Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

Class 4CD

Class 4CD (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

There's this class which seems to be working on a project about Egypt and its history. However, the articles created/edits made are grossly unencyclopedic, have issues with coherency, and for some, even appear to have been copied from other websites (please see deleted contribs). The school IP (85.12.93.2) has been blocked in the past with an explanatory note. The creation of this user account is a step in the right direction, but the edits are still problematic. Anyone willing to help out? Chenzw  Talk  15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look at their edits. I just deleted one of the articles and left an explanation on the talk page. Is there a particular reason you haven't left messages about more of the things you reverted? With enough warnings, we could do a short-term block, no? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but I am reluctant to block the account because there is evidence that they are also working to correct the problem - when I blocked the IP and linked them to Wikipedia:Schools, this user account was created (presumably after they read the instructions there). I don't know exactly how I should communicate this issue of poorly written articles to their teacher. Chenzw  Talk  16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted some more additions that were copyvios. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Full or semi protection of my user page

Hello. Can someone please fully protect my user page indefinitely with the addition of the fully protection template per my request (one reason)? The other reason(s) why I want this protected is because in the future, I don't want to change the design of my user page because it already looks good enough and it wastes my time of my pages too. As you may have noticed, I requested deletion of my user page before I recreated it because I don't want my edit history looking all messy. Thanks. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an unusual request.. but I have done it anyway. Please use {{editprotected}} if you need to make any changes in the future. Chenzw  Talk  08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Create protection

Please make Winti create protected. It can be only auto-confirmed users or sysops. But protect that from IPs. It got deleted 7 times this year for bad reason.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Chenzw created a stub there, so no creation protection is needed there now. We'll see if edit protection is needed after the blocks on the accoutns who were making the article expire. Only (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TDKR Chicago 101

User:TDKR Chicago 101 is flying the gay rainbow flag from his masthead. Further on, he tells us he is a teenager. I've written him telling him to not declare his sexuality or his age to all and sundry. It looks like he's soliciting a certain kind of company. The admins need to take care of this. Good luck. Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"take care of this" how? What policy has he violated? And what "certain kind of company" is he "soliciting" by posting this? Members are allowed to have userboxes/other symbols on their userpages if they so choose, and those that relate to sexuality are not banned. I see nothing wrong here at all. Only (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just an LGBT supporter. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Its just Oregonian who's being mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.149 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking at the comments here, it is quite clear that a longer block is endorsed by the community. Therefor, Oregonian2012 is now community banned for an indefinite time. A review of that ban may happen in future after a reasonable time. The block cannot be lifted as decision by a sole admin, to remove that community endorsed ban a new community consensus is needed.

Any new or at least not-regular user would've been immediately blocked indefinitely when they would have made comments as Oregonian2012 made. As an oversighter here I could review the comments. The comments belong to the worst I've every seen on any wiki despite some attack names across other wikis.

The comments made pretty much outright Oregonian2012's good article work and along with all the comments below, a ban here is needed to protect the community from more such comments. -Barras talk 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oregonian2012

Oregonian2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know that in the last few months, discussion was had, and blocks were given to Oregonian2012 (talk · contribs) because of his being rude and/or unkind. See the most recent discussion on AN here. I think that his recent editing behavior has led to the need to discuss such a block or other action again. His creation of this thread here on AN is harassing in my opinion. I think this post on my talk page is even more rude and harassing. Because of my recent interactions with him, I do not believe I should implement a block, but I think one needs to be discussed and/or put in place. Only (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

And this reposting/expansion of his post to my talk page is even worse by insulting the user and using scare tactics. Only (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK COMMENTS REMOVED by Only (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC).

 (change conflict)  This is a real shame. But I support blocking him yet again for a period of several hours until he can make useful actions again. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 23:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think that this time would require more than "a few hours" considering the previous blocks of 24 and 48 hours did not seem to change things majorly. Only (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. Future blocks of this contributor will get "longer and longer". --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Oregonian and TDKR have had brush-ups in the past but pretty much straight-up telling somebody to leave the site because they're a teenager and support gays is probably the worst thing I've ever seen here. Oregonian's re-posting of the comments regarding TDKR here are even less called-for and would make me support a one-week block. TCN7JM 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oregonian has made some valuable contributions to this site, but this kind of behavior is harmful to other editors. There is no justification for this kind of harassment. A significant block seems in order. Gotanda (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked him for one week in light of his most recent comments. I welcome outside review of it as I know I might be seen as an involved administrator. However, since no other admins seem to be around at the moment, I decided to block to prevent further harassment and attacks on members of this project. i also welcome review of the length; if admins believe that this is too harsh or too light, please discuss adjustments here. Only (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If Oregonian continues this behavior on his talk page, I would suggest removing his ability to edit the page and perhaps a longer block. It is yet ridiculous. It's easy for this contributor to create articles and help improve the editing environment. It's not easy to yell out at other users and attacking them with a big message. If this happens again, I would also suggest blocking him again for two weeks, then three/four weeks, and so on. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 00:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Preventing talk page editing is usually a step if the talk page is being used inappropriately, in this case, continuing the behaviour. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to Oregonian's continuing rudeness and other inappropriate posts on his talk page, I have changed the block parameters to prevent him from editing his talk page. I realize I could be seen as involved here, so other admins are welcome to review. I fear Oregonian will now resort to emailing. I encourage anyone receiving inappropriate emails from him to report them here so we can consider preventing him from emailing if needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

::: I also support this block (even doe he was blocked) because his rude behavior to many editors on this wiki is very harmful. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You can see my other comment below. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block at this point. The comments on his talk page are completely beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 06:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to this, the comments made on his talk page were so bad that they were oversighted. I saw them before they were suppressed, and that should be grounds for an indefinite block. --Rschen7754 06:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have used oversight on the user's talk page, and would support a longer block. I am still on a wikibreak, but this case was urgent.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This case cam to my attention because two users sent us an mail to the oversight mailinglist. After reading the comments there, I'd support a much longer block. It's just not acceptable what happened there. -Barras talk 08:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• For two editors to have emailed the oversight list about this highlights how serious the matter is. I would support an indef block at this stage to protect the rest of the editors and the encyclopedia. Might we also want to start a ban discussion now? Chenzw  Talk  09:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the comments that were oversighted, so I defer to the judgment of the admins who did see the comments. If three of you are saying they were that bad, then, yes, I think an indefinite block and potential ban is necessary here. Only (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• As another who saw the oversighted comments before they were suppressed, I would support an indefinite block instead of a one-week block at this point. The comments were way out of line. TCN7JM 12:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is about the worst comments I have ever seen on the wiki. Fly waaaay past what Racepacket said. I'd move to ban/indef block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Suport indef block As TDKR send a message to everyone about this I saw the comments before they were oversighted. The comments were way to rude for a Wiki like this. Oregonian has been very rude and I don't think this is acceptable anymore. After his block expires at some point he always starts his rudeness again. I'd support a indefinite block or at least a one year block because his behavior is unacceptable for this Wikipedia and therefore something must be done. Every time an editor does something which his doesn't like he stars being rude etc. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since Oregonian's disruptive comments were way out of the policies, I would support for an indefinite ban instead of a one-week block at this time. This is getting even more ridiculous. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This thread is all over the place. People are talking about longer blocks, indefinite blocks, and banning, even though there has been no formal proposal for any of those. If someone wants to make such a proposal, we need a separate section just for that, where arguments backed up with specific policies. If no one wants to make such a proposal, I'd like to see people stop piling onto this discussion.

Note that I am neither supporting nor opposing any of those options. I'm saying that throwing around comments like "I'd support X" doesn't get us anywhere if "X" hasn't actually been proposed. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If he continues, then what? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems like needless bureaucracy, to be a bit frank. --Rschen7754 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Rschen. The majority of the site's active contributors are saying either an indefinite block or a ban needs to be put into place. TCN7JM 22:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd ask how you know it's the majority. Second, it's partly the "block OR ban" option I have an issue with: those aren't the only options. In any case, this section started as a discussion of a possible block, then the admin who started it let us know that he/she had gone ahead with a block, then different people started discussing possible other options. Not everyone follows discussions on this page, and some who do might not have followed it after seeing it was an admin giving notice of an action. I just don't think the discussion is organized enough to tell which option, if either, is preferred by the community. That is why I think we need a dedicated section for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Further action

The recent actions of Oregonian2012 have been subject to a lot of controversy. He doesn't seem to have learned from past blocks given to him after harsh behaviour toward other editors at Template talk:Did you know, as his recent actions there include blatantly violating WP:PROVE after his nomination of fisting for deletion was closed as no consensus. Afterward, he lashed out against users Only and TDKR Chicago 101, violating WP:NPA multiple times and baselessly accusing the former of things so bad, two people mailed the OS list and the comments were suppressed. This is obviously not something that should be taken lightly, and his use of scare tactics both in his comments at AN and at his unblock request at his talk page only worsens the situation. Therefore, I am proposing that Oregonian2012 is indefinitely banned from the Simple English Wikipedia. If anybody else has any suggestions, feel free to add them below. TCN7JM 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer – Quite bluntly, those comments earlier by Oregonian2012 are some of the worst I've ever seen in my time as a Wikimedian. Nobody should have to be subject to that kind of harassment, and his inability to learn from his previous blocks along with the severity of his actions sways me toward this in favor of a shorter block. TCN7JM 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Rschen7754 23:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question. You're proposing an "indefinite ban". Bans are permanent. "Indefinite" means for an unspecified period of time, and implies that it could be lifted, which would be a block, not a ban. Could you clarify which you're proposing? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  The word ban does not imply permanency. I am proposing an indefinite ban to be lifted whenever the community thinks it is time. TCN7JM 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - On that note, I just want to clarify that both blocks and bans can be permanent. A ban is a community endorsed block (which we are heading towards, whether we like it or not - such is the definition of a ban). His conduct probably warranted an indefinite block (and leading to a de facto ban if the community does not support his unblock request), but I digress... Chenzw  Talk  01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Oregonian2012's recent comments were extremely rude and uncalled for. They required oversight because they disclosed personal information about another user -- information that, ironically, he was telling the other user not to disclose. Each time he was told he was being inappropriate, his abuse got worse. Every person who criticized him became a new target of his abuse. Even if we take his word that he has serious health problems, and that his medical providers think that editing here is good for him, we have the right to require that editors here behave in a civil manner. Oregonian2012 has been getting less and less civil. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Still support Even though Oregonian's contributions to content were helpful, his recent comments were very rude and seems to cause very big damage to our encyclopedia world. In addition, this contributor should have probably focused on improving and creating articles rather than damaging parts of this site. I would strongly suggest that an indefinite or other long block in the future is really needed to prevent this user from having to continue that he wants to be unblocked with a very rude reason--it is not going to work. Oregonian2012 doesn't seem to listen to us very much; as a result of his attacks, some of his comments and edits have become problematic that causes us to notice his comments and edits when we are busy adding content to articles. Again, please consider to ban this candidate indefinitely to prevent any other further problems. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per my comments above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as above. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per comments above.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - attacking others and spiteful reactions have well overshadowed the positive contributions.--Tbennert (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oregonian has made many good content contributions to this wiki. In light of this, I do not think a ban which is not limted in time is appropriate. If we need to ban this editor, we should opt for a time-limited version (of three or six months). Technically, a block will be used to implement the ban. Once the block expires, we determine again based on the contributions of the editor. This wiki is too small to be able to "throw away"/block good content editors, based on a contribution they may have done in anger. In short, I oppose banning Oregonian, as proposed above. --Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, he has been one of our best contributors to article content, and we have very few of those. I am also uncomfortable at throwing him into the outer darkness with an unlimited ban. I would go for a limited ban. It's right that he should face a ban, and I can see others feel this strongly, but remember how lenient we have been on other offenders. I would think three or six months is about right. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm of a similar opinion to Ept and Mac. I think that if we're trying to be preventative, then six months seems like it would be enough of a break to remind him that such attacks are not going to be tolerated. I am considering this in light of his excellent content contributions, which are so very rare on this project. Oregonian usually keeps to himself except in correlation to DYK, so perhaps we might also consider an indefinite ban from those kinds of community-level discussions. Osiris (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with a three to six month ban, that should be long enough of a break to reduce his wiki-stress, and hopefully make him a productive editor again, since he otherwise seems to be a good editor. Enfcer (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And a side point, he still has the patroller bit, is it appropriate for someone who has been this flagrant to have any extra bits at this point? Enfcer (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given his good content work, I guess that removing that bit will make little sense: A large quantity of his edits are content edits, which are totally unproblematic. Would you like to check 99 edits that are ok, to find the one (talk/user talk) edit that might be problematic? --Eptalon (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not his first time causing trouble that requires oversight. I think this is a pretty big problem, especially considering that it warranted emails (not 1, but 2) to oversight-l. Chenzw  Talk  16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It was more of a general comment. We have a handfull of editors that have rollback or patrolled bits, that are on some sort of block or ban, mostly for long terms. I see these bits as trust flags, and have been earned. If they are blocked or banned for negative reasons, that being they themselves haven't asked for a forced break, then they have lost the trust, and the bits should be removed, and re-earned. Enfcer (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite block and want to point out that we're about 6.5 hours from his current block from expiring. I feel like a decision should be reached here before that comes. While his article work may be good, the comments I saw out of him (I never saw the oversighted ones, I'm just talking about comments like this and this) are among the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've been editing off and on over the span of 7-8 years. Based on this being a reoccurring thing and not something that has come up once, I think an indefinite block is in order. Only (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (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.

Semi-Protection request

Hey guys, I'm Pratyya Ghosh. Obviously you know that. Now I want an admin to make my user page-- User:Pratyya Ghosh semi-protected. I'm a vandal fighter and many users or vandal come to vandalize userpages of anti-vandal user's. That's why I want it semi-protected. I want a clear page of mine. Whatever my talk page vandalized or not I want a clear userpage. I hope you understand my thinking. Can you please make it semi-protected?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's done. Osiris (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)