Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Protection for

User talk:Filper01, because he doesn't understand, that sockpuppets aren't allowed. He spams with unblock-templates. 2 unblock requests today and one on February 26. Barras (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Already  Done by Djasso. Thanks, Goblin 19:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can an andim decline the request or remove it? Barras (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Djsasso fr33kman talk 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An unexplained yearlong rangeblock is causing collateral damage

On July last year, Gwib (talk · contribs) range blocked Special:Contributions/ for a year because of 'mistake unblock'. User talk: is requesting an unblock and I think it's causing a lot of collateral damage. Could some look into this and unblock the range? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The administrator who blocked it first is Creol, due to socking issues. A checkuser should look into this instead. Chenzw  Talk  12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the autoblock setting is turned on for these users. Versus22 talk 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Fairfield has answered the unblock request, a review of the block settings might be warranted. I'm not comfortable with doing it myself, perhaps one of the seniors could review? fr33kman talk 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that checkuser should probably be done first. -Djsasso (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Versus22 talk 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-) As to the range, we currently have two users in that range; one of them is the IP mentioned above, the other is currently blocked user Samlaptop85213; but please note that currently checkuser records only go back like 3 months.--Eptalon (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Comment was Abusing multiple accounts (socking). I think it would probably be ok to undo the range block. --Eptalon (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The IP can create an account on de/en or what every for a wiki. Than he/she can uses SUL and can create the account here. We should be hard and don't unblock the range. Barras (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just get the IP to give an admin their email and an admin can create an account for them. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that this range resolves to in Amsterdam and I'm personally aware that they are a major internet hub that serve many seperate ISPs. I wonder how many people are really being affected by this range block? fr33kman talk 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not actually correct. RIPE is the overall for Europe, but if you go to the Ripe site, you'll see it's actually Opal Telecom, based in Manchester, England. Though UK IPs often do not geolocate to anywhere near where the person actually is. Soup Dish (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the correct way the handle this situation is by introducing the account-creator group here and allowing certain trusted users to flag as account creators for instances like these. I would suggest that the rangeblock stay instated and that we get some account creators flagged and let users who want to create accounts from this range know that they can ask any one of our administrators or account creators to create accounts for them, provided that they can provide proof that they won't use it to harm this Wikipedia. Thoughts? Razorflame 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

The user page is an article created by a user indef banned by en who has used socks for ban evasion. Please see en:User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Question about University of the City of Manila. The article doesn't appear simplified at all, and while this revision(s) was deleted from en, is presumably identical to the en version deleted. We already have an article at University of the City of Manila. I'm not sure if you want to ban this user, apply a one-strike rule, or what. Toliar (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the one-strike 'rule' would be appropriate. The user page will have to go however as it is technically a copyright violation of enWP and not attributed under GFDL, unless it is their intention to imporve and move into mainspace; in which case it should be a subpage really. Thoughts anyone else? fr33kman talk 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Having dug a bit more, I'd support a ban of this user account as a sockpuppet and a one-strike rule on Richard Relucio (talk · contribs) fr33kman talk 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is currently mirrored at User:Richard Relucio and User:Richard Relucio/University of the City of Manila. Toliar (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added the appropriate sockpuppet templates to both users and am waiting for the results of a checkuser. If this comes back positive I shall block the sockpuppet and propose a community ban on the puppeteer. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. fr33kman talk 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The two accounts have been confirmed by checkuser, but two accounts is not disallowed; so no block or ban will be enforced. Please report if disruptive sockpuppetry starts. Thank you fr33kman talk 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Translating on

Since we use Simple English to essentially mean a subset of the English language and seeing how many pages that are on are written in standard and often complex English should we nominate an admin to obtain an account on WMF so that translations of current pages can be done into Simple English and then added to the WMF site? Right now we have projects in Simple English but any pages on the foundation website that our readership might find diffecult to understand. Thoughts? fr33kman t - c 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Woah! I don't know about your question, but that was one of the best run-on sentences ever! :P TheAE talk 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you [curtsies] :) fr33kman t - c 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a priority at this point in time...this might be a viable option in the future, but I can't see it being one currently. Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It's something to think about at least. The admin who gets the account doesn't have to actually do the translations. It could be an approved type of WP:MEAT :) fr33kman t - c 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a fine idea. When I was last contributing new pages and translating same to the wikimediafoundation wiki, it was always on the todo list for an announcement or newsletter that it should be written simply before translation; though there was not always time to do this or a talented simple-english writer available to help with that process. For similar reasons, active editors here should consider contributing to meta and helping simplify the wording of policy and other pages there. Sj (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
foundation: translations take place on Meta, and then can be transcribed across, iirc. MC8 (b · t) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

Special:Contributions/Sexplosion696969. I thought I recall a similar username being blocked a few days ago, but can't find it now. Toliar (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done You did see User:SEXPLOSION6969 blocked. :) fr33kman talk 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Richard Relucio

This user is banned at enWP for vandalism and sock puppetry. Based on his history there, GFDL violations here, creation of a confirmed second account here (with GFDL violation) and our stance on banned users moving over to seWP, I considered a ban here also under the rule allowing an admin to ban and block banned users from other WMF projects who are banned or blocked on the project. However, I have given a notice on his talk page outlining conditions for his being able to edit here in order to give him a chance to change and to move on. I feel, however, that this is very clearly a case of one-strike and you're out. This user was very disruptive at enWP and we can't afford or allow that to happen here. fr33kman talk 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support imposing the one-strike rule on this user based upon the trouble that he has caused on the English Wikipedia. I think that people should watch this user's contributions to make sure that they are GFDL-compliant and copyright violation free. Cheers, Razorflame 17:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The articles that the user creates all face deletion under QD criteria for lack of assertion of notability. IMO, all the articles that he creates can be merged. On a side note, the main contributor of these articles on EN is him as well. Chenzw  Talk  01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thre are issues here to be sure! I'm watching him like a hawk (and he knows it) and I encourage all editors and admins to do likewise. I have grave concerns over this editor and would frankly just have banned him outright. There are three main issues I'm watching with this editor; 1) socks, 2) POV posts, 3) copyright vios. fr33kman talk 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I would support a ban of this user. This user has done nothing constructive other than edit those articles, and I have doubts over whether or not the articles that the user in question creates are notable or not. Cheers, Razorflame 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This user has violated GFDL and copyright. They are experienced and know better. I have indef banned them as per the right on any admin to ban a user who is blocked at any other WMF site. fr33kman talk 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to semi-protect Martin Luther

Hi there. I would like to propose a temporary 4 or 5 day semi-protection for the article Martin Luther. It has gotten nothing but vandalism in the past few months, with the occasional good faith edit sprinkled in there. Thanks, Razorflame 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since October 13 (the day after a bit of vandalism occurred there), it's been vandalized by four IPs. Only one of those IPs made more than one edit to the article. I don't think that the semi-protection is necessary since it's not frequent. Either way (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The article has received a lot of vandalism today, but all except one are from the same IP, and it's not vandalised frequently. --Fairfield Deleted? 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I semi'd it prior to seeing this discussion; I've unportected it now. fr33kman talk 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal?

Could be the disney vandal again? Just want to make sure. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Formal proposal for the desysopping of Oysterguitarist and Gwib

Hi there all. It has been about a month or two since these two users have retired from this Wikipedia, and unless they have already requested it at Meta, I would like to formally propose that they be desysopped. Since neither of them has edited since they have retired about a month ago, I think it would be safe to assume that they aren't going to be coming back. Of course, if they do, we can always give them the bit back, but for now, I don't see the need for users who have retired to keep their sysop bit. Thanks, Razorflame 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not safe to assume, they could be taking a wikibreak. As was discussed before I thought the idea was to wait either 6 months or 12 months before we desysopped anyone. I forget which. -Djsasso (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. If you think that we need to wait for a longer period of time, then I am fine with that. Disregard this message, then. Cheers, Razorflame 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's not the time. Personally, I don't like the idea of desysoping at all except for trust/abuse issues and if the sysop requests it. They can always come back. fr33kman talk 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should wait at least 6 months. At de.WP some users mentioned, that the retired admins can give their password to other users or hackers can hack the password. They should get desysopped, but not after one months. Barras (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that inactive admins should be de-sysoped after a while, but I don't agree that they should just be given the bit back if they return, I think they should go through an RfA again. Kennedy (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rapid edits

Im planning on working on clearing Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references this will involve fairly rapid repeated adding of reference sections for a majority of these edits. Im using a tool similar to AWB (simi automatic editing tool) and want to avoid causing any more disruptions than absolutely needed. was wondering if I should get a crat to temporary give me a bot flag to clear the category. or what steps should be taken. Ringkjøbing (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, i'd suggest getting a bot flag, or slowing down the edit rate. Cheers, Goblin 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I took care of about 30 of the pages in that category. Please be careful in that category, though. There are some pages in there that should not have a reference section (namely the Template: and User: prefixed pages in there). Cheers, Razorflame 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously :) those will require further review. as will those that need more than just a ref section. Ringkjøbing (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I could take care of that whole category in 30 minutes time, if you want me to. Cheers, Razorflame 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I could clear it in about 15, but I wanted to avoid the complaints about flooding the RC and other issues in regard to speed. Its not an issue of time, I wanted to just get the go ahead to clear it out with as much haste as I could. Ringkjøbing (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea was that he didn't want to flood recent changes like you are now doing... -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Correct, Ringkjøbing (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani editor again

Hi all. It seems like the POV-pushing Pakistani editor is back again. Please take a close look at this IP address: (will get it shortly). Thanks, Razorflame 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New user: Miyalana

I've noticed that this user is banned at enWP. I have left a message on their talk page here at seWP explaining that they have been given a one-strike chance. Admins are advised to block on any serious infraction of the rules. Cheers fr33kman talk 07:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this that it made to your sandbox? and ranting on about its block and its age, chatting too much, playing with its talk page? It looks like it's doing nothing useful here and continuing its en behaviour. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
None of these things are (yet) disrupting the project. However, they are about one micron away from a perma-ban fr33kman talk 08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now indef-banned this user per their enWP ban and my belief that they have been a disruptive user here and have not contributed in any way. Any admin is welcome to review and act accordingly. I will not consider an un-ban wheel-warring. Cheers :) fr33kman talk 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Endorsed, good call. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fix RMHED blacklist

When I posted this, 2 RMHED socks have been blocked and at least 3 have meed created since the current entry has been added to the blacklist. How about replacing the current misspelled entry in the blacklist with this:


(I know it's imcomplete, please add more characters to it.) - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully that will discourage him. Continuously adding entries to the blacklist is not a good long-term solution however. Chenzw  Talk  08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Import rights

Does any admin object to this? Techman224Talk 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you intend to use it for, and what experience do you currently have elsehwere using import? fr33kman talk 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Requesting_Import_rights. EhJJTALK 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey there. I was hoping I could get AWB access to fix some spelling errors, and get rid of contractions per WP:MOS. I noticed it's pretty flagrant, and want to fix some of it. Respectfully, DefenseSupportParty (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Chenzw  Talk  09:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Change username


I tried to find a page where I could request a username change, but I could not. I apologize if such a page does exist; however, due to my no longer wanting to use my real name, I request that my username be changed to Penhollow.

Thank you. --Aian Andreji Binlayo 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to semi-protect Adolf Hitler

Hi all! Adolf Hitler is a very sensitive topic of the German history. This is an aricle which is inappropriate for IPs. I think an indefinite semi-protect of this article would be usefull. Barras (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a particularly "usefull" or sensible idea. Report vandals to VIP. Majorly talk 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Please unprot User:NonvocalScream/OpenPGP. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Please fully reprotect User:NonvocalScream/OpenPGP. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done TheAE talk 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you/ NonvocalScream (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there all. I would like to suggest a 6 month block of this range of users based upon the amount of vandalism that we have received from this range of IPs. Thanks, Razorflame 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this and thinking about going with a /18 range block. I haven't seen anything outside of that range, but maybe I missed some. Either way (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if a /18 is a better fit for this range, than that would work as well. I have just seen too much disruption from this range. Razorflame 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edits that have been made from this range:


As you can see from this page, about 95% of the edits from this range constitute vandalism, and about 50% of the edits made from this range have all been made in the past week or so. All of them have made pretty much the same kinds of edits, and most of them have either been blocked once already. Therefore, I think that this disruption constitutes a longer block than a few days. I believe a long-term hard block is in order for this range. Razorflame 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked /18 for six months. This IP has been vandalising for over a year. We've had enough. --Fairfield Deleted? 17:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disney vandal"

If someone who are familiar with the "Disney vandal" could look at these changes: Special:Contributions/ In particular, replacing the content of a talk page with a movie review and then requesting deletion because it's a movie review. Thanks! EhJJTALK 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Majorly. --Fairfield Deleted? 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In the last few days, an IP, has been creating pages with the intros, cats, templates and infoboxes copied from en and adding irrelevant content to articles like lists of heaps of non-notable people to television station articles. Is this disruptive, and if it is, would reverts, removal of the offending content and QDing, and blocks be needed? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Doing... Synergy 14:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your patience. Synergy 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of User

Can an admin please sysop-protect this page? Look at the recent edits to it, several unblocks denied and is now just abusing the template.


Goblin 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Good site and Good post, admin

Hi all. If you notice any IPs making any kinds of changes with these in them, they are 98% open proxies. I would suggest that you immediately block any IP making these kinds of edits because they are most likely open proxies. Not every user making these kinds of edits are OPs, though. Cheers, Razorflame 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think this? If I post "Hi! Good site and Good post, admin" does that mean I am posting from an open proxy? (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Read the last sentence in my post. I said not every user making these edits are OPs, though. Razorflame 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think any of them might be? How did youu arrive at this conclusion? You're asking admins to block immediately without offering any reasons for your conclusion. Please elaborate. (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Based upon contributions to this Wikipeida from IPs that make these kinds of edits and on the Simple English Wiktionary, where every single IP that made these kinds of edits were open proxies. That is where I base my findings on. Razorflame 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. Ports 80, 21 and 5190 are wide open. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's news to me. Regardless, you just blocked a dynamic IP (and definitely not an open proxy, believe me)for a year because I was trying to discuss with Razorflame how he arrived at his conclusion. That seems very, uh, unfriendly. (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How often has this happened? Do you have any diffs? How did you determine they were open proxies? Sorry to be so specific, but this seems likely to cause admins to block IPs as proxies when they aren't. As has already happened. (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea - if my IP is a proxy -- it isn't -- use it to make an edit here. You have my full permission. Otherwise, please stop blocking me so that I can continue my polite and reasonable discussion with Razorflame. Thank you. (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record from my experiences on en this spam bot is 100% openproxies. I used to have my admin bot block them, though that's now redundant to the abuse filter. --Chris 08:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

These IPs are now making edits with Good site, admin. I would like to ask all administrators to please block on sight these IPs until someone has a chance to check if they are open proxies. I would also like to ask that they report these IPs to m:User:Mike.lifeguard so that he can globally block them. Thanks, Razorflame 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Range block for abusive spam/malbot range

Hi there all. I've just blocked the range on the Simple English Wiktionary for vandalism and spambot/malbot activity from this range, as well as a massive amount of open proxies. I would like to request that an administrator block this range for a minimum of 3 months. You've gotten hit by 10 different addresses from this range so far, and most of them have been the same. There should be very little collateral damage as the block would only affect 256 users. Thanks, Razorflame 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the IP of the "spoon vandal". It was active again today and I've reviewed all of it's contributions over the past months and all are vandalism. I've done a whois and it's a school IP in Mississauga and so I've soft-blocked it for 3 months. Cheers fr33kman talk 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Autofellatio sought

I created the Autofellatio article earlier and User:Blockinblox has just deleted it under A4. However, A4 is meant to be for articles previously deleted under AFD, and I don't believe this was ever discussed. Though it was three years ago and I may be wrong Soup Dish (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's inevitably a (relatively) controversial subject, but deletion under A4 seemed incorrect. From when I last saw it, the article was illustrated, and referenced. So go ahead and start up a DRV. Good luck.. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored this, as the deletion was inappropriate. Majorly talk 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
And I endorse Majorly's restoration. Synergy 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm currently looking for academic sources to allow a decent expansion. Soup Dish (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I also think that the initial deletion and the re-deletion was incorrect. It should have been RFD'd the first time if someone wanted it deleted. fr33kman talk 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion. It's clearly a notable, albeit controversial subject, and Wikipedia isn't censored. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For me if the article has to stay, the image should, no we aren't censored but that image is disgusting, I wanna barf just looking at it. The words would suffice enough for this article.--   CM16  20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note I have nominated the newly created article for deletion, as a result of the discussion below. --Eptalon (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello there all. It saddens me that I have to write something bad about another of our fellow administrators here, however, he has been engaging in wheel warring, which is not something that I want to see out of an administrator of this site. I would therefore like to propose that this user be desysopped for wheel warring. Autofelliato was originally deleted by this user, and then several other administrators endorsed the restoration of the article. In response, this user deleted it again and create protected it so that only administrators can do anything about it. This is wheel warring and I do not want to see it from an administrator on this site. Thanks, Razorflame 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See also this: Incivilty at well. Razorflame 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place to present pornographic imagery. It was never allowed here and there is no consensus for it. Blockinblox - talk 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That does not negate the fact that you abused your administrator tools here. Razorflame 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
One man abuse is another man rightful use, anyway, I'm not an admin so I can't tell what's happening really to tell if I can agree with the deletion or not.--   CM16  19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I see abuse of admin tools and agenda pushing against consensus. What's wrong with this picture? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
While I found the content of the article somewhat objectionable, this is definitely not appropriate behaviour from an admin. Add to this that this user has been essentially inactive since August 2008 and that he claims to be a bureaucrat on his userpage. The appropriate action, regardless, would have been to left the article restored and taken it to RfD.. It is well known that consensus can change, and a 2-3 year old RfD on what may potentially be a completely different article (same topic but different content) is inappropriate. As for the "pronography", removing the image would have been appropriate (subject to debate on the talk page if anyone objected) but deleting the whole article and salting is not right. EhJJTALK 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, he was a bureaucrat, but had his bit removed for inactivity. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not just remove the picture from the article? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The word "autofellatio" is complex and, while I agree the image is rather strong, it in the public domain and explain what the article is about far better than words can. Soup Dish (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia isn't censored, so there's no reason to remove the image. I also agree with Soup Dish in that it adds encyclopedic value to the article. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a doctor I beleive that autofellatio is a medically important subject. I agree that the picture might have offended, but the article is important. fr33kman talk 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(<-) I do believe that subject in question is probably difficult to write about, I think we should not indulge in getting in a form of censorship (on the grounds that certain images are inappropriate for certain users); images can be replaced, after all. A search of Google Scholar yields several articles, mostly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry; the earliest of these articles dates form 1927. In short, I think there is enough latitude to have an article on it. Whether this article needs to show the image, is a different story, though. --Eptalon (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we also get back on track here? Cheers, Razorflame 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For me if the article has to stay, the image should, no we aren't censored but that image is disgusting, I wanna barf just looking at it. The words would suffice enough for this article. And no he shouldn't be desysoped.--   CM16  20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The image has now been changed to a drawing, which is a fair compromise for now. However, I suggest you check his talk page. I suggest he has been around for so long he should be subject to having his adminship called in, he doesn't appear to be totally in tune with current policy Soup Dish (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the illustration with the edit summary:

diff) (hist) . . Autofellatio‎; 21:07 . . (-72) . . Blockinblox (Talk | changes) (I don't think we need an illustration of this)

Is totally unacceptable. "I don't think..." Whatever happened to consensus Soup Dish (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

full ack! I would write the same now. I would revert it, but it don't help I think. --Barras (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You know what, it is really sad that your life consists of doing things that are calculated to make peoples blood boil. But that's what your pictures do. What happened to simple English wikipedia? We get enough of this crap involuntarily in our spam boxes, but now it's everywhere and there's nowhere to get away from it. It used to be if someone wanted to see this crap, they had to go to SoHo. Now you want to put it everywhere children can see it, even primetime television, and scream "censorship" if anyone is offended. If you want to desysop me, go ahead - I don't need to be part of a porno operation. You are the one causing problems and you have to live with your own actions. I have a clean conscience. Blockinblox - talk 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
They are not my pictures. For the record, I cannot perform autofellatio and, even if I could, I don't think my employers, such as they are, would appreciate me depicting the act online. Pornography would be an image used for sexual titillation. This image, or even diagram at a compromise, helps explain the subject easier than words and is available in the public domain. I'm quite surprised as the inclusion of the image would appear to correlate with several key Foundation policies Soup Dish (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You might have known that even Jimbo has commented on this issue. Blockinblox - talk 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So? Wikipedia is bigger than Jimbo Wales fr33kman talk 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It was a "mega debate" that raged on and on and on, with hundreds of users (not just Jimbo) registering their absolute disgust with that picture. Blockinblox - talk 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not. The images there remain, dispite "disgust". Also, as one user said; the images encourage children to read the whole article and that's a good thing. fr33kman talk 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I sort of understand your point here Blockinblox, but it isn't like a child is going to put "Autofelliato" directly into the search box. I don't even see how they can "accidentally" stumble across it. If it offends you, then stay away from the article. Eptalon replaced the image with a more suitable illustration, and I believe that should have calmed tempers here. I agree it is a bit hard to explain the article with a photo. Take a break, and contribute to different area's of Simple Wikipedia. There are other articles that need help, and don't worry about just one. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a older year old person myself I can understand that you had good intentions in your actions; however, the world changes, times change. It used to be offensive for a man to be seen without a jacket. Today, we'd find that laughable. In 50 years society may be such that people walk to work naked, who knows. As for what has happened to seWP, it's grown and it's evolved. Personally I think it is doing very well. Sexual education is important; especially to children. I see kids every day with diseases and pregnancies because they had no access to valid and correct sexual education. fr33kman talk 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And apparently you see the role of this project being to effect some kind of experimental change on society in accordance with your views of what standards should be in the future? Blockinblox - talk 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the person trying to impose a POV here. A drive-by deletion by a mostly inactive admin is not the way this should have been dealt with. I think that the discussion at WP:DRV and here show that the community has a consensus not to delete. Frankly, if you don't like the current seWP, no ones going to force you to remain! fr33kman talk 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You are very definitely trying to impose a POIV here. You just stated that you think it would be good for children to consider these images. Never mind that you are not their parent. Blockinblox - talk 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither are you Blockinbox, their parents would be supervising their actions on the Internet wouldn't they? Personally, I'd support your desysoping at this point. fr33kman talk 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't they put such images on television? I bet you know why. It's because a lot of people feel strongly about it. But then you probably would force everyone to look at it, sort of like Nero performed his acts on a stage and forced audiences in Rome to watch. Blockinblox - talk 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Careful with the personal attacks. And there have been mainstream films released in mainstream cinemas with unsimulated sex and ejaculation shown. Things chane, rightly or wrongly Soup Dish (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay guys, let's calm down and not get testy. Anyway,this is getting sickening, if you gonna allow image like this here it's time to remove the subtitle a Wikipedia for kids from our resume. Cause whether we're censored or not, kids should not see this. Cause yes, we have a say in what kids see, while it is the parents responsibility, kids can sneak around and there fore see thing they're parent wouldn't allow them to. It doesn't hurt for us to do our part, in some way, shape or form.--   CM16  21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If parents can't monitor their children's online activities they should not be parents. It is not for us to judge that "kids should not see this" - we are not their parents Soup Dish (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kids are sneaky and it's not the parents fault, if a kids wants to see something most will find a way, whether it be a t a friends house or the library or some where else. Believe it or not, Parents can't watch their kids 24/7/365.--   CM16  22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
And the tactics you use to bring about change against all those who object are just as repulsive. Blockinblox - talk 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me for "butting" in, but why are you guys still arguing about this? Aren't the images removed now? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Attacking me isn't going to help you make a point (unless you're trying to prove your unsuitability for adminship). I've already told you I didn't like the image and didn't think it was needed. I can understand that such an image might help children and other readers read the rest of the article, but I don't think it is needed, certainly not the vivid photo. This is about you flying off the handle and wheel-warring here. I have a very neutral point of view on this and don't care whether the image stays or not. I do think that the article deserves a page because autofellatio is important from a medical perspective; something I am qualified to comment on. You're not going to change the way the Internet is heading, and this site will naturally follow the way society and the net is heading also. fr33kman talk 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would dispute that society is headed in the direction you think it is. Most of the liberal legal changes in the US are effected by isolated judges, while grass roots support for them is not there in the votes. Blockinblox - talk 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the enWP article. There they use the two pictures to illustrate the article. And I think too that sexual eduction is very important. Barras (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(Brace, may be longer) Hello all, I think that by now, we are flogging a dead horse, so to speak; While I may not agree with some content that we have on this wikipedia, it looks like the article in question probably treats a subject that seems to be of interest in Psychology, and Psychiatry (judging by what Google Scholar gives; I am not part of the medical profession, so i cannot really judge there). Our main aim here is to build an encyclopedia; it turns out the subject can be very well explained without pictures/graphics, the graphics are therefore not needed. As to Blockingblox deleting the article, we all make mistakes, and I think we should not overrate this incident. As pointed out by Blockingblox himself, this Wikipedia is currently changing - I cannot tell you if these changes are for the better or for the worse, as I do not know. In that context, I also think that a deletion discussion that is over 2 years old may no longer reflect the current situation. In order to assess the situation, I will nominate the current article for deletion; this will give everyone the chance to comment. Please note that this is about whether the article does have a place here, and not whether an admin did something wrong. I hope this will lead to some form of consesnsus, which we can then use to base our decision on. Sorry for keeping you so long. --Eptalon (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time Blockinblox has had issues with deleting things on his own whim and no consensus. See this. Majorly talk 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for desysoping of Blockinblox

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.

Based upon today's abuse of the admin tools, wheel-warring, and personal attacks aimed at myself and Soup Dish, I'd like to formally propose the desysoping of Blockinblox (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes). Today's activites and personal attacks, deleting against other admin's endorsed resotation of Autofellatio is clear evidence of an inability to continue as an admin.


  1. Strong support I think that there is a strong abuse of NPOV here and a history of exactly the same kind of abuse. I also don't approve of every article here, but I will defend their right to be here if they are notable. Wheel-warring is disruptive and harmful to the project, and admin who engages in it doesn't care about the project; personal attacks are evidence that an admin doesn't cae about his fellwo editors. Both of these are clear evidence of an inability to be trusted with the mop. If an admin can't stay within the five pillars of Wikipedia, how can they be an admin? fr33kman talk 22:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strong support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support I do not trust admins who only pop in once in a while, especially to wheelwar and abuse their admin rights. Clearly a net negative. Majorly talk 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support per Majorly. Returning after a long absence and acting against consensus was bad enough, but continuing is unforgivable Soup Dish (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Strong support This user is clearly abusing the sysop tools and the further replies given by this user to this situation has escalated and been very damaging towards this user. This user has violated numerous polices that administrators must know, including WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, en:WP:WHEEL, and has violated the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Protection policy. Administrators who violate this many policies do not deserve to have access to the tools IMHO and need to be desysopped. Drive-by participation is fine, so long that it doesn't interfere with the integrity of the Simple English Wikipedia, which in this case, it clearly has. Razorflame 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support. This has in fact moved fast, but I cannot disagree with it. I think he needs to regain the communities trust, and while this is happening, his bit should be removed. He claims we are moving in a direction away from neutrality, yet it is he who is bias. Synergy 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Per Majorly, and Synergy. --Neskaya (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support I was not going to support this until I read his comments below. It seems he is pushing his own social agenda.Peterdownunder (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support per above. --Fairfield Deleted? 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. Abusing your admin tools is a big no-no. If this was en-wiki, your admin tools would be gone so fast your head would spin. SteveTalk 03:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support - While I usually don't like desysoping admins who have edited recently, that really doesn't apply in this case since he broke many policies that have always been around. If he wants the powers back he can Rfa in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't want a reply to this, but I have to say it; if he ever does run for another RfA after being desysoped, this whole thing will be held against him and he won't get it back.--   CM16  17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't care if you want a reply or not. That is actually the point, once you do something like this lights out goodbye. You have a higher threshold to achieve the next time you want someones trust. Thats not just a wiki thing, thats a life thing. Perhaps you are too young to have figured that out yet. -Djsasso (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    en:WP:FORGIVE. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support at this point; no prejudice towards a future RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support - WP:NPA, WP:POV, etc. issues. MathCool10 05:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


  1. Oppose for now - while I agree what he did today is wrong, I believe he could use a cooldown time to get this head on straight first, I don't think desysop is the way to go at this point, if he continues then I will agree, but not at this point.--   CM16  18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose This is now obviously a political ploy by radical elements who stated they feel children and everyone else should look at pornography, and this type of person feels they have a God-given "right" to impose their undesirable and fringe views on everyone else no matter what they may think, and that nobody has a right to object to them.- Blockinblox - talk 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Another personal attack? Where did I say that children and everyone else should view pornography? I said that the image was offensive to me also. This is about your actions as an admin, not the article. fr33kman talk 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    You cannot vote in your own desysop process, Blockinblox. I have therefore indented your vote. Razorflame 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Are you sure I cannot vote? Blockinblox - talk 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    It will be up to the closing bureaucrat. Razorflame 23:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The user has not edited much in the last few months. Yes, what the user said today wasn't quite right, but I would give the user another chance. I don't think this is necessary at the moment. Versus22 talk 22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    What the user did was inappropriate too. We should not have to put up with this. We are far too soft as a project. Inactivity, and returning just to push his POV and abuse admin rights in the process is simply not what the community expects in an admin. Majorly talk 22:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    No, but, it would be nice if we gave him a chance to catch up with the times.--   CM16  23:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    It would be nice if he didn't engage in wheelwarring and abuse of tools. That has never been allowed here, and I don't know why he thought it was acceptable. Majorly talk 23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't either, but we should give him another chance first. Mistakes happen.--   CM16  23:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Exactly Majorly, and the five pillars have always been there also. Personal attacks don't need "catching up" to understand they are not allowed. fr33kman talk 23:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    @CM16 I can't agree. The user has broken policy more than 20 times in the past few hours, and that's a low estimate. Put it this way - if they were a new user who launched personal attacks, compared editors to Nero, accused editors of forcing children to look at pornography and blanked pages, they'd be indef blocked Soup Dish (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes he's "been bad" but, he's been inactive for months. And i don't think he ever got a warning before this started.--   CM16  23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Established users and certainly admins don't need warnings for NPA, CIVIL, NPOV and wheel-warring. They are already aware of the policies fr33kman talk 23:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    On this point, I'll have to disagree with what you've said here. Just because he's never gotten a warning, doesn't mean he doesn't know better. I'm pretty sure in his past conflicts he's gotten personal warnings from those he's disagreed with. As a bureaucrat, he should know better as to not launch personal attacks, etc. He should know the policy, otherwise he shouldn't have power...right? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 23:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's fine but I still feel we're rushing into this too quickly.--   CM16  23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    (unindent) Yes, I realize now I reacted in a knee-jerk fashion, when I say it made my flesh crawl to see it that is an understatement. And I was subconciously thinking back to the early days when 'crats (especially Netoholic pre November 2006) were not questioned so much on things like this; I would guess that everything has become much more democratic since then, as it was already becoming after Netoholic's regime. Blockinblox - talk 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    You've had the same problem in the past with articles here that deal with sex. As an encyclopedia, we have to have articles on every topic, including sex, because otherwise, that would be censorship. Razorflame 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    I do not understand what point you are trying to make. I have opposed the proposed deletions of several articles and images relating to sexuality, on several occasions, because there was redeeming value to the material, or legitimate interest. In this case, the image was no more than pornography calculated solely to inflame passions (which it did) or to misdirect natural instincts, and it has no redeeming or legitimate value whatsoever that I can see or comprehend. Blockinblox - talk 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    It's gone far beyond the deletion at this point; NPA, NPOV and CIVIL have also been abused. These things have never changed. Rule with an iron fist was never in vogue. Nor was accusing people of saying things they never said. fr33kman talk 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I think this reaction is extreme. He made one mistake. He his only a human and makes mistake. Nobody is perfect. What is with AGF? He was a 'crat and so I think he did a good work. And now; Because of one dispute promptly a desysop? I think that we need all admins and all users. Should he lose his sysop rights because of one dispute? In my oppinion no! Barras (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I don't like voting like this, seems so impersonal. What I will say is "To err is human". I think this is a little blown out of proportion. Kennedy (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Barras and Kennedy. TheAE talk 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Comment - I think that this "debate" did not have to go on. I highly disagree with Blockinblox's attitude towards this problem, but the both of you continued replying/arguing when it was not necessary. Maybe the both of you should re-think this, and resolve it when you both calm down? Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 22:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I think you are right to be concerned that it's gotton to this point, but I'm not upset and am completely calm. I deal with much worse than this on a daily basis. fr33kman talk 22:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Desysoping is about protecting the project not punishing the admin. They can always apply via RFA again if this is a successful desysoping. fr33kman talk 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As others have said, things change. There are now completely different kinds of editor in abundance here, who say they think its the purpose of this project to try to make society change in the direction they'd like to see it change. This is more important to them than neutrality. But it's incredible that they thought changes of that scale could simply be done without any resistance at all. Blockinblox - talk 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this project is to create a free encyclopaedia using Simple English. It's not to create an encyclopaedia where articles are only included if they suit our personal tastes. Simple English Wikipedia does not mean Wikipedia for children Soup Dish (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that things need to change, and that you need to put up a resistance, then you should follow the proper channels. We have plenty of methods and procedures in place to allow for such resistance without causing disruption. Either way (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what you are saying; I should have looked into the current procedures first since I have been away for so long. You should have seen the guy who was 'crat before me - Netoholic was like a totalitarian ruler who operated solely on his personal whim half the time (ask Eptalon or someone who was around then) then he left in disgust when others users had enough of that and de-sysopped him. But to assert that I am a danger that this project needs to be protected from is absurd; I feel that it is really to punish me for being offended enough to delete a rude picture that I found disruptive. Blockinblox - talk 23:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There's more to it than that. You deleted the whole article out of process, wheelwarred by deleting it again claiming there was consensus when there was not, then you protected it from creation. You've also engaged in personal attacks here on various editors. This is not acceptable behaviour. Majorly talk 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"different kinds of editor in abundance here, who say they think its the purpose of this project to try to make society change in the direction they'd like to see it change" Where did they say this? fr33kman talk 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to "vote" to desysop anyone but all I'd say is that it appears to me that Blockiblox has suddenly appeared from almost nowhere and acted against a clear consensus. There is no clear consensus in favour of removing the autofellatio article, but according to this user, it is pornography, despite enwiki acknowledging its existence and having an informative and referenced article about the subject, as you would expect from an encyclopedia. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not an extremist religious text. We must accept and understand all facets of humanity, lest we become one-eyed and extremist. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's fine but gaphic images where a medical drawing would suffice, is not what an encyclopedia of any kind is about.--   CM16  02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    Graphic is in the eye of the beholder. -Djsasso (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    Alright fine but look at it this way, look at the most respected book encyclopedia in your part of the world and I'll guarantee that there's is either no photo or a medical drawing and not an actual picture of it. My point is you do not need such a graphic or actual picture of something like that to describe it.--   CM16  17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    I would not have known what autofellatio was if I didn't see the image. Therefore, I think that image is essential, especially for non-native English speakers. Fr33kman brought up a great idea on IRC about how we could make it into a show (collapsible) box so that you have to click the show button in order to see the picture. Cheers, Razorflame 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps it moght be a good idea to take the discussion of Autofellatio to Talk:Autofellatio? Cheers fr33kman talk 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I will just ask a very basic question: Does being an admin make you immune to committing errors? - An admin (officially: sysop) is someone who is able to do a few things more. Most of these are administrative - While I do not want to endorse POV-pushing, or personal attacks, I do think that we might have overreacted, and we are possibly turning a mouse into an elephant, now. - Yes, Blockinblox has not been very active in the last times, but is this a reason to politically kill him? - If anyone is going to voice his opinion one way or another, please keep in mind that there is a human being at the other end of the line. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right, but having re-read the indignation with which Blockinblox has reacted to his misuse of admin tools, I don't see this as a "political assassination". The community is right to react against the misuse of tools which are generally given to those deemed most trustworthy. For a lapsed admin to appear from nowhere, delete pages which are cited and have counterparts on, and for then to rage on and promote censorship is unacceptable behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I, for one, did not begin the proposal to desysop (Razorflame was the first to suggest actually) based on my interactions with Blockinblox, it was due to the serious abuse of the tools and then the ignoring of policy and the loss of trust that I felt occured therein. Do keep in mind that Jimbo has desysoped for a single event of wheel-warring, so has en:ARBCOM. I've never acted politically in my life and pride myself on keeping a cool head. I get hit or spit at almost every week in my job when answering ambulance calls and I always keep a cool head. An admin that has had so many infractions in such a short period of time and has stated that he is used to acting in a more heavy-handed manner needs to lose the bit and regain it via a full RFA. Blockinblox could easily say that he'd not let this happen again, but it has happened in the past. Lose and re-RFA in my opinion. If I had done the same, I'd resign my bit and apply again after some time off. fr33kman talk 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - It appears Blockinblox has somewhat acknowledged that his actions were incorrect. An apology and promise to not repeat these actions would be enough for me to oppose his desysop. From what I've seen, he's focused more on showing that his actions were right (particularly "back in the day") rather than acknowledge that they were wrong or indicate in some way that he'd put an article like this through RfD in the future, particularly if restored by another admin (rather than wheel-war). I'm not convinced he has any respect for community consensus or our current editors. EhJJTALK 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It has now been approximately four days since this request was opened. It appears that there has been little to no activity with this discussion since a few days ago. How should we proceed? Should we close this discussion as not done, done, or no consensus? Cheers, Razorflame 14:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It should be kept open for a full seven days, at least. That is only fair. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Closing comments - Adminship is all about trust. You get it when the community thinks you can be trusted with it, lose it when that trust is gone. The level of trust required is even higher when you are a bureaucrat (removed due to inactivity in this case, not due to actions), when you have to close pivotal discussions without any sense of biasedness whatsoever. It is quite obvious that the user in question has already lost the trust of the community through his actions that went against consensus. This discussion will be closed as done - desysopped, with me filing a removal request at Meta. He may re-apply through the regular process, which I urge to not be affected by this incident. Chenzw  Talk  07:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Desysopped by steward Laaknor [2]. Chenzw  Talk  08:15, 5 April 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.

Agreement on Copyvio...


I think it would be a good idea to get a general idea on what exactly is a copyvio, before anyone deletes an article under G12, esp. those created based on the text of another Wikipedia. For this reason, I would like to suggest that no more deletions be done based on G12, esp. for texts from other Wikipedias. Also note that this should not turn into a personal vendetta against certain editors. I would suggest we discuss it at Simple Talk. Until then, please refrain from deleting content under G12 (Copyvio) --Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted; thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal?

I have temp blocked User: as a precaution to protect the project. I think it is the Disney person again. I'm not familiar with this vandals pattern so I consulted IRC (EhJJ and BG7) and both of them are more familiar and also thought it was Disney, so I blocked for a week. Could an admin who is familiar with the pattern please verify and undo if it is not the Disney vandal? Thanks :) fr33kman talk 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds has verified this for me via IRC. Thanks fr33kman talk 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tharnton345 evading his block

I would like to propose to the community that we range block>This range as Tharnton345 has been using this range to evade his indefinite block here. I counted 5 instances of this range being used by him in the past month. Thanks, Razorflame 04:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone going to do anything about this? Razorflame 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak to a checkuser first. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal range

I would like to propose to the community that we range block ->This range as this range is being heavily used by the Disney vandal. I counted at least 5 IPs blocked from this range in the past 72 hours, so I therefore think that it is warranting a rangeblock of some kind. Thanks, Razorflame 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak to a checkuser first. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ineffectial as it would only kill 1/3 of his primary ranges (aka - isp ranges he uses for his home city). His access comes from 3 separate /19-/20 ranges plus a handful of alternate ISP ranges based on visiting relatives on weekends, school and random trips to open IPs. (though odds are, any BellSouth access from Mobile, Alabama is him and fair game to a block - just make certain you get all of him, and not just snipe 1 in three of his attacks. BellSouth, Mobile, and Disney related subject = pointy stick to the backside instantly) (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but how would you know about the 'based on visiting relatives on weekends, school and random trips to open IPs' bit? Nifky? (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that the Disney Vandal be blocked on sight. He also has a 68.220.* range and another one if I'm not mistaken (though I could be wrong). I think that blocking too many ranges may be harmful if done by someone who does not know what they're doing, so please consider (if this is a school, or if it may be shared, for example) the circumstances before blocking. (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please protect

  • {{purge}} (I'm surprised this wasn't even semi-protected)
  • All the color templates
  • Pages that transclude to the Main Page - fully-protect
  • etc.

I'll update this. MathCool10 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Can you be more specific than "all the color templates" and "etc."? Either way (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      {{blue}}, {{red}}, {{green}}, {{black}}, - the basic colors. MathCool10 19:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


  • the archive templates
  • {{tl}}
  • {{tb}}
  • {{tlx}}

MathCool10 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done with {{tl}} and {{talkback}}, but I doubt {{tlx}} needs it. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, please don't set cascading on the Main Page as it will protect templates such as the VGA rotation which users such as myself need to be able to access. I believe there are only 2-3 of us that fully understand how the Main Page VGA Rotation now works (which is probably a bad thing!) but I am one of them and fully protecting them would make me unable to edit them, thus why they were reduced to semi. Regards, Goblin 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a further note, don't we normally require a good reason for protecting (even semi-protecting) articles, templates etc? Can we have some evidence provided as to why these requests should be carried out? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
They are highly visable templates (well not the color ones, but those are often used, too).
BTW, I have User:MathCool10/Main Page ready to be fully-protected with cascading protection if the Main Page subpages need to be protected. Feel free to change it. I have set a display to none and transcluded all of the subpages/templates. MathCool10 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, they may be highly visible templates, but where's the threat right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Highly visible templates don't really need a "threat" against them. A single edit to vandalistic edit to a H.V.T. can cause a lot of headaches and can up the server load. Either way (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. An ounce of prevention and all that :) fr33kman talk 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Freddy's Back

It appears notorious vandal Freddy (aka, Battleman, Warriormanrules, BWear, Gohomegos, et al) is back as Oliversbio, Listonlistos, Unitwikias, Unitwiki, Unitwikis, and possibly others. MKil (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)MKil

If you've evidence, then go to WP:RFCU, please. Barras (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Indefinite Full Protection on User:Unionhawk/ID to ensure Committed ID security.--Unionhawk (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Goblin 07:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Seeing as this page here serves no purpose anymore in it's current form, and retains nothing from being preserved, can an Admin redirect it to Special:ProtectedTitles?--   CM16  21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kennedy (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup bot still running

Can someone block User:CUPBot so that the bot doesn't constantly update the scores? Thanks. MathCool10 21:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kennedy (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Undone. Talk to the bot's operator, there's no need to block as it isn't malfunctioning. This isn't wheel warring, there is no need to block it. Go tell the bot's operator to stop it. Goblin 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The only use for the bot was to update the scores. Its no longer needed, so I had left a note on its talk page (Which I'm led to believe stops the bot anyway?), and had blocked it to stop it making any more pointless edits. Kennedy (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the owner is User:Swirlboy39 who is apparently retired. For this reason, I have re-blocked the bot. Kennedy (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The operator is ST47, not Swirlboy... But w/e. Leaving a message also depends on the bot's coding, some do, some don't. Regards, Goblin 09:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought it was Swirlboy as he created the bots userpage... Either way, I've left a note, if he needs it unblocked for another reason, it shouldn't be much of a problem. Its only blocked as its edits are not useful. Kennedy (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for further information blocking a bot that no longer has approval for its task is normal. I would say when the wikicup was cancelled the bots approval was technically cancelled as well. Blocking a bot is no big deal especially since it wasn't done with mallicious intent. -Djsasso (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Formal proposal for the indef block of User:Snow funn at tall

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 all. I want to propose the ban indef block of Snow_funn_at_tall (talk · contribs), because of his or her distriputive edits. I don't want to say so much. See the edits of this user. You can also look at the talk page of User:Snow_funn_at_tall. I think enough is enough. Best regards, Barras (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support -Barras (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoa, whoa, banning? Indefinite block maybe, but not a ban.  GARDEN  21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well this is at WT:ST already, and final warning has been issued, so this is rather early in my mind.  GARDEN  21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
      • But for this behaviour? We can always create a proposal for a formal block. Which such a prposal we don't need a final warning. For me: enough is enough. Barras (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, now that such a warning has been issued, to block would be an odd course of action. Leave it, maybe they'll see sense. If not, we get the banhammers out.  GARDEN  21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen enough disruption from this user to warrant an indef block, yet. A block is definitely right here, but not an indef block. I looked through some of the users article contributions and despite making a few errors with copy vios, I actually see a net positive wit this users contributions. If I have missed something, please point it out to me, but overall I oppose as of this moment.--   CM16  21:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I did a review on their contribs, and don't see the issue. As for deleted edits, the user created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barras (which was declined), created Florence Nibart-Devouard (which was deemed as complex), and created Michael Snow (attorney) (which is now created, old ones were considered complex articles from English Wikipedia). These three pages are all newbie mistakes. Several of the RfA !votes were fine IMO (they were discounted as he had 6, then 20-or-so edits). Although people may dislike him, I say we learn to get along and a nice cup of tea and a sit down. TheAE talk 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think its a little soon. Wait and see what happens first. If (s)he continues the behaviour then perhaps a short term block first. To jump straight to an indef block is a little harsh. As AE says, most of these could be passed of as newbie mistakes... Kennedy (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank Barras for thoughtfully suggesting my banning, immediately after I nominated him for Rfa in good faith (a nomination he originally accepted!). I would also like to thank him and others for kindly following me around and placing helpful comments after every vote I make. Thank you for making me feel welcome from the start, and feel proud that you are doing a great job in defending the wiki Snow funn at tall (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • So to say: great work Snow funn at tall! removing of content twice. That is clearly vandalism. Barras (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You have linked to a single edit twice, the edit of 12:40, 21 April 2009. Snow funn at tall (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • @Snow funn at tall: This is sarcasm and I am taking it as a personal attack. Please stop or you will be blocked for incivility. Chenzw  Talk  12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I consider Barras' stalking of my edits and campaign to have me banned to be a personal attack. Snow funn at tall (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Surprisingly enough, considering your behaviour, this seems an appropriate course of action against you and most certainly not a personal attack.  GARDEN  12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
            • How dare I try to create new articles and support people who want to become administrators? This is disgusting behaviour and must be stopped! Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Furthermore, your sarcasm is proving to be really helpful. Continue to use it, I'm sure nobody finds it offensive or disruptive.  GARDEN  13:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I am not being sarcastic. Please do not take it as such. Sarcasm could be taken as a personal attack, which I am seeking to avoid. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • Snow funn at tall, anyone has the right to check your edits because you had the right to make them, and so they are saved in the page history. It was your fault for creating them in the first place. иιƒкч? 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Just a note, this is a wiki, articles (and various discussion pages) are open for everyone to edit (or comment) on. WP:RFA is one example. You can't expect people to participate in a discussion without reading previous comments. Chenzw  Talk  13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support people reading previous comments before participating in discussions. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Er...  GARDEN  13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading previous comments allows you to place the discussion in context, Garden. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I was wondering what the RfA joke was for...  GARDEN  13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is getting boring. I would like to propose that perhaps Barras and I could be mature and discreetly avoid each other. Perhaps we could both work at improving the encyclopedia, rather than wasting time on pointless discussions such as these. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Please note that this is a block discussion about you. You are in no position whatsoever to comment (as you did earlier, proposing to close it) unless you are defending yourself. Chenzw  Talk  13:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, how about you all keep going, and I go work on some articles and stuff? Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well considering your mainspace work is minimal, your desire to write articles is questionable. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a temporary block at this point. It's fairly clear that this user isn't here to help the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to continue this crucial block discussion without me. Again - perhaps Barras and I could be mature and discreetly avoid each other. Perhaps we could both work at improving the encyclopedia, rather than wasting time on pointless discussions such as these. Just a thought. Snow funn at tall (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You don't have to respond here, you know. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment We're jumping the gun here a little, this users, from last time I checked, has more useful edits than unuseful edits. The user clearly wants to improve as evidenced by this. And who are we to deny him that chance to improve?--   CM16  17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The next nice and constructive edit: here. I know that we are a very small community and we need every user. But I think that these kind for users aren't helpful to this wiki. --Barras (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's seriously move on. He is on a one day block. Let's end this wikidrama. Please? It never helps. TheAE talk 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw the block. And I haven't enough time now to look every day for this. So per AE as initiater I archive this. Barras (talk) 19:35, 21 April 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.