Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:37, 18 December 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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)

Template:Active editnotice

Adminstrator who passed away.

Mirwin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) sadly passed away from an heart attack over a year ago according to this and a post on the mailing list left by his brother. I blocked the account as a precaution, but what should we do with the tools? Thanks Secret 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. The tools don't do anything if no one is using them. BTW, per WP:BEANS, announcing to the world "Hey, here's an account worth hacking into" is probably a bad idea. --Jayron32 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A Steward should desysop. Blocking is pointless. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How's about doing absolutely nothing. There's no evidence of a problem. Indeed these tools are much less likely to be abused than yours or mine. Certainly no more likely than any other set of tools that have been disused for a similar period - and proposals to desysop other "inactive" users have always been rejected. Doing something simply gets us into issues of verification, "is it respectful" and process. Seems to me that the smart, non-creepy things is either to desysop all account unused after a certain time, or desysop none whatsoever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, comedy - Old Scotty turns up like a bad penny. Okay - do nothing - after all the devs have said repeatedly that inactive accounts are far less likely to be hacked (except of course that everyone now knows this is the account of a deceased user) but 'tis true. And yes - we should desysop after extended inactivity as it takes no effort to remove or add bits (as Scotty knows - he just transfered his tools from one account to another after all). But heck, consistency in argument was never Old Scotty's top table offering; so - whatever. My belated condolences to the family. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I really can't make head nor tail of your tirade there. I am arguing for consistency here. I'm arguing that either we should be consistent in desysopping inactive accounts after period x, or we should simply not desysop any account unless a problem develops. Either solution is dram-free and prevents any needless debate in any specific case. I'm happy with either - but since the devs say inactive accounts are not a problem - then let's stick with the status-quo and do nothing. If a deceased wikipedian has a sysop account, it is no more likely to be a problem than that of someone departed but still breathing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Though there's the possibility of hacking, I agree that a steward should desysop the account, like they did with several adminstrators in other projects who passed away. Secret 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No brainer. Doesn't even need discussion here; just notify a steward to flip the bit. Any argument to the contrary is simply being contrary for the sake of it. Tan | 39 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have done a pre-emptive dictionary attack on all admin accounts to check for easy to brute force passwords, and we have installed captchas after 2 wrong guesses and severely throttled the API login. These were the 3 major problems leading to people breaking admin passwords. The primary routes of attack that remain are key-logging, cookie-stealing, session-hijacking and forgetting to log out of a public terminal. None of these remaining routes are going to happen unless the account is in use. We can just leave it be. Chillum 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chances of hacking are minimal to say the least. But when we had this debate a year ago (when Scott Mac was very vocal I might add - per my reply above) consensus, as I recall, was to not block as a mark of respect to the user, but certainly to remove any advanced permissions, sans drama - "just in case". And whilst I appreciate Chillum's comments didn't Zoe and RickK's passwords leak out after they *cough* left the project? So no harm in a desysop and no benefit in not desysoping. It's only one click by a Steward. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those cases are what led to the captchas, pre-emptive dictionary attacks, and the throttling of the API login. Chillum 21:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan and with the last half of Pedro's comment above. I made the request at Meta. @Kate (parlez) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Katerenka. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall corectly, the passwords were "easily guessable" if you knew the person, or something of the sort. –xeno 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Xeno, apparently they were the same person, but this is off-topic. Secret 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they were, yes this is off topic, and yes I'm sure my cough was accurate. But anyhow. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we gotta do something to prevent account hijacking, desysopping seems the way to go. Blocking the account while leaving the admin bit makes no sense whatsoever, as a potential hijacker could simply unblock himself. Without the tools, on the other hand, not much damage could be done. --Conti|✉ 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• When I die, please don't desysop me. I want to use my tools after death. –xeno 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather like an Egyptian Pharaoh, Spitfire 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (smiling :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally see desysopping and blocking as a form of embalming - a kind of respect for the dead, having very little to do with actual fear of abuse, but a ritualized fear of abuse.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Desysop yes, block no. It does no harm to desysop the account, but it might just prevent future abuse. Spitfire 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the sad loss, it's a bit meh really innit? Its unlikely that should someone gain access to the account that they will be able to actually do anything worthwhile with it. Otoh stripping the bit is easy and should we be misinformed they can be reinstated just as easily. I don't think it does anyone any favors to believe that we should not be stripping bits of people believed dead, imagine what the list of admins will consist of in 30-40 years. Its a mop, not a medal. I am also somewhat confused regarding what possible problem there could be with blocking the account, not that I see it necessary however. Unomi (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see blocking as a punishment or a black mark, and I think that is the divide here. I advocate blocking account of deceased persons because that account is theirs, and no one elses. Any fear of abuse is not for me or us collectively, but for the deceased, a way of ensuring their name remains untainted.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that we only ever discuss this in the light of specific deaths - we would be more respectful if we could work out a clear and consistent position without having to sully the rememberance of a fellow contributor with this perennially recurring debate. That said, I think Tznkai has it about right for why we block, and as for desysop, tools should only be held by those who need them, and until the advent of Ouijapedia the departed do not need admin tools. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(oh, I am SO gonna burn in hell for snarking in this thread) Once Ouijapedia 1.0 comes out, how will we deal with the BDP question? GJC 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tznkai. Also, an additional reason for removing the bit in this situation would be to help keep stats on number of admins accurate. Rd232 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a note be placed on this person's userpage indicating they have passed away and/or are no longer active? It looks like they haven't logged on in 6 years anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As it says at the top of User talk:Mirwin, the user lost access to the account and continued to edit as Lazyquasar (talk · contribs). Graham87 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just let the whole situation rest peacefully? Chillum 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The computer and paperwork of a deceased admin will almost certainly be passed to someone, who may pass to someone else, and any recorded account details may become known by others (the computer may be sold to a stranger). Accordingly, there is a reason to be concerned about account disclosure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If any admin goes away, for whatever reason, the account should be de-sysopped and blocked. If someone hacks into it, at worst they'll have a normal editor's account instead of an account that could do a lot more damage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's too obvious for the clowns here. AGF, even in death.--Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As Tan said earlier, why is there even any debate on the matter? There's no legitimate reason for the account of a departed wikipedia admin to have admin capabilities. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true of any computer of any user with "advanced permissions" being sold. I don't really see your point. You'll never know if the person behind this account today is the person behind this account tomorrow. Such is life. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When a computer is sold, it usually winds up at a different IP range. Does the login code test for the IP? I'd presume it would be possible to do so. LeadSongDog come howl 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• In response to some above, we have in fact done the discussion on this before. I note that the meta request was denied as no local policy. We have some guidelines here from a discussion here. Consensus was that we do not block the account but we do remove advanced permissions. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest getting the Arbitration Committee to pass a motion. Otherwise, I don't see this request ever being fulfilled. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If I die, and someone desysops and/or blocks me, I'd be pretty annoyed. Of course, my opinions wouldn't exactly matter at that point. Prodego 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Last time I checked, |If I die=="true". Perhaps you meant "When"? ;-o LeadSongDog come howl 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Please do not crystal ball, we may yet find the fountain of youth prior to Prodego's expiration. –xeno 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Oooh, how very meta! "Please do not crystal ball, we may yet..." Can I steal that line? LeadSongDog come howl 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You know guys, you may want to protect the user page and put up a notice like we have all the others. Especially since we now have a few thousand lines dedicated to saying the guy is dead, which kind of now makes that userpage a very big target. Rgoodermote  01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCR rename?

I believe that No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man should be renamed "No climbing the Bundestag dressed as Spider-Man" since the Reichstag has not existed for over 60 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJMiller (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What, then, Spider-Man does exist??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man#Bundestag. User:Zscout370 00:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a Misplaced Pages:No renaming "no climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man" policy. The name comes from the history of the page, let's not change it. And let's definitely not climb any building dressed as any popular comic-book character demanding that it be changed. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Unpopular comic-book characters for use in wikilawyering around this excellent suggestion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Can some admins please clean up the backlog at WP:UAA? There are entries that have been sitting there for much of the day. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That page gets regularly reviewed by several admins (including myself), so there's no need to post here unless there are 30-40 accounts sitting there. No worries if a report sits there for several hours (or even a day). If the account is an issue, it will be handled. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it has been backlogged a lot lately, and if an account is posted there it should be blocked or moved to the holding pen (or removed altogether) instead of just sitting there being ignored. NJA (t/c) 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all accounts posted there should be blocked or moved to the holding pen. In fact, only about half of them are. The rest are false positives, or misreported. SItting there for a day is not going to hurt anything. There is no rush to deal with these accounts. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then remove them as non-blatant as I try to do when there's not action to be taken. NJA (t/c) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I do, and what others do as well. My whole point is that accounts posted there are not emergency-must-handle-now issues. It's perfectly fine for the account to be handled within a day or so, and that's what happens with most all of them. Unless there are 30-40 accounts piled up, it's not really backlogged, despite what the template on the page may say. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone, especially but not necessarily an admin, has marked a name as non-blatant, can a non-admin like myself remove them if I agree (I presume that's why admins tend mark as non-blatant rather than just delete? To get consensus?) --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I will often mark one as non-blatant (or something else) in one edit, then come back in another and remove it. I do that so people who like to review history can see why a listing was removed. I don't always do this, but I do most of the time. And yes, a non-admin can remove one which has been tagged as non-blatant. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Only a little bit BEANSy...

In the last few weeks, I've come across several vandals and misguided newbies who are making 10 minor and superfluous edits to random articles (removing red links, adding red links, changing header levels, increasing or decreasing image sizes by a pixel or two) and are then creating an article about their mate's band or their geography teacher's cock or whatever in userspace and moving it to the mainspace.

This is removing a fair proportion of these articles from appearing in Special:NewPages, so that the time taken to delete a nasty attack page increases from a few minutes to, sometimes, days (although the length of time taken to remove these attacks has increased due to the breaching experiment at WP:NEWT anyway).

My point, however, is not NEWT. My point is: with so many people suddenly using this method, clearly we're advertising it somewhere. Where? And, why? ⬅ ❝Redvers in a one-horse open sleigh❞ 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article creation wizard? –xeno 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot could be created to provide a log of moves from userspace into mainspace. Maybe updating it once an hour or so, and removing entries that are redlinked in the mainspace. –xeno 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The method is probably not due to someone using the AW2.0 in good faith, nothing in there actually walks a user through the 10-edits-wait-4-days-vandalize cycle described above. If what he says is going on, there is a good chance that there is something out there advising people how to avoid detection at Misplaced Pages. I would not be surprised if some of the sites known to coordinate attacks at Misplaced Pages (the /b/tards at 4chan for example) haven't explained how to do this. --Jayron32 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If your looking for a report tool I could whip one up on the toolserver fairly quickly. β 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Something like Xeno described could be quite useful... LadyofShalott 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, Beta. Let us know where it outputs to? ⬅ ❝Redvers in a one-horse open sleigh❞ 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/usermoves β 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. Might want to mention it at WT:NPP / WP:NPP –xeno 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to advertise for me, and if you check a move and its ok feel free to check the Ok button and hit next. those items that have been Oked no longer show up in the list that it returns. β 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This might be too much to ask for if it isn't employed already, but does/could your tool remove the moves of users who have autoreviewer rights? This might cut back on the moves listed, so it mostly targets the group we wanna check on. I don't know if that is feasible, but it seemed like a good idea when I was looking at the list. Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)This has been a pattern going back at least 6-8 months. I noticed these kinds of edits increasing over time until I stopped patrolling a while back. I think if you got someone to checkuser a lot of these "newbie" accounts, you'd find they're all operated by 5 or 6 people, possibly fewer, and that they have enormous sock drawers running back a year or two. These are not the edits of n00bs, they're the edits of someone intimately familiar with how to game the system. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Should also ignore moves by sysops, heck, I would say also ignore moves by account creators and rollbackers, but that's u2u. –xeno 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is also how the system is gamed to bypass semi-protection, most notably at the Virgin Killer article. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, FWIW, sysops have autoreviewer and rollback rights rolled into them, I believe. :-) Killiondude (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but I wasn't sure if he was taking autoreviewer-the named userright or autoreviewer-the permission that comes with it. Per below it looks like the former? –xeno 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

tools:~betacommand/reports/usermove_ignore.txt is the list of users it will ignore, that list is created with all users who are in "autoreviewer", "sysop","bot","accountcreator","rollbacker" user groups. this does not include users who get those permissions via other rights. if you need any more added let me know. the list of users that it ignores is updated daily at 1:30 UTC. any other request let me know. β 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice tool Betacommand, thanks. Any chance of an option on it to only show users under 1 month old? It seems from the description above that most people trying to get away with this will be new accounts. Chillum 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really doable without making an ugly and slow query on the database that I would prefer nor to do. But once the initial backlog is cleared the list should be easy to maintain. (remember that for your checked Oks to be submitted you need to hit the next button). the rate that they are moved is not that great, especially with the filters that are in place. β 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Chillum 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well its not exactly what your looking for but I was able to add an additional filter that limits accounts created within this month or the previous month. So it now only lists moves done by accounts created in November or December. Next month it will show December/January. β 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Experienced users and admin help needed

I've been trying to deal with an enforcement request concerning conduct on Mass killings under communist regimes (an article I am unconvinced can exist safely) and I do not believe it is properly within the auspices of arbitration enforcement. I do think the article and the dispute needs a lot of volunteer eyes, so I am asking for the help of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene. Expect some infighting to follow below.--Tznkai (talk)

• (Rhetorical comment) "with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" (beautifully said) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• This was already the subject of an ANI report prior to the AE report Tznkai mentions. This is a legitimate content dispute, no one is being disruptive, formal mediation would be the appropriate venue to handle this, not admin intervention. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation requires the assent of all parties. If ya'll could manage that, you wouldn't be at AN, AE, or ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case, no one has attempted formal mediation, so it can't be said that assent was impossible to obtain. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please, attempt it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a number of legitimate content disputes. These have been proceeding relatively normally given the article, and are currently uncovering new textual sources and broadening the understanding of existing textual sources. The original ANI, and Request for Enforcement were about a very limited set of behaviour by one user: User:Termer who has a habit of repeatedly mischaracterising, misquoting, and selectively quoting important secondary works and other users to the point that his actions disrupt the article. For example, while the Request for Enforcement was ongoing, Termer was busy requesting that a user to supply extensive quotations, and when these were made, attacked the user on a . The effect of Termer's engagement in this thread was to derail it from an evidenced discussion of the credibility of a particular academic source, and redirect it into the discussion yet again of Termer's conduct and random quotation of policy (this time, primary). We rely on Termer to quote and characterise accurately in an article that is fundamentally reliant on an accurate literature review of academic sources, and he has not done so. We rely on Termer to participate in the article without mischaracterising and misquoting the immediate previous statements of other editors. Termer is incapable of doing this, and the result is disruption. Other editors with similar opinions to Termer within the content debate are perfectly capable of civil, appropriate discussion, and in my mind the content discussion will eventually resolve itself on the article talk page (the primary content disputes resolution method) through reference to highest quality reliable sources if the climate of discussion is not damaged by disruptive conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fifelfoo's characterisation of Termer. Unlike Termer, Fifelfoo has actually been recently reported to AN3 for edit warring the article in question. This is real disruption, not questioning Fifelfoo's interpretation of the sources on talk. Fifelfoo has pursued Termer on ANI, then AE, and now apparently here. This WP:wikiviolence must end. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also forum shopping etc. on what is a content issue best suited for informal mediation (which takes a fraction of the time that formal mediation usually entails). A completely outside editor willing to concisely state what the issues appear to be, and working with them on a one-by-one basis, can make things work (see Talk:Judaism for what I consider an example of separating the issues). Collect (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:wikiviolence is not an appropriate accusation in this case. There's no doubt that Termer's behviour is dispruptive. However, I think he is also a bit of a lightning-rod for more general issues. Mediation may help, but since the basic question is really "should this article exist or not", I say: good luck to the mediator. I suspect the article in question is just one for "evidence why Misplaced Pages is not always so great". "Hope no-one ever looks at it" might be the best that can be achieved. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I definitely have disrupted the editors who after the third failed Afd keep arguing on the talk page that the article should be still deleted, and meanwhile keep massively blanking sourced material from the article instead of adding any alternative viewpoints to it. Just that anybody who has accused me, please make a difference between disrupting Misplaced Pages and disrupting the disruptive editing by attempting to engage in a discussion about the changes in the article instead of going along with the edit war. Other than that, I haven't taken this witch hunt on me personally that has already made it to a third notice board, it just tells me that whoever has chosen to use me for a "lightning-rod" (according to FormerIP) just don't have any reasonable arguments about how the article could be improved. And the bottom line the way I see it, as it is now, the article is pretty much unreadable due to massive blankings and a long lasting edit warring.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.... It never stops, does it? What we have here are two sides with opposing viewpoints on what the page should contain, and both sides legitimately believe their version is correct. As such, it is natural for each side to believe that their side is the one that is policy abiding and that the other side is biased or against policy. And since each side is deeply rooted in their editorial stance and believe that their opponents are the policy-violating ones, it is natural that they will accuse the other side of edit warring, disruption, vandalism, etc etc. And since that other side being accused believes that they are in fact the ones who are right, they in turn accuse that other side who is accusing them of battleground-ing, harassment, personal attacks, witchhunts, etc. And this goes back and forth ad infinitum.

Termer, you have indeed harassed your content opponents with vexatious complaints. You opened up 2 AN/I threads, a frivolous RFC/N thread and a baseless sockpuppet investigation all against a certain editor. It may well be that Fifelfoo is harassing you, I don't know. However you need to realize that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of. Triplestop x3 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Triplestop on one thing that I have overreacted on Misplaced Pages once after I was insulted with name calling. But I've learned my lesson and don't see such insulting remarks as anything that should be my problem really.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – article protected for a week.

Resolved – Warning template placed on editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Article was probably not intentionally messed up (typo)

Resolved – Sanction confirmed Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards