Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 34


20px Resolved. User aware, no further action required. fr33kman 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator consider removing this user's rollback. He believes that an edit is worthless without an edit summary [1], and thus misuses the rollback tool to revert such edits. Tylis (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he doesn't realize his statement "An article must stay as it is, and no one must remove anything in it without a proper explanation for the removal." is incorrect. Perhaps simply referring to WP:Bold and a reminder about WP:Rollback would be useful here, rather than escalating this further. Thanks for your help Tylis, but you may want to just ignore any further attempts he makes to send you messages on your talk page. EhJJTALK 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed fr33kman 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. done by PeterSymonds I-20the highway 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Made on IRC but no response, so...

Would an admin import en:Gentoo penguin? Cheers, I-20the highway 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:PeterSymonds did it. I-20the highway 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Upon his request via email I have removed Gordonrox24's sysop flag. This is not a resignation under a cloud and he is entitled to it back by asking any crat if desired, within policy. fr33kman 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB in new changes

20px Resolved. No administrator action needed. —Clementina talk 05:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought AWB edits were not supposed to show up in the new changes list? Has something changed? --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be granted the flood/bot flag. πr2 (talk • changes) 15:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, users could use AWB to vandalize and no one would notice unless they were watching bot edits. AWB approval only allows you to have access to the program for non-flooding edits (i.e. some repetitive work done at a slow pace). To do massive re-categorization, for example, you need to request the flood or bot flag (both work). EhJJTALK 16:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The flood flag works with it now? I remember it didn't a few days ago.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You must log in AFTER you have the flood flag, and check in the status bar at the bottom of the page that it says Bot = TRUE. EhJJTALK 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so thats why! Thanks.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite web

20px Resolved. Done by DJSasso. —Clementina talk 02:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting here to see if there is an admin willing to date delink the access dates in the above citation template. Previous discussion can be found on Clementina's talk page. It doesn't look like any other cite templates have the date linking problem. Thanks, Airplaneman 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They were unlinked before...looks like someone accidentally relinked them. Fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the fix has been reverted and the date links are still there. Airplaneman 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah JC rolledback too far when reverting some of my edits. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for fixing! Airplaneman 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry 'bout that. I wasn't sure which edit was causing the issues, and I didn't know there was anything that needed to be preserved there. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood Flag

Hello. May I please have the flood flag? I have some categorizing to do.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

18px Done. Let me know when you're done. @Lauryn (parlez) 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be sure to.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't complete, and it was removed. (User_talk:Hazard-SJ#Flood flag)  Hazard-SJ Talk 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Because you were doing things with it that you shouldn't do when your edits are hidden from recent changes. I'll put it back on, if you will not make any edits besides categorising. @Lauryn (parlez) 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I wont even change my talk page or revert edits (nor fix typos; just adding cats). Thank you.  Hazard-SJ Talk 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, do nothing but your categorising. If you feel the need to make other edits, let me know and I'll remove it. @Lauryn (parlez) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OOps. I didn't know I got it, and made an edit...sorry.  Hazard-SJ Talk 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Done by User:PeterSymonds, be a good boy! I-20the highway 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Actually, I've said it before but due to this user's very recent sock puppetry I am not happy with this user getting the flood flag for any edits. I have refused a bot flag for his second account and I don't see it being granted anytime in the next 12-18 months. fr33kman 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

<- Meh. Flood flag is rather insignificant, especially for categorisation. I don't see a problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with it in this instance as he's not using anything really automated (just HotCat to add categories). A full time bot account, as you've said, would be a different story. @Lauryn (parlez) 22:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The editor has been in trouble quite a bit since they began here, they are a sock-puppeteer. I see a big problem. fr33kman 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed he already violated it today. fr33kman 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say one final thing here. If any editor in good standing objects to the granting of the flood flag, it means that the edits should not be hidden because they are no longer noncontroversial. fr33kman 23:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, no... it only means that one editor objects. That does not a controversial edit make. What you have here is a group of administrators willing to allow the flood flag in this instance. The question really is... Do you trust us? Jon@talk:~$ 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually yes, one user objecting makes the edits controversial. Same idea is prod'ing on en. The reason for prod is that the deletion is considered non-controversial. But soon as someone removes it, it can't be readded because its considered controversial. By the way, I too object to him having it. So that makes 2 now that do. The flood flag here is given way to easily. It was meant to be carefully monitored and every edit checked by the admin giving it out when we agreed to start giving it out to non-admins. I don't think this has been happening. Not to mention the initial point of it was for hundreds of edits....not the 10 or 20 people seem to be giving it out for lately. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Re Lauryn. There is nothing stopping him once someone has granted him the flood flag, from turning on an automated bot and going to town. An automated bot could completely destroy the wiki in a matter of minutes, faster than people would notice because their edits were hidden. There is no difference between the bot flag and the flood flag per say, if someone wouldn't be given the bot flag, they shouldn't be given the flood flag (assuming the reasoning is lack of trust). -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the flood flag is pointless in most instances of its current use, I don't think one person's objection necessarily justifies refusing to grant it. People object to lots of things; some concerns are less valid than others. By asserting that a given user's opinion is so influential, regardless of its merits, you're creating potential for abuse of the system. Any less-than-credible user could come along and say "I hate categories, I object to their addition!". It's like all in-process issues on wiki really – if there are objections, start a discussion and see whether or not consensus agrees. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"edit" to "change" on Template:Documentation/core

Can an admin please fix the code on the template (mentioned above) in order to change both "edit" words to "change"? I drafted it on its talk page. Hazard-SJ Talk 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Noone's interested? Hazard-SJ Talk 10:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

20px Resolved.

I'd like User:Hazard-SJ/Editnotice to be semi-protected (Autoconfirmed) please. Hazard-SJ Talk 10:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done. -Barras (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Hazard-SJ Talk 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like request that User:Battleaxe9872/Articles I've Created, User:Battleaxe9872/Templates I've Started, my user page, User:Battleaxe9872/Barnstars and awards, and User:Battleaxe9872/Hooks I have nominated for DYK (Did you know) all be semi-protected, as no I.P address or non-auto confirmed user would need to change any of those pages. Thank you. Battleaxe9872 20:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
18px Done - Griffinofwales (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved.

Hello. I'd like to get the flood flag for categorizing. I don't know if it is possible to do so to my bot account. If it can be done, please do so. If not, please flag this account (I should know). Hazard-SJ Talk 04:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Block review

20px Resolved. Blocked for 3 months. Chenzw  Talk  14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

After a detailed review of the contributions of Template:Noping (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I have changed the block to indef. I've found evidence (edits that appear to be goading another user, edits indicating inability to understand reason, edits indicating no clue, and the recent QD of articles like Bill Clinton) of disruptive editing. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 22:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this indefinite block. -Barras (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I figured it was heading here and I tried to warn him. I endorse the block. -DJSasso (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would only request that TeleComNasSprVen be able to request the block be reviewed after time has passed. I think this is a good block for now, but I would hate to see him gone forever. He is able to edit constructively, but we've hit some roadblocks along that path. I think after some maturing he can become a good editor here. Can we say six months to a year before eligible to request unblock/block review?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah I have no problem with reviewing, nothing is ever permanent. -DJSasso (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    A review in perhaps 3-6 months would be acceptable. fr33kman 00:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    Sound fine to me. He is able to edit on EN (when I checked a few minutes ago) and has many edits there. Perhaps he can prove useful to them for a while and show that he needn't get so involved in pointy edits (e.g. tagging important articles for QD) or user / RC stalking (as he has done with PBP), and flooding RC with various article tags (e.g. creating talk pages for BLP notices). Depending on how he does on EN, I have no objection to a review in as little as 3 months; more if he has issues at en. EhJJTALK 01:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    Agree completely with EhJJ here. sonia 02:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    EhJJ and fr33kman have my view. I-20the highway 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like indefinite blocks, but it seems to be a just one. Telecom is capable of good faith changes, however, and a review in a few months seems good. EhJJ sums up my thoughts nicely here. —Clementina talk 08:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like indef blocks, and reviews either... well what do you base them on? I don't think it should be based on his enwiki contribs, as it doesn't reflect the work done on simple, a different place altogether. I think the block should just run out in 3 months and we can work from there. Our objective isn't to get rid of editors, it's to get more. An indef block could scare him away forever. The concerned editors seams to have good potential, he just needs to learn to live with restrictions. Yottie =talk=</sup> 08:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. An unblock in three months would also work. His enwiki changes will not show us that any issues (like RC flooding or twinklespamming) are resolved, but what it will show us is whether his attitude has changed sufficiently for him to return to productive editing. If his changes there continue to be much like what they have been- warning experienced users for trivial things, focussing far too much on random talk page stalking, or even being plain disruptive- then the review may benefit from evaluation with respect to that. In that sense, while enwiki is indeed a completely separate project with a different attitude, it is still a factor for consideration. TeleCom has been known to contribute very constructively but I think some of his recent edits have just been beyond the pale. There is a good chance that if he "gets it" in the meantime we may get back a good contributor, but as we've seen the restrictions have just been gamed. If the only way to stop disruptive editing is to stop editing altogether I'm afraid it has to be done. As for shortening the block instead of allowing review, I would be happy with that. If in a few months' time someone is significantly concerned about his impending block expiration, consensus can be achieved to extend it. Sort of the reverse of block review, but more positive. The question is whether it will encourage more contributors, or simply give the message to one that we are lenient. sonia 09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am willing to set the block to three months duration, are there any objections? Jon@talk:~$ 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I do like three months better than an indefinite block. It seems pretty much the same as indef with a three-month review, but as Sonia said, more positive...and probably less of a shock to Tel. No objections from me. Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Per my somewhat jumbled comment above, I support this. sonia 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, time-limited block of three months is Ok.--Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It is done. Jon@talk:~$ 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

He created the account Script error: No such module "user".. πr2 (talk • changes) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? There has been a vandal creating "socks" of banned/retired users. I think they are rarely the person they claim to be. Perhaps a CU could check? EhJJTALK 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but he edited TeleCom's userpage at en. πr2 (talk • changes) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This is why. He came over here from English. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes)' 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh... sorry. πr2 (talk • changes) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(<-) I talkted to TCNSV/Telecom..., and also rand a checkuser (the two accounts match the same IP range). I have adapted the block on TCNSV to also run out in 3 months time; Telecom... told me he was considering using that as a secondary account.--Eptalon (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This user, to me, brought back memories of Tharnton435 and disruptive behaviors, and therefore, I must endorse the block. A review in a few months is acceptable. Razorflame 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think three months is sufficient for any recovery from bad or for feeling sorry. Indef is too harsh and I trust Telecom enough to have at least a small change in three months. :) Warmly, Belle tête-à-tête 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. Bot flag denied. Chenzw  Talk  14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been directed here regarding my recent post to WT:BOTS#Hazard-Bot. It apparently hasn't been seen, and I'll re-post the information here.

I'd like to operate Hazard-Bot as an alternative flooding account, being granted the flood flag upon request to an admin. This would be used mainly for adding categories, but if it is a different reason, I'll put it in the request for the flood flag. Hazard-SJ Talk 05:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, stick to one account fr33kman 05:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, could I please get the flood flag to add categories? Hazard-SJ Talk 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, done, ask here when finished fr33kman 05:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should be given the flag for this anymore until you understand how categories work. You just put a very large number of articles into categories that they should not have been put into. For example you put a bunch into a Sports category. Well all those articles were already in subcategories of the sports category, as such they don't belong in the parent category. I wouldn't doubt you did that with alot of others. The 3000 or so changes you made yesterday probably have to all be reversed now. Please be aware that you are also not supposed to surpase 12 edits a minute with any automated/semi automated editing per the bot policy. So slow down and consider what you are doing to each article. When I am back in a few days I am going to have to go through all your edits fixing the mess you have made unless you do so yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nerio Alejandro ‎and

  • Script error: No such module "user".
  • Script error: No such module "user".

What do you make of their edits? It seems to me that Nerio Alejandro is a single-purpose account interested in depositing his Total Drama tables someplace. (Similar actions occurred on EN). 200... seems to be Alejandro offline. Purplebackpack89 04:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any real issues with the addition of tables to these articles?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
More the userspace edits I'm concerned about. If they're in articlespace, the tables don't need to be in userspace. Purplebackpack89 04:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Man of the match

20px Resolved. restored by Barras

On June 25, 2010 Script error: No such module "user". deleted "Man of the match" ‎for (QD A1: The page has little or no meaning). Could someone restore that page to my user space please? I know I had something useful on the page. Many thanks.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

18px Done - Now User:The Three Headed Knight/Man of the match. -Barras (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting semi-page protection

20px Resolved. not protected, no vandalism since last revert.

I'd like to request that Communism be semi-protected to do high amounts of vandalism from I.P addresses in the past month. Battleaxe9872 / 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

5 IPs, 5 edits, 21 days, 1 edit/4 days. That's not a high amount. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag?

20px Resolved. done by PeterSymonds

I guess I need one per the note on my talk page. This is my usual style of "helping". --LilHelpa (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

18px Done by PeterSymonds. Please let us know when you are done and we will remove the flag. We are a small wiki, and watching Special:RecentChanges is one of our top methods of finding and reverting vandalism. As such, flooding is more of a problem here than on the English Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind the extra bureaucracy needed to request and relinquish the flood flag. Your help on this project is appreciated. Thanks! EhJJTALK 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.. so I need to request/relinquish each session? What if I want to whack away 50 quick edits per day? LilHelpa (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you do. Create a manual bot account if you don't want to bother us. On a side note, are you finished with your bot flag? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Will be finished in exactly one hour. LilHelpa (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-staffing our ranks

Hello all, as you might have heard, Jamesofur has obtained a job that might bring him into a conflict of interest. He has therefore been asked to relinquish his roles of Checkuser, and of Bureaucrat. If we decide to re-assign those flags, this means that there is one opening for a bureaucrat, and one for a chheckuser; Any active admin can apply for either post. Checkusers must be legally adult in the country they live, and they must also be able/ willing to supply proof of identity to the foundation. In addition they must be able to gather about 25 votes (in other words: all the active, named users). What do you think, would it make sense to fill the two posts anew? --Eptalon (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say it was "necessary" to replace me as crat but it wouldn't hurt much either. Another checkuser could certainly be helpful. James (T C) 19:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
So you want a RfB? I'll think about the admins, and may nominate. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any flag positions are a pressing need at this point in time, to be honest. That doesn't mean I'm averse to voting for a qualified candidate, though. Kansan (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I agree that it isn't needed. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I will volunteer... I have the technical expertise, the experience with private data, a working knowledge of the privacy policy, and I am identified to the foundation. I'm willing to fill the role of checkuser if the community is willing. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think that filling the role of CU is currently more important than that of Crat.--Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with eptalon. CU is more important than crat. -Barras (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kansan. We have enough users with hats. If anything, there needs to be less hats. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Check Users "are more important that 'Crats", and they also get less recognition. It is a highly responsible role, and requires a high level of trust and knowledge about CU policies. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well for what its worth I was going to be running for CU next week. Getting married tomorrow so wasn't mentioning it until after then. Someone has asked me to do it. So unless I get a buncha no !votes. It might not be as pressing a need as you make it out to sound. In general we are probably well staffed for most things as it is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! By the way, a few days ago, I saw this, which more emphasizes the point that "CheckUser is more important than 'crat". Still, I don't think there should be a rush. Hazard-SJ Talk 09:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Apecshipping21. (TW)

20px Resolved. Done by me. —Clementina talk 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
18px Done by me and fixed by Fr33kman. :P Thanks PiR. :) Cordially, —Clementina talk 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, should account creation be unblocked so he can create a new account with a better name?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Generally whats done is they ask on their talk page for the new name they would like and a crat renames them. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. imported by --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please import Template:Lead missing. πr2 (talk • changes) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

18px Done--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
18px Done Would you also like Template:Informative template?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Please import that too. πr2 (talk • changes) 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
18px Done--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to bother you, but there are some on the pages that link to the imported pages. (Template:BelgianMunicipality eco) πr2 (talk • changes) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Also imported.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. blocked by PeterSymonds

This message was left on my talk:

If you already didn't know, Dungcamed2010 is blocked at en wiki as a sockpuppet. His ip has been blocked here before . See this. Not really sure if that warrants a block, but I think his contributions are a COI. wiooiw (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in dealing with this right now, but perhaps one of our CU's or also-admin-on-en's could see if this is an issue for us? Thanks! EhJJTALK 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Should Script error: No such module "user". be blocked as well? πr2 (talk • changes) 18:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
18px Done Agree, confirmed sock master at en and accounts are SUL linked. EhJJTALK 19:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Email request

20px Resolved.

I would like to find an available admin, as I have an email request. Hazard-SJ Talk 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, this seems to have been resolved. Hazard-SJ Talk 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. No action taken. Chenzw  Talk  16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to know if there isn't a problem with the username Therabbot. To me, it is in the "bot naming format", and hence, seems to be a bot. I left a note on Therabbot's talk page, and it was seemingly ignored. Hazard-SJ Talk 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think this one is an issue. If it was TherrabBot. Then it might be an issue. Anyone confused on if this is a bot could easily check the userpage. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also don't assume that because you saw nothing done, that the name was ignored. fr33kman 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  There is no userpage to check, DJasso. Hazard-SJ Talk 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Fr33kman: Are you saying there was a previous discussion about this, or other such names? Hazard-SJ Talk 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there is no userpage is an indication its not a bot. A bot will have a userpage saying its a bot. Secondly freekman is saying, he has made a number of edits over a number of days and hasn't had an admin tell him to change his name. That is a bit of an indication that his name is not a problem. In fact he has edits going back to June 20th. I think you need to stop worrying yourself about trying to enforce wiki policy, as chances are an admin is probably already on whatever issue you see, and start forcusing on articles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of active users are admins, believe me we will see what needs doing. We did before you got here Hazard. Just focus on articles etc... fr33kman 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


20px Resolved. Admin rights restored. Chenzw  Talk  16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all! I've just right now given back the mop to Exert (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes). He left about 13 months ago this wiki for a good understandable rationale which he explained to me via email. The request for desysop can be found on meta. I know that it is over one year ago, but we haven't removed him per WP:Inactive administrators. He left uncontroversial, and so I don't see any issue with giving the rights back. The rule says that he has to go through a re-RfA after he was desysopped for inactivity. Since we haven't decided how to act when he voluntarily left and comes back, I've used the discretion given to me by the community. Furthermore, I'd like to say, that he was fairly active.

I know this is a grey area. I hope you can life with my decission, if not, any bureaucrat is free to remove the flag. If I see many people having a problem with this, I will remove the flag as well and Exert has to go through a re-RfA then. Thanks for understanding! -Barras (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

20px Bureaucrat note: The decision is made. I support the decision. Jon@talk:~$ 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Not a crat, but I trust Exert with the tools still, so I support your decision.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the decision.--Eptalon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Ditto! :) fr33kman 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

<- I'm not a crat, but I'm more than happy to support this. :) The more capable helpers we have, the better. —Clementina talk 03:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins reviewing own blocks

Hi all, it has come to my attention that apparently it's been accepted practice here for admins to decline unblock requests on blocks that they placed themselves. So, if Admin Joe blocks User Mary, and User Mary asks to be unblocked, Admin Joe may come back and decline that request.

I believe this is a poor practice for us to have. In my opinion, admins should never decline requests on their own blocks (though, they can always overturn their own blocks--unless they carried out community consensus with their original block, then they'd need community support to overturn). An uninvolved admin should be the only one reviewing the block. The blocking admin can offer comments about the request, but they should never be the person to directly decline it. The point of someone asking for an unblock is to have others review the situation, it is not asking for the blocking admin to come in and place judgment on the user once again.

Some people have said that reviewing blocks should be no different than reviewing deleted pages: users ask the deleting admin to overturn their decision to delete the page. I disagree. Blocks affect account access and could, in effect, make the user feel "powerless." Now he asks for a review of his block and who is it reviewed by? The same person who took away his "power" in the first place. This is definitely not analogous to reviewing a deleted page.

I'd like to hear other thoughts here. Do others feel that this actually is common practice here? If it is, should we stop? Or are others okay with it as it is? I must say, until last night, I had never heard that it was "common practice" around here to do that on Simple. Either way (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Either way on everything. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I am not sure about deletion though, partly because we don't have many reviews for deletion of pages. Chenzw  Talk  16:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Either way. Kansan (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I thought it was just standard to let the blocking admin decline or approve the request at first, however with fairness in mind, I think an uninvolved admin should do the reviewing.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just gonna add onto this. I agree with the below, if it is a clear case where a block is needed and not be removed, like vandalism, then sure, review your own block. Also agree that the admin should use the good judgment that they posses to decide if you should review it or if it is best left to somebody else.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope it stays "not common pratice", because I think it's a bad idea. The idea is that there will always be multiple mops on at the same time, with this being one of the major reasons Purplebackpack89 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(<-) My opinion is as follows:

  • There is one admin (who blocked originally) who is responsible for the block. Any changes to the block should be done by that admin
  • The result of a "block review" is "text";when the admins agree the responsible admin can adapt the block
  • Th reviewer of a block should never be the blocking admin--Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The accused speaks

Well, we are talking about me here so ... I see it like this; an admin places a block, the blocked user then asks that admin to reconsider using {{unblock}}. If the blocking admin declines this "review", then (as the template clearly says) another admin can also review and unblock if they see fit. If I then disagree with that unblocking I can bring it to AN for discussion. I'm fine with anyone reviewing my block, but please give me the chance to respond to the blocked users first ok? Afterall, I blocked them and I deserve the chance to respond to a request for unblocking. fr33kman 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If the blocking admin wishes to provide his reasoning before the review happens, that is understandable, but I believe that the review should be done by a different, uninvolved admin. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Common sense applies here folks. There are instances where its fine for the blocking admin to review their own block. I know this isn't en, but on en its common for an admin to review their own block. In fact its frowned upon for another admin to unblock without talking to the blocking admin. We elected admins because we trust them. So lets trust them to use their common sense as to when is a good time for them to consider unblocking and when they should leave it to another admin. -DJSasso (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

^Exactly!! It is normal to review your own block. Another admin can review it after if the blocked user wishes or the admin feels it should be done. fr33kman 23:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Eitherway has my pulse. I've always felt it bad practice for administrators to review their own blocks, for the reasons outlined above. I believe that uninvolved admins should decline or accept the unblock template. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to be clear on this, you support another admin changing your block correct? I ask because you have had big blowups in the past where another admin has changed one of your actions. So I want to be clear that your position on that has changed so that I can point to this if you complain next time. -DJSasso (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Er, poisoning the well? You are distracting from the issue, I've never had an issue with an admin changing my block on a review. That comment had no bearing on the merits of my argument. Jon@talk:~$ 11:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, I want to make sure I understand your position, because you have quite vocally been upset in the past by another admin changing something on one of your actions. So I don't wish to be confused. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My position with regards to my prior actions or standings have no bearing here, if you want to continue this line of conversation, I invite you to my talk page... it is not germane. And remember, I have not ever, to the best of my recollection, objected to anyone overturning my block when an unblock template was used. Also, I retain the ability to modify my standing at anytime based on any new information I receive to serve the project better. I'm not a piece of unbendable metal. Jon@talk:~$ 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: This is not about me (Jon), so stop making it about me, this is about the issue of administrators reviewing unblock templates. Stop personalizing and discuss the issue at hand. Jon@talk:~$ 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to make this about you, I am trying to understand your position since it seems contradictory to many things you have said in the past and it was confusing me. But I think you have finally managed to clear it up by saying "when the unblock template is used". You have different opinions for different situations which is fine. Please stop trying to make everything a fight. It was a simple question, and answering it without getting hot headed would have gotten to a solution alot faster than throwing a fit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Negative, you made it about me when you stated above my past history and the point of your asking was so that you could "can point to this if 'I' complain next time" as you state above also. Look at yourself. Jon@talk:~$ 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you want. You are just unhappy I pointed out your hypocrisy. One rule for you and another for everyone else. You could have answered simply and let it go instead you chose to argue about it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
15px Administrator note: Guys, just drop it for now! Let DJ go on his honeymoon, and let tempers calm down. This issue can be picked up in a little while with a less antagonistic approach. We would not let this type of argument go unchecked between two none admins, so sorry, but it can't go unchecked here either; it'd be a shame to have it escalate! Not singling out either editor, btw. fr33kman 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Fr33kman, it is difficult to hold back my response when my good name is being sullied. I will not be bullied on this wiki, or any other. Jon@talk:~$ 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

<-Dear Nonvocalscream, your good name was not being sullied. :) No one can possibly have a doubt of your excellence, but arguing surely isn't what either bureaucrat, rightly or wrongly looked up as a role model of editorship, should do. As for myself, I only have a few comments to say: I'd rather have it be a recommended common practice for uninvolved administrators who were not responsible for the block to review it. This makes the person who is getting blocked have a feeling of fairness. However, as with all rules, this should only be recommended and not always necessary - common sense should prevail, and what is done is done. It can always be reviewed again. In this case, for example, the administrators who commented on the matter seemed to agree with Purplebackpack's block, so even if another administrator had reviewed it, I doubt the result would have been much different. Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your points on reviewing unblock templates... I agree completely. With special emphasis placed on generally recommended and sense of fairness. I believe that is important on this issue, yes. Jon@talk:~$ 11:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've to agree with Djsasso above. There are cases where it is fine to review the own block. Most of the blocks we do here on simple are blocks due to clear cases of vandalism. If the vandalism IP requests an unblock with the most common sentence "I promise to not do this again" or "It wasn't me", I'm fine with the blocking admin declining such request. Common sense is the best here. As long as the decisions are clear cuts and uncontroversial, it's fine the blocking admin declines/accepts. If I don't feel comfortable with reviewing my own block, I'll leave it surely to the others to take a look at it. -Barras (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    ^Ditto! Look, either trust us, or fire us, but frankly I'm getting a little tired of being told how to be an admin! All over WMF-land admins review their own blocks and I'm fine with anyone reviewing their own block, it's not like every single action taken on this project is not seen by 99.8% of the community after all. If I act unfairly, you can be assured I'll be questioned about it within seconds. fr33kman 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the point here is being missed. The idea that one cannot decline their own unblocks is based on good reasoning. When a user requests an unblock, the user stays in the category until it is reviewed. It should be reviewed by somebody else in fairness to the blocked user in question. Naturally, admin A will feel their block was justified, but admin B may disagree. That is when a discussion could start, and it has resulted in the overturning of a number of – and don't take this the wrong way – unfair blocks on the English Wikipedia. In this case, the block was not of an uncontroversial nature (not blatant vandalism, spam, copyvio, whatever), and it is only in fairness to Purpleback that his block is reviewed by an impartial administrator – not the blocking administrator. Admins have a duty to the community to be fair and impartial, and this was clearly not a fair decision. It's not like we're short of admins who monitor admin categories. In future, I'd prefer blocking admins to refrain from reviewing their own blocks by declining them; commenting below is absolutely fine, but we should leave the declining (or otherwise) to somebody else, unless they are of a revertable nature (personal attacks, idiocy, vandalism, etc). Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    I could say that the point is being missed by others. The block certainly was uncontroversial and the review was fair. I'm perfectly capable of being fair to someone I have blocked. My history is replete with cases where I've unblocked someone who has asked: see Hazard-SJ for recent proof. PBP is not a first time offender. I certainly am not an "involved" admin when it comes to him. I hold no set opinion of him and I don't interact with him much on wiki. I maintain that I'll review my own blocks if I feel it is fine to do so. Where, in the past, I have felt "involved" I have asked others to review my actions, including blocks. As I've stated, another admin can review the block as well: the template clearly states that, doesn't it? I wonder if this would have come up if I had "reviewed" my block and decided to unblock PBP? Probably not! fr33kman 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Of course not, because unblocking in a way solves a problem. It's simply good form. If you block somebody, it's best to leave the review to another admin. Simple as. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Well unblocking in this case would have continued the problem: let's not forget a new user was under attack and asked for admin help! Enwiki doesn't do it this way, why are we special? I won't be handcuffed as an admin. fr33kman 21:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    This is hardly handcuffing. Peter brings up a good point. Having the blocking admin make a statement of why the block should remain is a good idea, but to have the appearance of full impartiality, having another admin review (IMO) is what should be done. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Enwiki does do it this way. In the unblocking policy there it states that an uninvolved admin reviews: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block..." And later: "As part of an unblock request, uninvolved administrators may discuss a block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information." So it's uninvolved admins who are reviewing with the input of the blocking admin. I have been on the English Wikipedia for almost 5 years now and have served as an admin for years as well, and it's always been common practice in my eyes to never review your own blocks and always allow others to do that. But that's not the point, really. What En. does not need to be a determiner of what we do. We are not the same project. And I agree with Griffinofwales, it's not handcuffing at all. Either way (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of admins on enwiki review their own blocks! But .... Ok, it comes down to this. I know I'm a fair person and I know I'm more than capable of deciding whether or not I should have unblocked or not PBP per his {{unblock}}. It was not a controversial block. Those times I have felt "compromised" I have asked others to review, and will continue to do so. But, I shall also continue to review my own blocks if I think it's fair to do so. Other admins have expressed similar views, so unless we are going to have a vote, I consider the matter ended. Like I said, trust me or fire me: I know I've never let you down as an admin! fr33kman 23:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok seriously folks. This discussion is getting to a level of drama causing multiple good faith admins to feel they are being personally attacked. The discussion on a policy itself is not bad and I would certainly have my own personal opinions to add but it has gotten to a point where it is no longer helping ANYTHING. I would encourage people to come down, relax, have a beer or a soda and either take some time off of the discussion or come back to it with a total "no one did wrong we just want to figure out best practices" mindset. I'm sure some of you are trying to do that, maybe all of you are, but we have not all come across like that. So with that in mind why don't we start the discussion anew (I'm not going to hide the above for now but I wouldn't argue if someone else did). James (T C) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinda not totally arbitrary break

So to start it off. What do people think is a good policy for this? Has anyone created a draft yet or maybe multiple people want to? That or we can just talk here about it for now. I personally think I trust administrators to review their own blocks at least once. I think that can be a good opportunity for the blocked user to explain their side if they felt they didn't get a chance too or to apologize etc. I think that if the block is denied and another request is filed fairly quickly it would be best to have someone else look at it to avoid the appearance of conflict even when there isn't any.

I would say that I think the en method isn't bad. In general the blocking template and many admins actually encourage putting the unblock on hold to talk with the blocking admin before unblocking. When the unblock reason is valid it is then very VERY frequent that the blocking admin will unblock himself. When the admin isn't sure he will usually say that he won't do it but the 2nd admin is welcome to if he feels it is appropriate. I've found it fairly rare that if the blocking admin said no you shouldn't unblock that he was overruled (without drama).James (T C) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that administrators should be trusted to answer a blocked user's request to reconsider their block. If that admin then declines and another admin disagrees they can (as the template CLEARLY states), unblock the user themselves with good reason. After that, we can speak to each other if I disagree. fr33kman 02:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not a trust issue, more of a fair review. Think of it as a final appeal (or request for a discussion). I don't think it is fair for the same admin to answer... truth is, when we block, we are biased. We believe for the most part that our block is correct, and will enter the review in that mindset. It is only human to do so. The solution to that is for as a general rule, have an admin other than the blocking admin review the request. Jon@talk:~$ 12:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

May I make a suggestion which may satisfy (or dissatisfy) both "sides". I would like to suggest the current two-step unblock request process be changed to a three-step unblock process, as follows:

  • Current:
    • 1. User requests unblock.
    • 2. Any admin "accepts" or "declines" the request (may be original blocking admin or not).
  • Proposed:
    • 1. User requests unblock.
    • 2. Original blocking admin "accepts" or "declines" the request.
      • a. If "accept", the admin unblocks and done.
      • b. If "decline", the admin leaves a short note (as is currently done)
    • 3. Then a second non-involved admin reviews it and either:
      • confirms the decision and closes the request, leaving the user blocked, or
      • if unsatisfied with the original block reason and the decline reason, can ask the original blocking admin further questions

I believe this method is essentially what we are doing now, when an admin reviews his/her own block, but it makes it a little more transparent to the blocked user that, if his request is declined, that a second admin has also reviewed it and confirmed the original blocking admin's decisions. If there is disagreement, the reviewing admin needs to communicate with the original blocking admin regarding the reason for declining the unblock request. It adds a small amount of bureaucracy (which I am generally against), but this discussion has essentially become stale and I hope this will at least lead to some discussion that will help resolve this disagreement. EhJJTALK 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • 15px Support I-20the highway 13:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree it adds bureaucracy to the whole process, however reading above I think it's clear we need some sort of working compromise. I think this does the trick.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I made a small change to the layout of the proposal after the above two comments were left. (diff) EhJJTALK 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 15px Support - Let's close this already. Chenzw  Talk  14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this strongly. I still believe that the blocking admin should not be declining requests for unblock. I have not been convinced that it is appropriate for an admin to do so. The only reasons I've heard is "because we should be trusted" and "because it handcuffs us" for why we should be reviewing our own blocks. I think that the reasons not to far outweigh that. Either way (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • How about "it prevents wheel warring"? I agree that unblocks should be reviewed by a non-involved admin, but the involved admin also needs to be involved. Do you have a different suggestion that accomplishes these two requirements? EhJJTALK 19:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The blocking admin may have left, and is not available to respond the request. Making a user wait till the admin comes back isn't an unacceptable solution. In my opinion, step 1 should be: User requests unblock. 2. Blocking admin states reason for block, and why said user should/shouldn't be unblocked 3. uninvolved admin reviews, or in the case that the blocking admin doesn't respond (after a reasonable period of time ~10 min.), step 2 is skipped. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not a bad idea. Allows for blocking admin to accept unblock and isn't necessarily excluded from the process. I think "a reasonable period of time" should perhaps be a bit longer (an hour?), but otherwise I like it. EhJJTALK 19:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 15px Support Exert 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I must oppose this proposal as well, as all it seems to do is add bureaucracy and seems little different from a system where admins cannot self-review, minus the bureaucracy. Kansan (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is needed. It adds more than it gains. I think how it is now is fine. I'm not saying anyone else can't review the blocks I place before I do; which this system puts in place. I'm only asking that I be allowed to review my own blocks; just like other admins can review my decline or indeed acceptance of an unblock request. fr33kman 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Forbid a decline by blocking admin. The blocking admin can read the unblock request, and post advice, but if caught declining his own blocks for unblock, then issue demerits to that admin, as evidence of negative action. If all issues were to be decided by perfect admins, there would be no need for allowing an unblock-request AT ALL, EVER, BY ANYONE. Why? ...because the admin would have already opened dialog and found all evidence needed to set a block and set the optimum length. Such a "perfect admin" might start with a few-hour block, then discuss options with the blocked user, so that the block would be extended perfectly, and no one else's opinion would matter due to the perfection of that admin's judgment. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, blocks are often set as a guess about the situation, and could be reduced or unblocked depending on several other admins' knowledge, if only they could see an unblock request was still pending, rather than already self-declined and quieted by the same admin. For any admin who cannot prove self-perfection, then a self-decline should be totally forbidden, and that admin would risk demerits if caught declining self-unblock-requests. Either admit that an admin can be repeatedly wrong (not perfect) about judging a block, or else quit allowing any unblock-requests, which are just a bother to perfect admins. Hence, an admin should not be allowed to make the same mistake twice, so forbid a self-decline of an unblock request. Blocks are placed for the community viewpoint, not for the repeated opinion of one admin. Also, don't allow an admin to vote twice or more for a candidate. I apologize if all this sounds too much like a proof-by-deductive-reasoning. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The attempt at consensus or compromise has clearly failed. Therefore, the rule should stay as it is, the discussion should be closed and not revisited for some time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support new proposal; this should be fairly standard practice. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two editors need help with a dispute over sources.

20px Resolved. Sent to enwiki fr33kman 16:37, 14 September 2010 (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.

Hello, I am sad to say that it seems me and another editor can not reach an agreeable compromise on the validity of sources and therefore their relevancy and use in an article. We need an administrator's input because we are almost in an editing war and we are probably getting emotionally involved too much with the article which is causing friction. The article is Amy Elizabeth Thorpe and you can see the general dispute between me (Leidseplein) and editor Nihil Novi on the talk page. I regret that I in the talk page posted irrelvant opinions about this editor's motivations and also used the page as a general discussion of the subject matter, as I think the other editor did as well. It seems to me the basic dispute is about one very small point in the overall article: namely, whether Amy Elizabeth Thorpe provided any early help solving the Enigma decrypts in World War II, as mentioned by several cited sources in print and online. The other editor rejects any source that mentions her related to Enigma including numerous published accounts by journalists and respected authors. The other editor's main effort, it seems to me by his stated projects and other work on Wikipedia, is to forward a cherished opinion of history that only Poland and Polish people provided early help solving the Enigma problem - even though the work of Amy Thorpe in no way diminishes the work of Poles which is the focus of this editor. Besides an endless talk page debate, the other editor repeatedly tags points in the article as dubious with which he merely does not agreee - even though the points aren't dubious as they are given as the published opinion of a major historical figure. I've also included a compromise in the article that states these sources are rejected by the Polish experts, but this compromise is unsatisfactory to the other editor who on his own decides dozens of independant published sources are "unreliable".

How can we resolve this problem? Leidseplein (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're on simple.wikipedia, not en.wikipedia. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You could request comments for it at en:Wikipedia:Third opinion. Battleaxe9872 / 17:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think I put this on the wrong place, please give me a few minutes to put it in the right place and then delete this if you like, thanks.Leidseplein (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2010 (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.

Santa Lucia Stroncone Astronomical Observatory RFD

20px Resolved.

The article on Santa Lucia Stroncone Astronomical Observatory has come up for RFD. It was nominated by Template:Noping (talk+Template:MiddottagTemplate:MiddotcontribsTemplate:Middotdeleted contribsTemplate:MiddotlogsTemplate:Middotfilter logTemplate:Middotblock userTemplate:Middotblock logTemplate:MiddotSULTemplate:MiddotCATemplate:Middotcheckuser (log)) whom I blocked for a vandalism-only account. I believe that this RFD was only created for disruption of the project and would like to close the RFD. I'd like to hear your opinions. Thanks. Exert 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking of doing the same thing so I say go for it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Closed it as keep. Exert 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New Changes URL

20px Resolved.

I know this was probably discussed already, but could the New Changes URL be changed? The MediaWiki page to change it is MediaWiki:Recentchanges-url. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe change to Special:NewChanges, I believe. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I tried it out and it causes problems. Exert 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. It would be nice if it could be changed, but as it causes problems, I guess it would be okay to just keep it as it is. The title comes out as "New Changes" anyway, so it isn't really much of a problem. :) Cordially, —Clementina talk 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess we stay. ;) Hazard-SJ Talk 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed before. πr2 (talk • changes) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


I am User:McJeff. On the main English Wikipedia page I got the serial vandal User:ECW500 blocked indefinitely for his disruptive editing. However, following that he started reappearing using socks, making similar edits. I have now noticed that a user called Griffinofwales has appeared here, making similar edits to ECW500! I am quite sure that this is the same person, on another wikipedia site!!! I would like to think that having banned him from one wikipedia, I can get him banned from all wikipedias, for the good of everybody. Failing that, I shall have to resort to only editing the main English wikipedia articles, and getting other sockpuppets of ECW500 blocked. McJeff (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm an administrator updating this site. I'd prefer if you would stop making unfounded allegations against me. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe McJeff on simple (no SUL account) is ECW500 himself, due to the identical (non-reverting) edits, changing en:WrestleCrap references to 'PebblesCrap', e.g. That said, I think the edits are plain vandalism, though I have no knowledge of wrestling. -- Mentifisto 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not a vandal. I have an account at

and you can check my contributions there at

As you can see I have already got dozens of socks blocked as socks with my deductive reasoning. This "Griffinofwales" is clearly a Good-hand Sock of ECW500, the same way that all those others were. Quite frankly, I am alarmed that he has not been blocked yet. McJeff (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need this sort of nonsense here, whoever they are. Blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. sulutil:McJeff doesn't have a SUL and the accounts are not linked. If this is the real McJeff, he needs to SUL unify the accounts and then request an unblock. Regardless, Griff is an admin here, so I'm not concerned that these allegations may be real. EhJJTALK 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Interface change

20px Resolved.

Is it possible for the following change to be made to the interface:

Thank you. Hazard-SJ Talk 03:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

18px Done Exert 03:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like it to be "This user has been blocked before. The block log is below for you:" -- much more simple. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
But really bad english, we use reference all the time, and shown is simple. So I think its fine. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Proxy Range

20px Resolved.

Unless I am wrong, can be blocked. wiooiw (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the range which is also blocked on en. I'm going to assume that the admin over there knows what they're doing. Exert 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe is an open proxy too. Hazard-SJ Talk 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
18px Done, that is is.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Abuse filters

20px Resolved. Non-admin closure, full consensus to implement. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 00:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. sonia 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be the perfect time to get these. Please don't say it: We can't just say it and it appears; it needs consensus etc. Hazard-SJ Talk 03:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. We might also want to notify meta to see if they can do anything about the open proxies. Exert 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The precautions against false positives seem sufficient to me after looking at the documentation, so no objections here. Kansan (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe some could be set specifically for open proxies, to eliminate some false positives. Hazard-SJ Talk 05:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about that, but agree that getting them would be helpful. sonia 05:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure on the use of it right now. To make it short, I think this wiki is far too small for it, and the Administrators seem to be doing a fine job blocking the vandals in a short time. wiooiw (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Still a bit unsure about its implementation. The abuse filter is meant to be a tool used in the long run to counter abuse, not ordinary vandalism. If you deploy the filter, what abuse do you plan to block or take action against? Chenzw  Talk  06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I am just looking at it wrong, especially since I have little understanding of technical things. wiooiw (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The heavy amount of proxy vandalism tonight is a good example of what we should prevent, or at least try to. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes)' 06:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the filter would help stop what happened last night from happening, and that would be very nice. However, how often does that kind of attack happen? Not very often. Because it's a once and a while thing, do we really need the filter? On the other hand, we could get the filter now if we think things like this are going to become a more frequent occurrence. I'm on the fence.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

15px Support lean oppose. This has been discussed, and we have have decided that we don't want it. Now might be a good time to rethink. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
15px Support I think that this is a good idea πr2 (talk • changes) 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the big reasons we have turned this down a number of times in the past is that we don't have enough regex experts here to make sure that false positives can be stopped from happening. A number of wiki's who have implemented the abuse filters but don't have the skill to maintain them properly block me from editing my own userpages etc because of my username. Its reasons like that that I don't feel we should use it. For the few times that that this kind of thing happens, the negatives of having to deal with false positives and frustrating users outweighs any good that might come from it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

15px Support: After reading through the documentation on en WP, it seems that it can be set in ways that make the risk of false positives minimal. The damage last night could have been extensive had four admins not been on, so I think that the risk of false positives is outweighed by the damage that could be done by such vandals. Kansan (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<Gordon's post> Griffinofwales (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

15px Support There are really only two options here 1) implement the abuse filter or 2) ride out the storm. I think the benefit of the filter outweighs the risks. If there are too many issues we can always have it removed. Exert 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

15px Support Kansan said a part of it. Its a good thing the admins were here when needed. It is also a good thing the bots were online! If this happened, it can happen again, probably even worse. Prevention is better than cure, so we wouldn't want to risk excessive vandalism with no one to take action (if it happens). Hazard-SJ Talk 03:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This idea seems useful, but... Eptalon is right—I'd be glad if some of our active administrators had more experience in this area. And I'm not sure if we really need it. Most of the time, vandalism can be cleaned up pretty quickly. That being said, I happened to be on a short wikibreak when this recent burst of vandalism happened. These kinds of incidents don't happen all that often. —Clementina talk 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I do have some experience with regular expressions, as I use them at my job. If regular-expression-based filtering were introduced, I would hate to be the only one with this experience. Unless we find at least two other active administrators with such experience, I oppose the introduction, as all the work would rest on the shoulders of one alone. --Eptalon (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I can aid (I've been programming for quite a while), but I would need adminship. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 22:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you would need to be an admin. If the filter is added, I'm sure the "edit filter manager" right would also be added. wiooiw (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 (change conflict) What wiooiw said. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with regex as well, but all who touch the abuse filter configuration should at the very least know what the expressions will block (and/or allow), otherwise what's the point in granting access to configuration? Chenzw  Talk  07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I counteract that claim with having over 600 edits. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 15px Support Excellent thought, fine with me. Belle tête-à-tête 04:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 15px Support Having used the abusefilter extensively on a few Wikia Wikis, I have found it very useful. I am knowledgeable with regular expressions and would be happy to help where needed :-). Grunny (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Bugzilla link wiooiw (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, shouldn't we enable the abuse filter group for non-admins to edit the filters? Haven't seen it enabled yet. -20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Troubles when importing

Hello, I recently imported Korean Demilitarized Zone and started to sipmlify the article. What I noticed is that with new articles, bots come along rather rapidly to add missing interwiki links. This has not happened so far for the article cited. What I can imagine is that bots operate on "new" articles, and that imported articles do not get tagged as new. Any ideas if this is a problem, and if so how to solve it? --Eptalon (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bots will come eventually. However a number of the bots that work on our wiki just do so on new articles, which imported articles are not. It isn't an issue, because other bots scroll through the entire wiki getting every article. Its up to the bot owners how they choose the articles they work on. Although there is a different reason for this article, seems another article had the wrong interwiki links so bots would have seen two articles with the same interwiki links and if they were running on auto mode would have ignored the page and left it for human intervention. I am fixing this page. -DJSasso (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
They already started:
  1. (cur | last) 10:38, 15 October 2010 SassoBot (talk | changes) m (31,318 bytes) (robot Adding: en:Korean Demilitarized Zone) (undo)
  2. (cur | last) 04:35, 14 October 2010 SoxBot (talk | changes) m (31,285 bytes) (Dating maintenance tags (bot edit)) (undo)— This unsigned comment was added by Hazard-SJ (talk • changes).
Well in this case, its because I fixed the problem and then sent my bot to sort out the interwikis. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)