Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 31

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archives}}

Changes to sitewide CSS

I've made a change to the sitewide CSS here to enable, when you click a footnote/reference superscript, it will now take you to that reference in the reflist *and* highlight it blue. This aids in navigation so you don't have to remember which footnote number you have clicked. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • P.S. This new fantastic feature will not work if you do not clear your cache. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was about to say that I didn't notice any difference. Thanks for the tip. ;) Lauryn (utc) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Block setting

Friends,

Please be mindful that we do not disable talk page editing for IP blocks without great cause, and we use extreme caution when doing so with the named editors. They must first abuse the talk page or email privilege before we remove it. We should not be ticking these boxes preemptively. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unused Cats.

Hey guys. Just wondering if the categories in Special:UnusedCategories should be deleted per QD C1? Some of them are maintenance categories that would have to stay, but others just don't have anything in them. I would just quick delete them, but I am not sure if there is a good reason why there are all there. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete the content ones; don't touch the Wikipedia maintenance ones (eg. Category:Quick deletion requests, as they are supposed to be empty most of the time). PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I cleaned them up. They fall clearly under C1 and should therefore be deleted. I just kept the empty WP/cleanup template which may be useful. Barras talk 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Barras!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Protecting Wikipedia:RecentChanges

Wikipedia:RecentChanges and its subpages have been protected with edit=sysop. I think that's overkill, considering that edit=autoconfirmed should be enough to keep those pages "safe". If we leave it as edit=sysop, I'll need to give EhJBot3 the sysop bit, so it can continue to update the counts. EhJJTALK 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do that then. The pages have been repeatedly proven to be vulnerable to attack. I don't see why we should tolerate this abuse; most active editors are admins anyway. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Give the bot the bit, just have it edit over protection. No blocking, protection, et cetera type admin actions please. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with Peter, the amount of abuse that Wikipedia:RecentChanges and its subpages receive is ridiculous, and something we should not put up with. Let's just sysop the bot. Lauryn (utc) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've flagged the bot so it can still edit the needed pages. If we unprotect, we should remove the bit. Barras talk 20:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Ok. The bot doesn't know how to do things like "block" or "protect". It will just edit as usual, but with the ability to edit protected pages. Thanks Barras for flagging the bot. EhJJTALK 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh..could someone point me to the abuse received while under autoconfirmed? I'm much too lazy to find it myself. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Minefield. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
One user, seriously? I know that what he did was bad, but IMO autoconfirmed users should be able to edit that page. I would agree with full protection on the main template, but not with the others. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? The bot that updates it is an admin, the majority of active users are admins and if they're not and a mistake is found, there's always an admin on to fix it. I don't see the downside to this at all. Lauryn (utc) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
That autoconfirmed users can't edit the subpage of the template. There are sometimes issues with the template (from my experience as non-admin) that have not always been fixed quickly. I really don't see why full protection is needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The only reason to edit one of the subpages is if the bot is offline. So far, the bot's been working fine 99% of the time. Editing the subpages is a complete waste of time if the bot is working, since it will overwrite whatever change you made within 10 minutes. For now, it may as well be protected with only the bot making changes to the subpages. EhJJTALK 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Most wanted can't be done by a bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent} That is what {{editprotected}} is for. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
We have lazy admins. I saw a bluelink (I'm lazy too) there for 24 hours. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No one dies if the link is there for 24 hours...and if I see such a request, I'll fulfil it as soon as possible as most other admins, too. Barras talk 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
W/E. Probably for the better. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to encourage the use of {{editprotected}} in these cases. Truthfully, RC is a vulnerable page, that would benefit from protection. This is why we have administrators, to process such requests because it would be too dangerous to allow anyone to do this thing, as we have seen today. The wiki is growing my friends, we have to grow with it. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct your import settings...

Please untick the box Copy all history revisions for this page as we do not want/desire all revisions. When importing with the setting unticked, the import will import the last good revision, and a dummy revision citing the source. This satisfies our licensing requirements. If we import all revisions then users will have contribution histories that never contributed here, et cetera. Think of the cross wiki tools that count and cat those revisions, and how confused this may become in the long run. Also, we will have phantom move entries that will not coincide with our move log, to note a couple of problems with importing all revisions. Love, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. I fail to see how one revision satisfies licensing and what not; obviously the last revision didn't write the whole page. Lauryn (utc) 03:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The last revisions satisfies it because it says you imported it from en which is all that is required. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, at any rate, I fail to see the problem with importing all the revisions of a page. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things, however. Lauryn (utc) 03:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Like I said I dont think its a huge deal, but it can sometimes be confusing when you mix simple history with en history...because there will be one simple edit, 5 en edits, another simple edit, a few more en edits etc in the history making it hard to decipher. -DJSasso (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Alot of the counters don't actually count those revisions. They are listed seperately from normal edits. Some counters do, but others do not. I can see how this is confusing. But I don't think its much of an issue. Personally I import them all if the article is a new article, and only import the last one if its an article we already had. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Confused by the above. :) Does anyone object to my actions, or, may I continue? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    I don't really think you should go back in import history deleting and restoring. I would just say going forward that people should think when editing if they need all the edits or not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with DJ.--   CR90  03:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

VirginFanon & 24.16.56.60

Both "color vandals"...put nonsense colors like "Leuvee" in color articles. Fannon sprung up about the time the IP was block. Keep on the lookout for them. Some of their changes may still be live.

This should go in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If it continues after the first talk page message, I'll remove the changing rights for the names account. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That's good Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 06:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (anything else is too orange to make (the point
Actually, both blocked. Seems the IP and the editor are the same, so yes, has been warned and blocked. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to sitewide JS

I have injected Obento's icon code into the Sitewide Javascript in Rev 2037718. Note that I've not done any testing and localization on betawiki for this, code looked sane. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Jamesoffur already fix the topicons with the fix prior to yours? -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See Simple talk if you haven't already. James (T C) 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, I had to remove the code for many reasons. I believe that more discussion may be warranted per James. And the code has unresolved conflict. I have also asked the coder to isolate and resolve the conflicts before I add the code to the site javascript firstly. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Zachary Jaydon

Following the request on my talk page, I have added the NOINDEX magic word to the two RfD pages involved for now, namely the above and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Zachary Jaydon. Please go through them and evaluate whether a courtesy blanking is needed, as I understand that it should be done in extreme cases (of which there is no definition). Another such request is also present at en:User talk:Sandstein. Chenzw  Talk  08:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protecting living people should be one of our utmost priorities. As such, I've undertaken the suggested action. Lauryn (utc) 08:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything that could be made as embarrassing or sensitive on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Zachary Jaydon that would require a blanking. I would request we not blank this in deference to saving the template usage for more clear cases It appears we have blanked it. I will not object to the current blanking. NonvocalScream (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
When people are experiencing real life consequences due to content hosted on this site, especially when it is not an article but a deletion request, we should do all we can to remedy the situation. Lauryn (utc) 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I just did not see anything particularly negative in the deletion discussion. This however, is not an issue with me, so I have currently no issues with the blanking as it has been applie. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; I appreciate the clarification. Lauryn (utc) 08:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't really see the point of it since there is nothing negative in the discussion, nor is there any personal information in it linking it to a specific person. I think this is something just trying mock us. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact I am guessing its the scammer talked about here trying to make sure people don't realize he is a scammer. Quite the timing. Only a few days after the post an "unreleated" person comes here asking to helped. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

I can't find the system message, but, can someone add {{schoolblock}} to the block dropdown? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's there. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

20px Resolved. Done by Script error: No such module "user".. Pmlineditor  06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please protect my user page [edit=autoconfirmed] [move=sysop] indefinitely, and my talk page [move=sysop] indefinitely? Thanks! J.delanoy talkchanges 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proxy Bot on Simple Wikipedia?

Considering how Wikipedia's ProcseeBot is such a great thing, that brings the question to why we don't has da proxies botz. The Final Downfall (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is universal agreement that ProcseeBot is a "great thing". We don't have a proxy bot because we rarely have proxy attacks. If it become a problem, we may get a bot to block proxies. We've talked about this before, and people are split on whether we should have one or not. EhJJTALK 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Until it becomes a huge problem, I (and the other admins) can handle blocking proxies. Thank you for your concern, however. Lauryn (utc) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Student guide navbar

Could an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Student tutorial/Nav bar}} to the 3rd page of the student guide? Lord revan (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Lauryn (utc) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review

20px Resolved.
Subject of DRV is watching, so we shall keep it open, well, unless the closing administrator determines that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing the review. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
20px Resolved.
Review closed as not restored; per SNOW and NOT. fr33kman 06:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
But it has not been the five to seven days procedure requires as stated. But whatever, you're the 'crat.--   CR90  08:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It matters not. There's no way that this is going to get overturned, so leaving it open is pointless. I would have done the same had I not been involved in the discussion. Lauryn (utc) 08:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesse20

Template:Noping (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Multiple issues. Has created bad pages and made bad edits. But what drove the was when he commented on a AFD that he knows people with time machines. Obvious lack of CLUE. Block? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Peter did the honours. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked his IP address, too. Either way (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Great job, Purplebackpack. Quick reporting. You can also report similar users at WP:VIP. Classical Esther 03:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I was hitting him for CLUE as well as VAND, which is why it's here :-D Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

POV editing by Christianrocker90

No comments made for almost a week and we seem to be going in circles. Said user has retired again, so there's really nothing more to do here. Lauryn (utc) 02:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)