Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 11

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archives}}

IP Vandalism

Template:User-multi has done repeated vandalism to Wrestling articles I think this calls for a Temporary block per WP:BLOCK and because of his contributions.
--   ChristianMan16  20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those bad edits occurred over a week ago. Blocks are rarely retroactively applied after this amount of time has elapsed. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This sort of this does not go on this page. you either report them to a an admin or you put them on this page IuseRosary? (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Block is not warranted on this user because we do not give blocks out based upon stuff that has happened over 1 week ago. Rather, we look into what has occurred recently before giving a block out. Razorflame 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So he gets way with it. Cause no one checks nor cares about wrestling articles. If people would checks these kind of articles. You could have caught him.--   ChristianMan16  20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't get away with it if the actions were reverted. Razorflame 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that the IP would have received a 24 hour block, which would have expired last Thursday. I also bet there is an administrator who watches many wrestling articles. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If it truly is vandalism, the amount of vandalism would warrant a longer block than a day. The afore-mentioned administrator has been asked to look at the edits to confirm the situation.
As to a supposed conspiracy you think there is regarding a bias against wrestling articles, all I can say is: that's ridiculous. · Tygrrr... 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me...--   ChristianMan16  23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I updated MediaWiki:Sitenotice, but didn't simplify it. As I need to do the same with many other wikis, I'd be grateful if someone else handles the simplification part. - Huji reply 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page

The article featured on the main page has the same paragraph about violins repeated. Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem fixed by Lights. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Having heard of the change brought on by his various medication I propose allowing Benniguy to return for a two week evaluation, on the following conditions:

  • Valid email set in his user profile (that actually gets read)
  • His editing is only in:
    • Article space (plus the talk pages of the article he edits)
    • His personal page, plus his personal talk page
    • Talk pages of admins (if there are any problems)

He is definitely not allowed to touch:

  • Wikipedia namespace (this includes nominations/Votes for GAs, VGAs and demotions, and Simple talk)
  • Templates (no need)
  • User talk pages (other than those listed above).

After the two week period, let us review. If he has stuck to the rules and created and edited the articles he says he has fine, if he is the same time-intensive Benniguy the ban is reimposed.--Bärliner 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the above proposal. Barniler, if you want me to help, just ask! -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a workable idea; He gets his chance for a comeback, we get a means to see that this trial does not go on forever --Eptalon (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I support this proposal, but if he hasn't changed at all then the ban should be placed again.-- Lights  talk  00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support proposal, but first voiding of the rules and he's out of here again. Razorflame 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - with warning that he won't re-offend...--Cometstyles 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose, Benninguy has been given too many chances. In common sense, he's gonna return to his disruptive editing spree, and then later plead for forgiveness. It has happened all the time before, and its unlikely he'll ever change, especially by evading his blocks here and on en wiki. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Benniguy was blocked for being a disruption. His actions caused nearly every active admin, 'crat, checkuser, and several editors to stop what they were doing to deal with the issues he caused. Even now while he is banned, the fact that we are actually having to discuss this matter only goes to show he is still causing disruptions. A case was made that he was just recently medicated and is now all better. This case is highly questionable given that fact that his disruptive actions are still being shown just a week ago on en:wp. Look at the contributions from that account.. the last 50 edits are entirely wikipedia/talk based pages. This is identical to his actions here that finally got people to accept the need for banning him. His actions show that he has not changed. The account denies that it is really him, but the CU who ran this check is the same who dealt with his original case over there. Her actions have always been solid and in many cases a little forgiving when it comes to identifying if it is actually that person. If she is certain enough to state it is him, I have little doubt against that being the case. Twice during February cases were brought against him using socks to evade his ban on en:wp. At the beginning of that month, he created an account as a friends house (apparently using the computer that belong to friends sister without that person's knowledge..) to evade the block here. This user has been nothing but a disruption to the wiki and his most current actions go to further support that he has not changed in any form since his block. He was given more chances than anyone could possibly hope for and has proven his ill-will time and again with each chance. "fool me once...", "fool me twice",... this is what? the 326th time?? Enough is enough. Indef block with deletion and total protection of all user talk pages of sockpuppets of this person. Nothing good will come of letting him back. -- Creol(talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been going on since the beggining of this year, he has been given a ton of second chances and everytime he comes back he causes more disruption, so I say keep the indef ban, cause I doubt his actions will change. Also go with Creol's idea; delete all of his pages and full protection of his user talk pages. Oysterguitarist 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick note: If we cannot reach any form of agreement, I think his status (as a banned user) should not change. --Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Eptalon's statement above. If we cannot come to any consensus about this issue, then he is kept banned. Razorflame 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snake and Creol's sentiments. This place practically ceased all productive action to deal with Benniguy. I think unblocking him is a bad, bad, bad idea. · Tygrrr... 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Creol. I am a really big fan of second chances, but honestly, we're in this to run an encyclopedia, not make everyone happy. He obviously just doesn't like editing articles that much - restrictions aren't going to work, and the same problems will recur. Archer7 - talk 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would also have to agree with the comments made by Snake311, MindTheGap, Creol, and Archer7. Their comments have made me see that if he were to be allowed back, I honestly doubt that anything would be different than the last time. Razorflame 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Benniguy has proposed a trial period on another wiki so we can observe his behaviour. I've already left my comments the idea, it's here if anyone else wants to comment on it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer7 (talkcontribs) Script error: No such module "Unsigned".


15px Support as I of one who need a second or third chance know what difference makers they can be...let him on for a week even. Let's see if he has or hasn't change. Y'all have never been banned so you don't know what it's like. What it feels like emotionally to know your hated and/or not wanted. It hurts mentally. Let him back on for the two week evaluation.--   ChristianMan16  17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Support. Yes, I support Barliners proposal, but if his treat,ent fails him and he goes back to his old self, the ban should be placed again. But hopefully that won't happen, because everything has been gong well so far. IuseRosary? (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Support. I recently worked with him at EN (where my account is SamEV), and found him to be a positive contributor. I don't know the details of his behavior here, or even all of them at EN, as I tend to focus more on my editing than on administrative activity. Still, purely based on my personal experience and on my email communications with him, and since he's promised me he'll behave and is taking his medication, I believe he's changed enough and deserves this last chance. Thanks. Samev (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Support. I fully support letting disabled and the like editing this Wikipedia. What I meant was that Ben should be able to edit here despite his differences. -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And this furthur warrants Ben's unbanning. I would be quite happy to take "mentor" of him here. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
May I respectfully suggest you strike that !vote as it appears to suggest everyone who votes to oppose wants to ban "disabled and the like" from editing at SE:WP MindTheGap (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Support. From all I have read, it sounds as if he has made improvments. Forgive me for saying so, but many of Gwib's comments are just heartless. Come on, give the guy another chance and see how he does! --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

15px Support. I think Ben can be given a chance. He sounds like a good guy. I can tell he wants to do good. Please let him edit! SwirlBoy39 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I am torn here, if he really means this. No offense to Ben, he is a great guy but think of the community. SwirlBoy39 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

15px Support - Looking at his talk page, I can see that he really regrets his actions. Chenzw (talkchanges) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


15px Oppose with the same reasoning Tygrrr gave above. - Huji reply 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Oppose per above. Chenzw (talkchanges) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:Inkpen2 - Swirlboy39 is giving Benniguy a chance on his wiki. Maybe this should be taken into consideration. Chenzw (talkchanges) 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

15px Oppose per reasons given by Archer7, Snake311, Tygrrr, et al. Razorflame 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The current result is 4/4. What do we do? Chenzw (talkchanges) 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
In a normal case with equal votes one would say motion not carried. If that is not clear enough in this case I add an oppose myself. --Cethegus (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The amount of votes does not matter, it consensus that matters. Oysterguitarist 14:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gwib --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now closed this discussion - Benniguy/Inkpen2 will remain blocked. Please see User_talk:Inkpen2#Conclusion. Archer7 - talk 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

KA sockpuppetry

The accounts Drama queen and Amy have been blocked as being sockpuppets of KA. The Brazilian-Canadian and Russian-New Jersey girls both tagged identical IPs tracing back to KAs ISP and location. -- Creol(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we be close to a Abuse complaint? -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For those interested : User:Da Punk '95/KA ANI -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's much point in an abuse report to be honest, I think an ISP like this one is unlikely to respond. Archer7 - talk 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Archer7 on this issue. If the ISP was responsive, I think that some of the people here on the Simple English Wikipedia would've taken it further and would have lodged an abuse complaint already. Seeing as they have not done so, then it must obviously be an unresponsive ISP. Razorflame 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an abuse complaint is worthwhile, however, this may mean KA is back from a brief break and could be creating more new sockpuppets. So I think editors should be "on the lookout" for KA-type users. --Isis(talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much a wikibreak as it is her IP, while static, will change every so often. Her last one was changed several months ago and identified rather early. Her current IP has been hard blocked for one year (no need to go longer if it is just going to change sometime in that year) along with these accounts so this should help limit the exposure from her for a while. -- Creol(talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at RfA

There appears to be a few sockpuppets voting at the page. Please investigate. Chenzw (talkchanges) 10:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also expressed concern about this on the actual RfA page. Kindly investigate this....thanks :) Razorflame 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked all the sockpuppets that voted, indefinitely.-- Lights  talk  13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser requested, to see for more socks. Oysterguitarist 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
All accounts associated with the socks have been blocked indefinately, tagged, and categorized. -- Creol(talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions wanted

I noticed they decided to do a ban review of my ban on enWP and wanted to know from everyone here have I been a good editor...or have I been like I was on enWP? All opinions wanted. You can comment here and/or there. If you comment there comment here too so I can read it then comment to it. Thanks, Guys!!!!--   ChristianMan16  04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds dangerously close to a legal threat, by the way MindTheGap (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Christianman/Hornetman - please bear in mind that this can look an awful lot like off-wiki canvassing, which is frowned upon on enwiki - Alison 05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this frowned upon it's just asking for opinion which I believe falls under Amendment One which yes Wikipedia is forced to follow and don't tell me otherwise.--   ChristianMan16  07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, so. Bear in mind that the first amendment doesn't apply to private websites and that enwiki rules are such that off-wiki canvassing is not approved of. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more info - Alison 07:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the proper term, but this is a meta-approved wiki as far as I know. One post to this noticeboard does not constitute excessive canvassing or campaigning, IMHO. Christianman is sometimes difficult but has always eventually complied with requests from administrators and the community. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  13:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison that's a behavioral Guideline which according to the template means it doesn't HAVE to be follow it is requested though.--   ChristianMan16  17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Alison, "bringing the fight"? No this isn't "bringing the fight", this is asking for opinions on how I'm acting these days.--   ChristianMan16  17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Alison made the "bringing the fight" comment on ENWP. By replying here and taking up so much space already on this board you are "bringing the fight to SEWP". I suggest you stop now. --Bärliner 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for wanting to know if I've improved.--   ChristianMan16  17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you're asking, my opinion of how you've been as an editor can be summed up in one word: combative (uncooperative might have worked too). I think your comments here are more proof of that, and like everyone else above, I think this conversation is not a good idea and should come to an end. · Tygrrr... 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tygrrr, you and Barliner give me your opinions like Browne34 did and I end this discussion.--   ChristianMan16  17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Barliner, I mean comment here but thanks anyway...I hate people calling me combative...I'M NOT...I simply requested something now y'all have turned my friend against me...Thanks a lot.--   ChristianMan16  06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
THREAD CLOSED!!! NO MORE POSTINGS TO THIS THREAD.--   ChristianMan16  06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Orange DSL

I blocked Orange DSL's range ( being used by Kevin Scally for one month. The user has been banned for a while for excessive sockpuppetry and recently has been on a binge of tagging his pages. Checks on the range showed only two computers active and the second one's sole useage has been vandalism also. -- Creol(talk) 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm retireing...temporarily

I'm temporarily retiring to get rid of the mental distress caused by both you guys on Simple and EN. I'll be back one please don't delete my pages.--   ChristianMan16  06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to post this. We can see the statement on the top of your userpage and any pages in a user's space are never deleted unless the author requests it. Your design is safe till you get back without you having to ask us not to delte it, don't worry. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you have a nice time without me guys...I hope during this time you may find a way to appreciate me a little better. But oh well...see ya!!!--   ChristianMan16  06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Short retirement. -- Creol(talk) 19:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No one said I'm back.--   ChristianMan16  04:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm back...and wrestling will not die on seWP!!!!--   ChristianMan16  20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin name change

Normally I would not announce a name change, but as this is an admin account I felt it best to give a heads up to everyone here. This is mainly so heads don't explode wondering "who's the new guy?" and "How did he get admin???" Browne34 is now EchoBravo. -- Creol(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Name change for Raffaello9

Can someone rename me to Texcarson? Raffaello9 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

18px Done-- Creol(talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL conflict here

This is the only Wiki I had a SUL conflict on. Someone already has my regular username Zachary here, and it has a couple edits. What needs to be done to have this account usurped to my SUL username? (Zachary) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going by enWP policy here but I think it applies here nicely...enWP policy says: "A user name may only usurped if it has not made an edit." So, Dude (or Dudette), you can't be renamed or usurp it if it's made an edit.--   ChristianMan16  23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this policy should be applied here at a minimum. Also attempt should be made to contact owner of usurped account for permission to rename. Also, the below query has no edits, but the account is still fairly recent (less than 4 months) and I wonder if there should also be a minimum time requirement for such usurps. Blockinblox - talk 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL conflict here for User:Masti

Can you please change my name to User:Masti. This is my regular username on all wikis (see pl:Wikipedysta:Masti) and there is a conflict here. there are no edits for Masti. Masti tmp (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Our User:Masti joined only 4 months ago, and has a working e-mail, so I have sent a letter seeking permission, and also put a copy of it on that user's talk page. Blockinblox - talk 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically permission is not needed if the account as not made any edits.--   ChristianMan16  18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said that was the rule at en. I think we can be more courteous and reasonable here. If they were created relatively recently and especially if they have a valid email, let's try that first, before usurping their account for some admin at another wiki. Blockinblox - talk 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't argue :). I do not mind waiting for the response. Masti tmp (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Template:Noping (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - Promoting Islam. Please block him. Chenzw (talkchanges) 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe blocking is too drastic... Chenzw (talkchanges) 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I know this isn't the place for this but I have to let y'all know my Mom might have just had a Heart attack at the age of 43 years old. Due to this I must take an emergency Wikibreak. I will pop in every now and then and will be back in full force ASAP. Anybody that prays please do so for my mother. And if you want to I would like one of you to let WP:PW on the english wikipedia know. They may have a ban on me but I think they have the heart for me to show sympathy and pray. Thanks.--   ChristianMan16  16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear this, ChristianMan16 :( Hoping for a full and speedy recovery. Majorly (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank You, Majorly. To anyone that wants to simplify articles. The Stuff in my sandbox is open for simplifying.--   ChristianMan16  17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


The doctors say my mother only had an Anxiety attack and she gonna be fine after a couple days of rest. PRAISE GOD!!! Thanks, Majorly, for showing your sorrow. And to the others of seWP that saw this but did not comment, "Why?" I will be back in a few hours to a few days full force on editing. Again, Be Blessed!!!--   ChristianMan16  18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • hope your mother will be OK. Masti tmp (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, that temporary cure by breathing into the paper bag not only doesn't work but is dangerous. Skip that and try a subscription to some antidepressants or similar pills? --Gwib -(talk)- 09:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Gwib, that was uncalled for....She can take of that with her Psychiatrist and doesn't need you to tell her. Thanks for showing concern.--   ChristianMan16  18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem! :) --Gwib -(talk)- 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
MY mother is now home and recovered.--   ChristianMan16  20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive spamming by IPs from same network

Recently, a number of IPs from the same network have been spamming the site, especially on date-related articles. This is the output generated by the User Contributions gadget:

  • 2008-03-26 changed (diff) January 1
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) February 29
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) September 11
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) July 4
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) January 1
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) 2000s
  • 2008-03-20 changed (diff) 2000
  • 2008-03-19 changed (diff) 2009
  • 2008-03-28 changed (diff) 1992
  • 2008-03-22 changed (diff) 2004
  • 2008-03-22 changed (diff) 2005
  • 2008-03-26 changed (diff) 1995
  • 2008-03-26 changed (diff) 1996
  • 2008-03-26 changed (diff) 1996
  • 2008-03-21 changed (diff) 2007
  • 2008-03-21 changed (diff) 2010

The list has been truncated. To see the whole list, enable the gadget and search for 79.113.* on Special:Contributions.

Please list the site on the local spam blacklist as no such spamming was found on enWP. Chenzw (talkchanges) 12:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. Majorly (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I get this error while trying to delete pages (Image:Simplewikierror.PNG), does anyone else get this error? ..--Cometstyles 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just deleted a page not 2 minutes ago and everything seemed alright. I use a Macintosh and Firefox, maybe it's your browser? Which do you use. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Worked fine for me as well (with completely different browser/OS setup). Could just be a temp glitch somewhere. -- Creol(talk) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Firefox Browser, failed when I installed FF3 Beta4 and since then all this errors, bah :( ..--Cometstyles 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass block/protection

Multiple accounts have been blocked and their talk pages protected today. These accounts were created by Simple11 from multiple IPs (all known IPs are blocked currently). As he decided to jump from account to account and edit the talk pages with threats of continued vandalism, I protected all accounts blocked from the IPs to limit the disruption. -- Creol(talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean, a hard block? Chenzw (talkchanges) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant all sockpuppet accounts used under the IPs which were blocked have had their talk pages protected. The IPs themselves (at least the last two which are the most used) do happened to be hard blocked though. Due to his tendency to sockfarm, threats of continued vandalism and the fact there is no collateral damage from the block based on past editing, hard blocking the IPs seemed the best option. -- Creol(talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)