Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 28

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archives}}

Attention: Series of bad usernames


To all administrators, please check recent changes. There is a flood of bad usernames being created, and they need to be blocked on sight.

Thank you. Mythdon (talkchanges) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. EVula // talk // // 05:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

username attacks

Check the User creation Log, lots of bad usernames. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:

This IP should be unblocked immediately. It is registered to the US Department of Justice, and if it is not unblocked, an admin will need to contact the WMF Communications Committee. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I believe it is already blocked at for problems. We got a warning on IRC about it when he created the page. I'll go look at the global logsJamesofur (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It is blocked at enWP. I think we still need to contact the WMF. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No I don't think its an issue, we block all open proxies that en blocks. If en already has it blocked then its probably kosher to block it.. -DJSasso (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

<-WMF contacted. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

/rolls his eyes/. You know sometimes you need to relax. This might have actually been in the process of being worked on by the admins (and it was). You know...the people !voted to handle these situations. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And I would have known about it, except it was off-wiki. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Right...where sensitive issues like this are supposed to be held. -DJSasso (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This counts as sensitive? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why else do you think we are supposed to notify the WMF Public Relations team? -DJSasso (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant sensitive enough that it has to be discussed off-wiki. The noticeboard where we place the notices is public for all to see, so why is the discussion off-wiki? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Again for the same reason we notify the WMF PR team. Because anything we say can be picked up by the press etc. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As a note to admins: If you google the IP it does in fact appear to be an open proxy and blocked correctly. Jamesofur (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As an fyi, sorry about that Griffinofwales, I didn't mean to delete your comment, it appears there was an edit conflict I didn't get warned about it wasn't there when I typed my note. Jamesofur (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses and MediaWiki:Blockiptext do not match. Also, there may be more on the ENWP or Meta list that need to be copied over. The IP address didn't match the ones listed on Special:Block, so I didn't think anything special of it aside from it being a blocked proxy on ENWP (which we have informally agreed to autoblock here). I can't do anything more on this at the moment (need to be afk), so I'm ok with any admin acting on my part to modify this block or take other admin actions on my behalf. Thanks guys! EhJJTALK 10:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


20px Resolved.
Permission assigned by Yotcmdr. Barras (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)}}

Bluegoblin7 would like IP Block Exemption in order to be exempted from the TOR blocks -- he can't edit to request it, and he can't turn TOR off in case it breaks . Thanks in advance, MC8 (b · t) 18:37, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't be using TOR. What is his reason for wanting to be exempted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
To get past school proxies, iirc. He's offline atm. MC8 (b · t) 19:15, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that that is a valid reason to give it out. He probably shouldn't be using wikipedia in those places if they don't allow it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • IPBE is for such cases. If he want to edit from his school, so I have no problems to assign him the permission. He can't do anything wrong with this and could (probably) help with DYK and so on. Barras (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    IPBE is not actually for such cases. IPBE is to prevent people from getting caught in autoblocks. For example the reason admins are automatically IPBE is to prevent them from getting autoblocked if someone else on the IP they used gets blocked which would be a bad thing to happen to an admin. IPBE is not to get around the TOR restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) ::::I feel that the ideal of Wikipedia not being censored extends past the wiki and includes /access/ to the wiki (citing Chinese Wikipedia). Not that I really care, I'm just posting it on behalf of him. MC8 (b · t) 20:44, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC)

  • meta:No open proxies lists this as an example of when IPBE should be used. There is no risk to Wikipedia of giving Bluegoblin7 this flag. If he wants to use Tor to read and edit Wikipedia, he is permitted to do so. Meta policy specifically says that these types of users should get IPBE. EhJJTALK 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    It actually says they can use the open proxy until the proxy is blocked. And that there is no restriction on reading wikipedia through a open proxy. It does not say editing through an open proxy is ok once the proxy is blocked. Further it says "Who may request -- A user who has genuine and exceptional need, and can be trusted not to abuse the right. This is a level of trust equal to that given Administrators, as IP block exemption is an administrative tool." I would say a user who has failed an Rfa does not have the level of trust equal to that of an Aministrator or he would not have failed the Rfa. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I get *my* internet today, hopefully. :) I've been reading the wiki for a few days... no editing however... save one OTRS and this request. Since I spearheaded the first IPBE policy and it's flag inception, I might be helpful here... I would be ok with BG7, there being no history of abusive multiple accounts on the BG7 account. Also, a CU is permitted by the checkuser policy to see if BG7 has in the past edited via school nodes. But that is as an option. There is nothing that BG7 could do on the IPBE except edit while another account is blocked. If that were to happen, it would be eventually discoverable, but I doubt in BG7's case, this would happen. IPBE was designed to permit trusted editors to edit via Tor and other proxy when the individual circumstances require. Requests should be public unless there is life danger, then private, but in this case, it matters little. Since we already have a names editor, go ahead and assign the right, however, ideally, an IPBE state would be transient in nature, that is, temporary. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Editing via Tor is only permitted in highly exceptional circumstances. Since BG7 has a history of productively editing mainspace, I'd be ok permitting this. There is not much to abuse, and I can explain offline to clarify the risk. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should typically flag accounts with IPBE, but if Bluegoblin7 has a good reason why he wants to/needs to edit via Tor, I don't see any risk to the project. I think it's better to just flag the account and move on to more important work rather than continue to debate this.
    • I see this has already been resolved. EhJJTALK 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Main page and VGA stubs (article space subpages)

Just to keep the other admins informed, I've made some adjustments for the placement of VGA stubs and the mainpage per the discussion on ST on the misplaced stubs subpages in the article space. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Help The subpages appear to still be transcluded. For example, Tropical Storm Barry (2007)/VGA stub is still transcluded, so I can't delete the redirect, but I can't find the transclusion. Or am I missing something? Please advise, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Resolved. Needed to do a null edit for the MediaWiki software to refresh the transcluded templates. EhJJTALK 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrative reversals

Just a general note to all my fellow administrators... if I'm online and I've done something (deletion/block/protection) and you disagree with me, please do stop by my talk page. I think you might find me willing to explain why I've done what I've done or I can undo myself. I will do you the same respect. :) Please don't revert me... cause it means I've no trust. I thank you for your thought and consideration on this matter. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


Per the recent recreation of my user page as an attack, could a sysop please salt it (create=autoconfirmed)? Thanks, Javert (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

18px Done Barras (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Barras. Regards, Javert (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pakistan vandal"

This editor is making changes, presumably, in good faith. I am using the term "vandal" here very loosely.

Many of you know we've had a user who edits via IPs and makes, typically, POV edits about Pakistan (and surrounding nations). In particular, articles in the form of Pakistan-Other nation relations are common, unsourced, and often not simple. Could we form consensus on how to approach this editor? I can think of, essentially, two options: 1) we review all edits individually as we have done before and keep/delete appropriately, or 2) we agree to community ban this editor and nuke all contribs on sight. The second option is extreme, but we have enough work making good articles about Apples and the colour Orange without needing to sift through these! In particular, see the edits by Script error: No such module "user". for an example of what I am referring to. Comments appreciated! EhJJTALK 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not willing to control all his changes. I think it would be best if he would create an account. I think he doesn't want an account. Not sure about the second option. Barras (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As a note, SeWikt uses option 2. I like option 1. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with option 1, as long as I don't have to control all his edits. If someone will do this voluntarily, so we can use the first, otherwise would the second be much easier. Barras (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Definition of control? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking for POV, bad redirects, new pages, all changes. At all, if the changes meet the "normal" criteria. Barras (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Special:Nuke is available. The majority of page creations are not neutral, POV, and biased. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think all attempts at communication have failed to show any result. I am for a community ban. We can't waste our time cleaning up after this person. Chenzw  Talk  16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(un indented on purpose) Ok, I know I'm fairly new here so obviously have a slightly quieter voice but... reading this thread just raised my blood pressure a bit. I was about to offer to go through all of the contributions to see what needed to be deleted and what could just be brought into compliance (and, of course, what already was). Doing this would also allow us to try and figure out if we could work with the guy or if that was improbable. He appears to be working with good faith and I believe anyone who is doing so should be treated with respect. If they are doing things we don't like and see as a problem for the project then I feel we have an obligation to try and work with them and help them to understand our concerns. In the end even if we decide that we will be unable to work them because of unresolvable issues then a Ban is the worst we should do unless at some point the user goes from a good faith vandal to a bad one. Special:Nuke (in my opinion) should only be used as a last resort option for obvious and unquestionable vandals. I believe it is inappropriate for anyone who even COULD be offering legitimate content.

That being said: I do not believe there was any form of consensus in the discussion above. There were 2 people who wanted to work with the individual and 3 people who wanted to get rid of them (through a nuke and ban combo). It was also a discussion that has been open for less then 3 hours before it was marked done. When we are discussing a total ban of a user from the project (especially one using nuke) I can not think of any appropriate time to close a discussion within 3 hours even if a consensus HAD been formed. I had just found this thread and was going to respond when I noticed the 2nd part of the discussion and just ended up confused.

Is there an UnNuke feature? If there is I would like to ask another admin to reverse NonvocalScreams actions until we are able to finish the discussion. I would also really like to here why Scream felt this was important enough to act so quickly on. Jamesofur (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no un-nuke as far as I know. These POV editors have been attempting to turn SEWP into Pakistan-SEWP for some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. We have discussed this editor many times before, and it's always the same. Someone offers to mentor, suggests we give yet more chances for them to communicate, and it never happens. As you admit to being fairly new here, it's clear you don't know the background as to how much disruption this person is causing. Majorly talk 23:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to head to work in a couple so I don't have time to write/read more but did want to note I had already started reading the archives on him. So far I still don't think the Nuke is appropriate (especially given the time frame involved) but do understand some peoples reactions. I'll write more during my break and after work. I work for security on campus so I'm "around". Jamesofur (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to your "uninvolved" perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to restore each article that I have deleted using the Nuke feature on request of any administrator, or should a consensus form that those articles should be restored. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Ok, very basically:

  • The editor (or editors) edit from a range of IPs; they have so far not created an account; As far as I can see most of these IP ranges are only used by this editor. Some of the IPs are also active on EnWP.
  • So far, all attempts at communication have failed; the editor does not respond to messages left on their talk page. (Or at least he has not, in the past).
  • Edits are focused around Pakistan-related topics; there are some edits to India and Bangladesh-related topics; many edits show a strong pro-Pakistan POV.
  • Very often, new article creations are copy-pastes from somewhere, usually without attribution.

That being said, there are also some positive points:

  • He is the only one editing Pakistan-related content, and one of a few (read: 2 or 3 for India and Bangladesh-related content)
  • The editor is very prolific
  • In my opinion, very little is needed to turn this editor into a "good editor" - the problem with that is that it requires some form of communication, which we have not had yet.

So in very short: If you want to try to establish communication, please go ahead. Also note that blocking the editor so far has shown little effect; he has been back after the block expired. If we could establish communication, I could see the a GA (or VGA) on a Pakistan-related topic on the horizon. I cannot help with history and knowledge, but I am prepared to review articles to point out what they still need, and to some extent, help fix the issues involved. Anyway, in the last discussions I have always shown some "bias" to one side, so I think it would probably be good to get uninvolved perspectives. --Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the IP mentioned above is blocked for 6 months. Here are some more pointers to old discussions, newest one on top:
These are all we have about him on the admin noticeboard, there is more on Simple Talk (which I am not referencing atm) --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The ones on Simple talk seem to be (newest one at the top):
Hope this helps --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this was made easier because I have less desire to provide a lot of links since Eptalon was great and provided them while I was writing (and sidetracking). I totally understand why people are frustrated by this editor but to be honest I'm torn. As a project we want as much of the best content we can get. Preferably we have a wide variety of topics from around the globe. We also are the encyclopedia(s) that anyone can edit, though of course "anyone" is going to be understandably limited when it comes to people who are being disruptive.

The honest fact is that even after going through all the discussions and most if not all of the guys contributions spread out over an amazing amount of IPs I am STILL not comfortable just labeling him as a "vandal." (with the period being spoken). Looking through the articles on Pakistan there is some very good material that has been added by what appears to be the same person. Adding images like [1] is a great example of something that added to the encyclopedia and likely wouldn't have been done in any timely fashion (if at all) by someone else, pictures like that (which are not on En) are great for Simple.

While I'm still not totally sure about his faith with everything it is clear that YES he has/is caused/causing disruption within the project (and maybe worse, the small community it has). It is quite clear he pushes one POV over and over again. I am fairly certain that the editor is the same editor who "corrects" thing across a broad spectrum of wikis that I have seen in the past couple weeks doing SWMT work. Unfortunately that makes it quite likely that it is a DRIVING force behind his edits which makes me sad because it makes it much less likely that we will get him to change. The amount of discussion about the problem with no conclusion, outreach to the IPs without resolution and warnings regarding the conduct without change concern me especially given my disbelief that he does not understand at least some of what is said to him given his location (per whois). I also agree that it appears to be one person, or at the very least interrelated people, given that every single ip geolocates to similar locations within the UK.

I think it's high time this was resolved as much as possible.I absolutely abhor the idea of protecting all of the pages under a long standing belief that IPs should be able to edit as freely as possible. That doesn't mean I don't understand the desire to do it since it is much easier then blocking every new IP that pops up (you would have to blacklist basically everything to do with Pakistan to). I do think that if you wanted to do this correctly it would be an enormous amount of protections and filter changes. It is also quite clear that the user changes IPs frequently and those IPs are all over the spectrum, it would be futile to try and range block them all (even if you didn't cut off half the internet doing so). The other issue is that despite what we chose to do we need to cull through basically every article that mentions Pakistan/Kashmir and decide what is notable enough to keep as an article and cull out POV crap that is everywhere. Hopefully this can be done by multiple people because it will not be a short task.

Obviously anyone can make additional proposals but these are the options I see:

1. Ignore it completely let them edit - obviously not really an option

2. Let them edit but cull through everything they add and make sure it works in the project - I think would quickly result in burn out by those involved in the editing and would likely result in the user getting angry and becoming more of a normal vandal.

3. Revert vandalism and warn user as we see it (blocking as we go along when they don't listen) - basically what I see as the status quo, we've seen that this lets a lot fall through the cracks that isn't seen by the vandalism patrollers (either because no one was watching at the time or that particular person didn't see the POV problem when it streamed by.

4. Have someone decide to reach out to the user on their talk page, maybe try to get them to come to IRC etc and work with them to become a legitimate an less controversial editor on the project. If it doesn't work we come back here.

5. Ban them outright, by community consensus. Ban is enforced by immediate blocks for any ip that edits an on topic article that geolocates to that location/exhibits that behavior. Ban length is as long as admins are willing to block an IP with IPs that seem to be static (being used over and over after unblock) blocked either indefinitely or for very long periods of time.

6. Some combination of 4+5 - my preference, see below

I would prefer a combination of 4 and 5:

I don't want to just try and reach out and then be right back here once someone decides we've been reaching out to long without response (or get a response and it doesn't pan out) and then either have to have the debate again or go back to the status quo with spotty and inconsistent enforcement across admins.

I also don't really want to do a straight ban because I still think that they could be a valid resource to the project and whenever possible we want to try to encourage that. A focus is NOT a bad thing it just can't get in the way of neutrality.

My thought would be sort of multi phased. We have to agree on a plan off attack here and follow through with it:

a) Agree to the terms of a ban preferably terms that we think will be as easy as possible for admins to enforce.

b) Agree on terms to offer to the IP to allow them to continue (Create an account, work with us on POV etc)

c) Agree on concrete triggers that repeal the offer and begin the full Ban immediately

1) 2 or 4 weeks after offer is made
2) continued edits from different IPs after being warned and given a link to offer on blocked IPs talk page (preferably a couple warnings to make sure they have time to see them, I would think 3/4)

d) Offer the terms (and the ban triggers) on the currently banned IPs talk page along with hopefully a link to talk on IRC since most of us are there.

e) follow through, if we make contact follow through with that and try to work with them. If we don't make contact or they don't listen then regrettably a ban it is. A ban agreed upon by the community and enforced until the community agrees to remove it.

Ok.. enough rambling on this topic for now (though I have more to say regarding the topic closure thing above, that's later). Please let me know what you think in the end that's what matters I'm just one outspoken and verbose wikipedian :) Jamesofur (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

James makes some great points, and his combo is the only feasible deal. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Problomatic edits

May I have uninvolved administrators to please look into the problematic editing on

Peter Ham (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
. I'm not speaking of the content dispute, but the content itself, and the editing history of Template:User-multi with regards to referencing, POV, and singular purpose. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd block this account as a disruptive single purpose account. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hi all. I want to request an indef semi protection of

Adolf Hitler (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
. The article is from time to time the victim of vandalism. I think it is not needed that IPs edit this topic. All recent IP and newbie edits are vandalism. I don't want to set the protection due to my COI. Thanks Barras (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a pressing need for protection yet. The last major period of vandalism was in May. Chenzw  Talk  11:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There is still an ongoing process to vandalize this article. That there wasn't vandalism since March is the result of a protection:
  1. (show/hide) 05:15, 29 May 2009 Fr33kman (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Adolf Hitler" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Prone to vandalism from many different unnamed editors) (hist | change)
I'm sure the vandalism will be continue from time to time. Barras (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't usually protect (semi or otherwise) pages which have vandalism "from time to time". All pages are prone to this, some more than others. We just need to remain vigilent. Preventing IPs from editing is not the right approach. If you firmly believe that IPs shouldn't be editing this topic, perhaps you think they shouldn't be editing other similarly evocative topics? And that way lies a slippery slope of preventing all IP edits as it becomes far too subjective to draw a line. Protection not required in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Especially for articles (highly visible templates etc are ok) I think protection should always be a temporary protective mechanism. If we lock down articles forever then we are straying quickly away from one of the core points of Wikipedia that anyone is able to edit. It sounds like BS but by giving in and protecting it you just give in to the people who really want to see the projects fail and who think we're a bunch of censoring hypocrites that will end up falling right into "our usual ways". Its like IP blocks on vandalism, the main point of the block is to stop it from happening right then not to block them from editing forever. I think protection should be the same way: is it a problem right now? Protect it. Is it a problem every couple months? well then every couple months we should protect it. If we are having issues basically with a couple days every time it's unprotected then MAYBE we can think about an indefinite protection but at that point people are checking the page to see if it's protected (and if they're doing that they will just make accounts to do it). Jamesofur (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indefed by Pmlinediter... Why first the vandalism? Thanks Barras (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think IPs need to vandalize Hitler. Surely, we have better things than reverting. This is why I indefed it... PmlineditorTalk 11:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator activity

It appears that the administrators here haven't been very active for the last few days, or is this just me? Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just you. Majorly talk 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Good. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll second Majorly's comment; the deletion log is plenty full for the past couple of days. EVula // talk // // 18:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, are they always around when we want one? no but they usually are and sheesh we'll occasionally have a vandal running loose for 15+ minutes on EnWiki and god knows how many sysops they have ;). Also, when we haven't had an admin to respond to pings within 5-10 minutes we have Stewards who are amazingly fast when you ping them and with the recent user name attack often don't even need to be pinged since they see the account creations on the cvn feed. Jamesofur (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll eat my hat if I'm and most others aren't active enough as sysop. I just saw during the last 12 hours at least five admins be around. Barras (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
More drama... Of course admins are active... Seing as most active users here are sysops, if they weren't there wouldn't be too much editing. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Me and Griffinofwales are probably the most active users without administrative powers, while Fr33kman, NonvocalScream, Either way, EVula and Majorly seem to be the most active administrators. I haven't seen Fr33kman or Either way around in the past few days. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember that different users live in different time zones. Thanks Barras (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop talking nonsense. Just go and edit mainspace. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the deletion log or block log. There are plenty or admin actions. BTW, your list is a bit inaccurate, but that's probably a time-zone issue, since we have admins in many different time zones. Finally, only active prolific vandalism and attack pages need urgent admin action; most vandalism can simply be rolledback and most "quick deletions" can wait a few hours or even a day. EhJJTALK 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, 41 admins of whom ~20 are active are more than enough for a small wiki. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:RevisionDelete now available for admins. It's pretty much what it says on the tin: Instead of deleting the page and selectively restoring it, admins can now individually hide revisions. The same policy for deletion applies for use of this tool. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! I just want to inform you, that the revisionsdelete is now enabled for admins on simplewiki. bugzilla:19819 was done. Barras (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And removed due to "concerns" of others. Barras (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Concerns? May I have the link to the discussion pertaining to the removal of this now Oversight-only available option? Thank you!-- Tdxiang 07:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, see the last post of the bug. Oversighters still have this feature, but admins don't have it. Barras (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Check out the various bugs mentioned in the bug above. Apparently they don't want to give it to any wiki yet due to not having all the different aspects worked out like will it have a log page and stuff like that. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Disasters left in the wake of Bambifan101

I wandered by this site the other day and it seems that hard-banned user Bambifan101, aka "The Disney Anon" and "The Disney Vandal" has been hard at work here over the last several months adding and editing articles via his shifting BellSouth IP in Mobile, Alabama. He is literally all over this site re. Disney films and features and I've been spending the last ten minutes or so tagging some of his creations for speedy deletion. I have admin rights on English, but not here or I'd handle these myself. He also knows better than to show his face over there because I and several other users are on the lookout. May I impose on someone to please, please just delete this idiot's entries? Perhaps he'll get the message and leave. Otherwise, he's just laughing in our faces. Thanks for letting me rant. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I also tend to delete, but I'm not sure about a policy. I think we don't have our own. Furthermore, I'm not familar with enwiki's policies. If we don't have one, we use the enwiki's. Any other suggestions? Barras (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to check his range, based on an IP that I did research on. I used the Contributions Range MediaWiki gadget. I did see many IPs that had Disney-related contribs in common with each other. --Bsadowski1 20:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If they come back as BellSouth in Mobile, it's him without question. I've blocked him more times than I can count over at the other site and virtually all of the anon IPs come back as BellSouth. Those which do not render back to BellSouth at least render back to the general geographic area. En-wiki basically states that any creation by a hard-banned user whether it's useful or not may be deleted. In all honesty, there have been edits to most of the articles I tagged which on English generally means they become keepers. This person is a special case, having spent more than three years trashing this site and English as well. I'm not for a de facto deletion of a good article, but I am in favor of sending this nut a clear message. I honestly believe he's autistic given his dogged, single-minded edit habits. Add to that a dynamic IP and voila! Tons of cleanup work. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not block that range for a little bit. Most of the IPs in the range are Bambifan socks. A /16 would be too much IMO though, as there is bound to be some collateral damage. Maybe a /24? --Bsadowski1 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything is better than nothing. If you check my talk page over at English, a user just alerted me to a sock which I failed to block and sure enough, it's BellSouth. Here's the link to my page: [2]. Believe me, I'm more than happy to block him at English and blow the whistle over here. Check out that, um, conversation between he and I on his most recent sock's talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not for a de facto deletion of a good article, but I am in favor of sending this nut a clear message." Er... does that mean you're in favour of deleting good articles (genuinely good?) just to send him a message? Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds a bit vindictive... -- Mentifisto
  • After a whole night, and no replies by others I delete all tagged pages with link to this. Barras (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was out all night and missed this and strongly disagree with deleting the articles. Please restore them now, Barras. It's a Friday night, not everyone is going to be here. Majorly talk 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We also specifically removed the speedy criteria for banned accounts, so this should absolutely not be done. Majorly talk 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to, at least partially, agree with Majorly. I don't like endless discussion, but less than 24 hours is never enough discussion, especially if only two or three users have commented, to mass delete a whole bunch of good articles. If the articles were bad, they should be deleted, but good edits by bad users are usually not reverted/deleted. For a typical vandal, I would say we should undelete them, but I'm not sure about this one; maybe it would be best to mass delete/revert everything to finally drive him/her away. EhJJTALK 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles which are simply copied from with little sign of simplification (which seems be a stock trade of this editor) are clearly deletable under speedy criteria. Secondly, typically we delete or revert edits by banned editors no matter what. This was always intended to discourage banned editors from attempting to continue to edit. Majorly, you said we "removed the speedy criteria for banned accounts" - can you clarify this or point me to the discussion please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • When we allow the indef banned users to edit/create articles here, so we don't get them away. We banned them for a reason. If we aren't "hard", so we don't get peace. Most articles were tagged with the complex tag and were nearly the enwiki versions. This is like the Pakistani editor. No one here is really willing to copy edit and control all the pages by such users. If we don't delete these articles, they feel welcome here and come back with more socks. Anyway, feel free to welcome such users and restore the articles. But please take care to simplify the articles with the complex tag. I'm not going to restore them. Barras (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, as if deleting the pages will make him go away. Right. And I didn't think for one moment you'd actually restore the pages yourself. Nothing you've actually said gives any reason for deletion. Please consider waiting more than a few hours at a time when people are likely to be away doing other things. Majorly talk 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Majorly, per my comment, would you be able to point me to the discussion (or whatever) where we no longer remove or delete banned editor's edits please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I was actually wondering when such a discussion happened as well because I too am under the impression we did say it was ok to delete articles created by banned uses good or not back when the pakastani editor was at his height.. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just btw, I could say, that I simply agree with the qd tag and could have said: "Deletion because of an accepted QD tag." If I see any more edits/creations by indef banned users (Pakistani, Bambifan,...) I will delete/revert them. I will not look if bad or good. If someone really feel like restoring the articles, so go ahead, I will not disagree and delete them again, but will delete any new things by such users. As I said above (even if all are for restoring them) I will not do this, because the banned users would feel welcome here and I don't want this. Best Barras (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah. So we're finally stooping to enwiki's level and deleting perfectly fine articles, out of spite? Good to see.
  • @TRM: it was discussed on the deletion policy page (albeit briefly). Deleting a banned users edits achieves nothing more than spite and vindictiveness, and doesn't drive the user away at all. They are certainly not welcome here, but I look at this way: it's like someone breaking into your home (or even just trespassing) and cleaning your house. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's nice they want to help you out, but they are not allowed because we said so. We can block, we can ban, but if they're doing us a favour, what's the problem? (Obviously, in the case of the Pakistan IP, the articles were poorly written, biased, badly formatted etc so those should probably go on sight. Articles have been deleted that had well over 100 revisions, simply on the whim of Barras who has informed he is going to delete any page by a banned user, regardless of its quality or usefulness to the encyclopedia. Pure wiki-politics at its worse. I'm ashamed, really.) Majorly talk 17:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. I don't have a major problem with allowing decent articles to stay, but if they're not simplified enough then they'll be deleted. Perhaps we need a definitive policy on this. By "this" I mean dealing with edits from banned users.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say, PMDrive, that I strongly suspect that every time you make a fuss about Bambifan and draw attention to him on threads such as this, he will be "laughing in our faces" as you put it. He probably loves it when you bring him up here. I also expect he gets a thrill when we delete his articles. I've not seen any convincing argument as to why we should delete articles based on who wrote them, if they meet our policies. Deleting such articles is pure wikipolitics and against the interests of an encyclopedia anyone can edit. All it achieves is drawing attention to him. Majorly talk 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, let's restore the "good" pages and carry on. Seems reasonable enough to me.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm going to bed, I've been up to long and just had an enormous exam :( and have work tonight :(. But.. seriously I'll leave my brief synopsis :) Please wait... :( we seem to jump to fast sometimes...Also good articles are good articles. If there bad they should be deleted regardless of who made them, if they are a new editor who means well we should try to work with them, if their Bambi we should hit them over the head with a shovel (metaphorically speaking of course).Jamesofur (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please freely disagree for what I am going to say. To some it might seem obvious, but I'll still put it here: Articles are (quick) deleted for their content, not because a particular editor contributed to them. - A vandal become one for what he does; if a vandal contributes perfectly fine material, there is no reason to delte that (on the pretext that it was vandal-created). Therefore: no, do not delete articles based on the fact that they were created by a banned editor; find another (better) reason to delete them - If you can't, then don't. --Eptalon (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Mentifisto 12:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Guys, all I know is this: I just found two more and I just tagged them as a courtesy. If Bambifan101 creates good articles, then in all fairness to the guy he should be unblocked and allowed to edit. The English rules state that any creation by any banned editor regardless of content or usefulness may be deleted. He doesn't visit English very much anymore because he knows his contributions will be wiped away. Instead, he comes here. I don't edit this site nearly as much as I should, so I'm probably not as qualified to discuss the etiquette here as I am over at EN and I'm deeply sorry for opening a can of worms like this. To me, it doesn't make sense to have it both ways. A ban is a ban. If he's banned, he shouldn't edit at all, good or bad. If the good articles stay, then it stands to reason that anything he or any similar editor does should stay. Just my $.02 and I'll remove the speedy templates I just placed and I'll gladly abide by whatever the community decides should be done with these and the inevitable future articles. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: If anyone's interested, the last talk page discussion I had with this individual prior to its being blocked is here: [3]. He's unhinged, pure and simple and heaven help me, I will never get involved in trying to reason with him again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Script error: No such module "user". appears to another one of the IP proxy attackers. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by PeterSymonds. PmlineditorTalk 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia imposter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I already "shut up". —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 06:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an account on the English Wikipedia called "Mythdon13" impersonating me by making edits are appear to be in good faith, but hard to assume that they are in reality. Here are the accounts contributions. I ask all English Wikipedia administrators who are active here to look into it, as I cannot report it on the English Wikipedia as I am currently blocked there. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 21:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And now it has been blocked by PeterSymonds. It appears to be the user has been harassing me here for over a month. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 21:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You need to step away from anything English WP related. Asking people to do things for you there is considered meatpuppeting and will likely get you in trouble. I am sure admins there will look into it and notice. -DJSasso (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is so severe of a case that I felt that I needed to draw it to administrator attention as soon as possible, and no stalling about it. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If I weren't blocked on the English Wikipedia, I would have reported it there. I wanted to get this user blocked as soon as possible. It hurts me that an individual has decided to engage in harassment towards me. I have no doubt Mythdon13 is the same person who currently attacks me over here. I do not want to meatpuppet, and I am sorry that it came down to that. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Basically I am trying to nicely tell you that using this wiki to get messages over to en will get you blocked here and will likely cause them to lengthen your block there. You have the ability to email there still I am sure. Just email an admin there in the future or even email one of the en admins that edit here via their simple email link. Just don't post on the notice board. I don't think there was any rush needed on this. Admins would have picked up on it fast enough. -DJSasso (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't have an email address written in the email field of my settings of either my English or Simple Wikipedia accounts, and I don't know the email addresses of any administrator (I forgot the email addresses of ArbCom members who are administrators, but they probably won't have time). I don't use email to contact Wikipedia users. Perhaps I should enable email on my accounts someday so I wouldn't have to do these things in another method. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant the link on administrators user page that says email this user. Click that and you can email an admin. But if you don't want your email getting out then you are SOL. Just don't use simple to get something done on en. That's that last I have to say on the matter. -DJSasso (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for information purposes, NuclearWarfare has requested a checkuser on that wiki: . —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 00:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone here really cares, or if you should be bringing this to our attention. To be honest, this can only end badly for you. For your own sake, try not to bring up your troubles from en on here. We are a separate wiki, but if you get into further trouble on en, it could lead to blocking here, too. Hope your checkuser comes out clear and you can get back to editing here without further problems. EhJJTALK 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh... there's no way that it'll come back confirmed. Either it'll be declined per WP:DUCK or it'll be accepted and closed as unrelated. There's nothing to charge me for. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been checked. It is unrelated. --Bsadowski1 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Diff. I knew it would come out unrelated. Glad to be found not guilty of all charges. That doesn't mean however that Mythdon13 should be unblocked on that wiki, because of the impersonation. It was a lose-lose situation for Mythdon13 and a win-win situation for that community. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon, just shut up and stop complaining. Your enwp troubles don't concern us. Just deal with them yourself. PmlineditorTalk 08:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Your comment was made two days after my last comment. This discussion was already over with until you told me "shut up". I have already "shut up". There's no need to tell me to "shut up" when it's already happened. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 06:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


We've talked about these guys on IRC a couple times and sort of brushed it off but I wanted to bring it up here so that more could see and comment and for mostly a heads up. There is a set of what appears to be 3 accounts User:Dkes, User:Napoleon and User:Napless who appear that they could be related. Both Dkes and Napoleon were created on the same day (September 20th) about 6 hours apart. Napoleon was created and started editing at 0245, Dkes was created and started editing the same pages at 0818 about 20 minutes or so after Napoleon stopped for the day. Napless was created on the 21st (at 0314) and proceeded to edit the same pages. Since then they have basically gone in cycles, Napoleon, Dkes, Napless never at the same time, always the same articles and writing style and almost always in that order. So far there has not been any real "oddness" and so even if they are socks there really isn't a reason to block them but was just a little weird. Well no oddness until [today] Jamesofur (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

to make it easier: Special:Contributions/Napless Special:Contributions/Dkes Special:Contributions/Napoleon
  • Personally, I see no problem here. These might be some children working on a school project. As far as the link you presented is concerned, this seems like a newbie edit. -- Mercy (|) 09:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't see a problem either, there is a reasons that I didn't post it earlier but I was asked to and so thought I would put it out there for everyone Jamesofur (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
These are all coming from the same IPs, so it is possible it's one person. But it's also possible that it might be a group taking turns on a computer. It's not a public/school computer as far as I can tell though. I think they should be kept watched, and if they start voting on things and whatever, we might need to have words. Majorly talk 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks MajorlyJamesofur (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal warning

(Copied from Talk:Ferdinand_Magellan, probably better here. --Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Book Spam warning

(My apologies for this message being in English) The vandal General Tojo is spamming Wikipedia by removing references and adding his books as the only reference. The books are nothing more than reprints of out of copyright sources, with spelling errors from the title page on forward (For example it is James McClymont, not MacClymont, and Gaspar Correia, not Correa, and Charles Edwards Lester, not Charles Lester Edwards). This article is one of his targets, please watch for removal of valid references and adding of the spam references by new users or IP's. The books spammed so far are:

  • Magellan (2008) by Francis Guillemard (died 1933), Antonio Pigafetta (died 1534), Francisco Albo (contemporary of Magellan), Gaspar Correa (contemporary of Magellan), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421007
  • Amerigo Vespucci (2009) by Charles Lester Edwards (died 1890), Amerigo Vespucci (died 1512), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421021
  • Pedro Cabral (2009) by James Roxburgh MacClymont (out of copyright author), William Brooks Greenlee (edited around 1939), Pero Vaz de Caminha (died 1500), Keith Bridgeman (Editor), and Tahira Arsham (Editor);ISBN 978-1906421014

Please watch for removal of valid references and replacement with spam, and revert accordingly. As for the identity of the spammer and vandal General Tojo:

  • Keith Bridgeman, London is the editor of all the books spammed by General Tojo
  • Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of the publishing house publishing the books spammed by General Tojo
  • Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of some Parkinson's disease patents spammed by General Tojo on Wikipedia for quite a few years now
  • Keith Bridgeman, London is also the owner of the web page advertising both the Parkinson stuff and the books spammed by General Tojo.

For details see en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo -- Chris 73 11:27, 3. Okt. 2009 (CEST)


Can an administrator please revoke this blocked users ability to edit their talk page, they are a sock of Bambifan and are continuing to troll. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked already. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Right...but they are continuing to troll on their talk page. I was wondering if you could block their ability to edit it too (please see the page history as well as some of the deleted history). Thanks! Tiptoety talk 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, looks like EhJJ (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes) just got it. Thanks guys, Tiptoety talk 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. I misread your comment. Talkpage blocked (and deleted) as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Tiptoety talk 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for conflicting with you TRM. EhJJTALK 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<- You guys forgot to disable account creation, he just made Script error: No such module "user". which needs to be blocked as well. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No we didn't. He changed IPs. But the account is blocked anyway, thanks for your eagle eyes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooh.. Maybe that did happen... okay. Either way, good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 :-) Tiptoety talk 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone revoke their talk page editing ability as well? [4]. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Also made sure not to uncheck "Prevent account creation" this time. EhJJTALK 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hehe. No worries, we all make mistakes. Thanks for all your help guys! Tiptoety talk 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have indef blocked Purplebackpack89‎ per WP:BOLD. His behaviour lately has been uncalled for, and he is not helping SEWP. Please comment, and feel free to disagree with me. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

100% endorse. He's clearly got something against Juliancolton and Pmlinediter, and furthermore his changing of talk page comments, POINT nominations and clear disruption has gone too far, despite multiple warnings. 100% endorse, this should also have been stopped sooner, thus why Simple Sucks. Goblin 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Never keen on going from an almost clean block record (one block of 24 hours...) to an indef without at least one intermediate step (of say a week or two) to allow an editor "one last chance"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Rambler, I think in this instance we've more than passed grounds for a intermediate, last chance block. I am happy to go diff collecting on this. Goblin 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
I'm don't doubt you could dig up a bunch of diffs. I'm just all for "one last chance". But I have other things to do right now. I'll go with the majority. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM. An indef block? That's too much. Purplebackpack89‎ tried at least to help this wiki and therefore an indef block? Furthermore, I think this is another abuse of WP:BOLD. This page was for the articles and other changes invented and not for indef blocking users. Also I think people who are active for more then a few days shouldn't be blocked per "one admind ad hoc decission" if there isn't a really bad behaviour or something. Please undo this block and propose a ban here. Barras (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* Hoped it wouldn't come to this, but looks like i'm going to have to go diff fishing. As it stands this user is a net negative. We've surpassed the limits for "warning" blocks; admins, start acting like the roles that you hold and stop worrying about hurting people's feelings. You are here to make the wiki a good place, not let anyone run around, and therefore you need to block the troublemakers. Were this enwiki PBP would not have lasted anywhere near this long with some of what he has shown. Admins, wake up and smell the coffee. We went through this with CM16, Tharnton and Static. Just block them and be done with it, don't give them millions of chances; they won't reform. Goblin 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
  • Now I see the reason... I agree with a block, but 1) not indef and 2) not per WP:BOLD. Barras (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    Agree with No. 2 but not No. 1. As I say, this has gone to far for any intermediatry blocks. If we're going to give a chance then it should be a 6 Month review like CM16's block, not a 1 week/2 week etc. I'm still diff fishing until told to stand down. Goblin 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
    I think I would have blocked him for his behaviour as well, but not per an "one admin ad hoc decission". I think no admin should be allowed to block a "long" term user without at least a few little discussion. (Little because I don't like drama). The RfdA was a clear case of nonsense as well as the GA demotion request. But I don't think this should be a reason for an indef block. All users are allowed to request deadminship or to request the demotion of an article. A block for one/two weeks would first be enough. After this he csn be blocked indef. I guess he is simply sad, because his article didn't became a GA. Barras (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that an indef block for this one offence is definitely too much; If we block for like a few days to a week, he will have got the message. Please note that he tried to get an article (Joe Biden) to GA. I also reviewed and changed some of that article. To me, he did not come across as a POV pusher or insisting on a POINT. If we block for too long, we may lose a good editor.--Eptalon (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • He was on my watch list I was going to give him a small block for the point nomination....I think you should drop from indef to a good amount of time whatever you think that is. ANd if he keeps it up then do indef. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
How does an indef block but with 6 month review sound? A block was warranted quite a long time ago, so I think we have past the stage of a "short, one week block to make them think" if you catch my drift. Thoughts? Goblin 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
I'd prefer considerably shorter (say a month) with a probationary period thereafter with some editing guidelines to be applied which, if broken, would result in an indef block. Oh, and the judgement on the breaking (or not) of such would be made by a non-involved admin (or three)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with TRM and Barras. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, sorry, I'm not a big fan of Purplebackpack89‎ after his ridiculous de-adminship request on Julian, but to up and indefinitely block him? That's overkill. I'm not even aware of him doing anything after the RfDA, so it definitely seems like a punitive block, rather than a preventative. EVula // talk // // 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on the above rough consensus for no indefinite block, I have shortened the block length to two weeks. I have left the talk page blocked, since it was not discussed in depth above. I have no opinion on the subject, and remain neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    Suggest you undo this scream until we have come to an absolute conclusion on what the block level is - no-one but you has suggested a two week block, most of the comments being a month or so. I strongly suggest you re-consider, as I asked Eptalon to do. *Sigh*, really hoped I wouldn't have to resume diff fishing. Goblin 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
  • Agree with TRM. Like I say, give him a second chance.-- Tdxiang 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also very much against a ban "per WP:BOLD". Clearly Yot overdid it this time, but I'm going to AGF that he really thinks, like Goblin, that this editor is a net harm. Still, I'm going to agree with consensus here, that a block of about 2 weeks is appropriate, and blocks can be increased from there. Admins are allowed to unilaterally block someone for preventative reasons, but to apply indef block/ban "per BOLD" is not acceptable. EhJJTALK 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to oppose this. PBP has already got a warning - he had been blocked previously. He's repeatedly attacked both JC and me and the "revenge" RfDA didn't please me. There's sufficient reason for an indef block. According to him , there are "slanderous" comments here and he has never engaged in personal attacks. I don't think an indef block will do much harm to the project. However, I see that the block was shortened and I fervently hope that he changes after this period. Regards, PmlineditorTalk 07:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My views still lie very much as an indef block with 6 month review, however, i'd be willing to stray to a 1-2month block with a "strike-out" option after that. If a sufficient number of uninvolved users (say three) all agree that further wiki abuse has taken place then we indef block, no review. Think this is a good option, and no blocks should be altered until we have come to a firm conclusion as to what we are going to do with said user. I would be happy to (attempt) mentorship of the user post-block to see if it helps, but in any case we need to say enough is enough and make a suitable block to get rid of this rubbish. As I keep saying, admins care more about their public appearance ("face") rather than actually protecting this wiki as they are entrusted to do. Goblin 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.</div>

Ban proposal


Now that it has been decided that the indef block was uncalled for and based on consensus for a block of unknown duration and terms (community ban), the previous thread has been marked as archived and a new heading started. Please list your proposal(s) here. Chenzw  Talk  08:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Per above. A one-month block with a clear set of editing guidelines for, say, six months thereafter. Failure to work within guidelines after one warning results in reassertion of indefinite block. I would also certainly advocate the use of mentorship, should PBP87 be agreeable to such. While I agree that some of his edits have been undesirable, he has also done some good work in the mainspace, which is, after all, why we're all here. And for what it's worth, the blocking/unblocking/blocking/unblocking nonsense has to stop. All admins involved in that pathetic wheel-warring need to step off for a bit and relax. Allowing him to edit his talkpage, however, was a good idea, he can't damage the Wikipedia there, can he? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to propose an indef block with a ban review after 6 months. If not, then it's a 1 month block at mentorship thereafter. What concerns me is the fact that very few of such users have ever helped the project. We've has about 3 such cases and in none of them have the users stopped. I agree that PBP has done good mainspace work; however this has been tarnished by his continuous attacks. I'd have been less harsh had he accepted that he has made a mistake instead of bluntly refusing. About allowing him to edit the talk page, I have nothing to say, except that even if he is allowed, it should be revoked after a single misuse. Regards, PmlineditorTalk 08:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, refocusing... I'd support what TRM says in principle, though think the block time should be two months (at least) rather than a month. Yes, i'm aware of blocking policy and what blocks are for before you eat me. For the editing guidelines, I think we should ban them from all Wikipedia: space (including PGA and PVGA etc) for a further two months, and that work should focus on building articles. Discussion should be allowed for article purposes, and we should make allowances for things such as VIP and, if absolutely necessary, AN/ST. All of the restrictions should last for a minimum period of 2 months, and operate on a one-strike basis - i.e., if broken, and the "review group" (i'd suggest the mentor plus 1-2 admins) all agree then we either up the block/ban period or, more appropriately, revert to an indefinite block. Furthermore, we need to be strict on the guidelines once we as a community have agreed on them; i.e. not allow for changes from other people or PBP, and apply it when it happens. As PM has said above, we've had cases of this before where we have just let them keep coming back despite multiple instances. I think that the "productive" edits are more then overruled by the disruptive ones, and think that this user is very much a net loss. Finally, i'd be happy to step up to the plate and mentor (as I have been trying to do throughout the PGA incident) as ultimately, while they are a net loss at the moment I wouldn't want to give up on said user just yet as with some help they can probably turn around. This might contradict what I said above but I was getting quite heated last night so stepped away to think it through, and this is what I have come up with. Thoughts, guys? Goblin 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
  • I personally wouldn't block more than 2 weeks for the first offense. I think going past a month is overkill and can't believe anyone is considering it for a first block. I am a hard ass when it comes to blocks and will block harder and faster than most and was disgusted how long it took us to deal with past instances. But jumping for 0-indef or 0-6months or 0-1 month is far to fast. We should still stick the the rule of thumb of doubling the time every offense. Start at two weeks and then double for the slightest offense and so on until you hit indef. ANd please for the love of god would you all stop attacking people and wheel waring? Yes BG and Chenzw I am talking to you two, he was making a good faith change. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • DJ, whether it was right or not, it wasn't his first block - he'd been blocked before for 24 hours... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well mostly clean block record then. The 24 hour block is why I jumped to 2 still don't go from 24 hours to 1 month or more...that is still pushing it. And to be honest the reactions of BG7 to this whole situation to me is far more worthy of blocking than anything PB has done. Running around threatening various admins is not good behavior and if I see more I will block. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really care if two weeks, one month or only one week. An indef block would be too much imo. I only think his talk page should be unblocked... Barras (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree his talk page should have in no way been blocked. He has yet to abuse the unblock system or attack users on his talk page etc. A user does have the right to make stylistic changes to his talk page as long as he doesn't alter the meaning of comments on it, so to say because he changes the colours on his talk page is a reason to block it is bogus. Oh and I noticed a comment on his talk page that someone said you cannot remove comments from your own talk page, that too is wrong, there is even an essay that says you shouldn't revert someone who removes comments from their talk page because they are allowed to do so because the comments can still be found in the history of the page. People running around charging that others are breaking rules should make sure they know the rules before they do so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It'll be best if Yot or Eptalon unblocks talk page changing. Pmlineditor  13:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Why Yot or Eptalon? All admins can do this. Barras (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
          • a)Not related. b)Original admin. So no chance of conflicts. There's sufficient consensus to unblock though, but I don't want this to turn to yet another long discussion on whether the action was correct or not. Pmlineditor  13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I would advocate that one of the original blocking or reblocking admins unblocks, at the very least, his talkpage. At least give him a chance to be heard. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I unblocked his talk page yesterday evening, but re-blocked after being accused of wheel-warring by BG7; Anyway, it was not wheel-warring. For the sake of clarity though I'd suggest that only the original blocking admin handles his block now (this would also hold if this discussion comes to a conclusion). --Eptalon (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just re-enabled talk page editing before the last comment (by Eptalon) was posted. If any of the blocking admins disagree, please note it here. Chenzw  Talk  15:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Eptalon, whatever you wish to call it, the behaviour of the blocking/unblocking (ad infinitum) admins is pretty poor and shows a serious lack of judgement all round. I'm glad we're at the point where we are now, at least PBP gets to defend himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
so that I don't just say per TRM, the fact that there were 5 changes to the block yesterday alone (+ the original block) by 4 admins (with more who at some point said they were going to or really wanted to change something) is sort of sad. I highly disagree with the use of bold for this but the reaction by everyone else was just **** (ps I'll prob say more bout ban proposal later tonight my time when I'm finished going through contribs etc, you know me ignore me or not I'm not quiet :) )Jamesofur (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-Unrelated note: I'm sorry for the unblock, I thought I read that there was no support for the indefinite. I won't alter that block again, I'll leave it for another. This is ok with me. However, no opinion on the topic at the moment. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support DJSasso's proposal. Also, if I didn't understand wrongly, it would also mean that this would be the first offense and would result in a 2 week block? Chenzw  Talk  01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion is stalled. Could someone close it? Also, there is no consensus or support for the block as it is, so that needs to be changed. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing remarks: While I did comment in the original discussion, I have not commented since that time and will do my best to provide (what I believe is) an impartial representation of community consensus.

  • Purplebackpack89 clearly has had some disagreement about the PGA process. Reviewing that, I did not find occaision where his comments were worthy of a block. Mentorship about "consensus" versus "bureaucracy" would have been appropriate at that time. While Purplebackpack89 did request a RfDA on an admin he disagreed with, which may have been partially or wholly "pointy", that is not, by itself, sufficient reason to ban. An appropriate response, in my opinion, would have been a speedy close and note on the user's talk page. However, when combining these two, a short-term block (a few days) may have been appropriate if an admin was concerned that this user would continue to argue his point despite attempts by the community to show where he was wrong. Blocking his ability to edit the Wikipedia (to protect it) while leaving his talk page unblocked would have allowed an opportunity to discuss the issue. Depending on how that went, the block could be extended or shortened by the original blocking admin. In conclusion, I believe the following to be the product of Wikipedia policy and consensus, as determined above: The original blocking admin (Yotcmdr) should modify the block to be what he considers to be an appropriate length (but no longer than 2 weeks from the original block date). He should leave the talk page unblocked to allow time for mentorship. The block is NOT to be punitive. Once the original blocking admin (Yotcmdr) believes Purplebackpack89 is no longer likely to be disruptive, Purplebackpack89 may be unblocked. At two weeks, Purplebackpack89 should be (automatically) unblocked and must show good conduct. If poor conduct continues, he may be blocked for a period of several months (no more than 6), or a community ban may be re-proposed at that time.

The following are some other comments, not necessarily consensus from above, but important.

  • As far as the wheel-warring, I would like to remind all admins that blocks are protective, not punitive. If a user is harmful to the Wikipedia, they should be blocked quickly and unblocked slowly. By that, I mean there is always time to discuss whether a blocked user should be unblocked before it happens. Wheel-warring is a serious offence and can result in de-adminship. Please do not "right-great-wrongs", no matter how strongly you feel a block is unjustified. Get consensus first: either get the original admin to agree to the unblock, or take it here and get some community feedback.
  • WP:BOLD is about updating pages. Admin actions (especially indef blocks) are not supposed to "be bold", they are supposed to be absolutely necessary for the protection of the Wikipedia.

I hope I did not soapbox too much, this was meant to be a summary of the above discussion. In good faith, EhJJTALK 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Good summary, good conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, is Purple getting blocked for 2 weeks from now or 2 weeks from the first block. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe consensus was for Purplebackpack89's block to run from when he was first blocked. There was weak consensus about the length of time, but I don't think there was any good reason put forth why it should be longer than 2 weeks. Per my original statement: "but no longer than 2 weeks from the original block date" (see above). EhJJTALK 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Then the block needs changing again. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


20px Resolved. Blocked by Script error: No such module "user". – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The above appears to be another Bambifan sock. Could an admin block please? Tiptoety talk 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps figure out why GoblinBot4 keeps replacing vandalism on Fictional character. Thanks, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked by PeterSymonds (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes). Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please block User:S-J-S-F-M-W

20px Resolved. Blocked by Pmlineditor  18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was blocked on English Wikipedia yesterday, and left a message at his talk page saying he was going to come here. He has done so, and even changed his user page to admit he is a sock puppet. Rjanag (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

18px Done For several reasons. Pmlineditor  10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the week

The article that is "translation of the week" is listed here but is several weeks out of date. Can someone update it and/or tell me how to do it? thx Victuallers (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To edit the template, go to Wikipedia:RecentChanges. We have a bot do it, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's {{totw}}. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx GOW - just what I needed Victuallers (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mythdon

20px Resolved. done --Barras (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please protect my talk page until 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC). Thank you. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi or fully? Barras (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protect. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
18px Done 16 weeks. I think it's three days more, but I hope you don't mind. Barras (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Just one day and 18 hours more. I don't mind. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
OK! Just say a word if you want it unprotected earlier. Barras (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please also protect User:Mythdon for the same duration. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No further comment necessary. Mythdon (talkchanges) 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


I would appreciate very much if an administrator (either through the Titleblacklist or AbuseFilter) could make it impossible to create pages using my user name. The recent flurry of vandalism/attack pages directed towards me is starting to get ridiculous. Thank you, – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

18px Done - Your username has been disallowed from page titles. Chenzw  Talk  07:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)