously involved with Ahnentafels or genealogy" who can help close the discussion on Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1? It's been going on for five months and there is no more new opinion to be made on this issue.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06

Administrator:Buckshot06 acted one sidedly, and deleted Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, Agdaban massacre without contributing ongoing discussion. It clearly shows his poor dispute resolution abilities. He should simply stay away ethnic conflict and war crimes related pages.--CenkX (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The proper place to address this is WP:DRV. You could also take up the matter with the administrator on their talk page. --Jayron32 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the deleted articles, it does appear that they were deleted out of process. I have notified Buckshot06 of this discussion. It still may be better to take this to WP:DRV, but since this is here, lets see what their response it. --Jayron32 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)