Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)
Jump to: navigation, search


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 A message may therefore have been archived.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 WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.

Disney vandal is back[change source]

As the previous blocks and page protections have now expired, the Disney vandal has returned. I have blocked IP: but will expect to see more problems. Typical vandalism includes changing the dates, and adding wrong names to the credits. I will consider semi protecting all related pages again if necessary.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but might it be time to consider permanently semi-protecting some of our most frequently vandalized pages? The pages referred to here might be candidates, and I'm sure we could find other candidates. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I could support such a proposal with the caveat that we need a process where an IP could request that the article be unlocked for good cause. Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia) is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Since creating an account is free and simple to boot, I think we can meet that requirement while still generally requiring an account in order to edit certain articles that have a history of frequent vandalism by IP editors. That said, we need to be mindful that people in some countries don't have freedom of speech, and they need to remain as anonymous as possible in order to keep their government from punishing them for what they write. Creating an account is akin to creating an editing history that can be used against them in some future proceeding. This would serve as a disincentive to edit for folks in those circumstances, and violates the ideal of "anyone can edit." Perhaps a notice on such pages (or at least on their talk pages) that the article is indefinitely semi-protected, that editors with accounts may edit it, and that IP editors may request an article to be unlocked by contacting an administrator. An administrator could then unprotect the article for a period of time. Said admin would be responsible for checking the edits and re-protecting it after the editing is done. Etamni | ✉   13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
We already can do that, it is just that we have almost no pages that get the kind of vandalism where that is needed. The main article that was vandalized by the IP above hadn't been edited in over a year yet alone vandalized for example. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SLBHwildcat 5: Accusations of vandalism towards myself and Zhangj1079[change source]

Hi Administrators. I'm bring SLBHwildcat5 to you. As a new editor to the site, they have already entered an edit war with myself and Zhangj1079, removing informational notices, accusing us of "vandalism" in edit summaries (removing notices we've posted, as if they were vandalism), continually blanking their page and have also undone a revert by Zhangj1079 on Child after warning the editor that he wasn't to remove material from the wiki without a good reason. I would ask for your assistance pretty much as soon as possible, since I fear vandal warnings won't cut it with this one, they'll probably get removed like everything else. DaneGeld (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page if they wish. We shouldn't create an edit war with them by continually adding it back to their page. Only (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to dispute that, @Only:. This started as the editor issuing a warning without cause, we tried to explain why it was wrong to do so; they had 3 edits and basically started to go for it as if they understood everything immediately. It was clear that they did not know what they were doing. We tried to provide information, to suggest they go learn how to edit here and write material in simple english, and they just blanked it all and marked our edits as vandalism. And we're in the wrong for creating the edit war? DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do know what I'm doing. This is like my 10th account. I obviously am smart enough to get away with using that many accounts without being blocked. I admit to running a sockfarm. My other accounts, on this site as well as English Wikipedia, include Eurodyne, Auntof6, Bongwarrior, JayBFive, GoFlamesGo, JohnnyHockey, MarkGiordanoFan5, TeensAreNotChildren, BazBomber, CluebotGN, TheScholar9... I don't even remember all of my accounts. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5
P.S. I am only 14 years old, therefore my ageism edit is obviously a fact. — This unsigned comment was added by SLBHwildcat5 (talk • changes) at 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
 (change conflict)  Whoah there. Are you admitting to sockpuppetry, as well as accusing Eurodyne and Auntof6? This is serious. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I just put back the content on Child that was previously reverted by Zhangj1079, but I used Simple English. I have been reading the notices, but I removed them because I don't think my actions warrented warnings. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5
Zhangj1079's edits didn't warrant a warning either, but you still went ahead and gave him one. I suggest you pull back a little and don't accuse others without good reason. We, neither myself or Zhangj1079 are vandals, and don't appreciate the way you just blew our messages off like they didn't matter. We left them for a reason. DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
What about Only's warning? @SLBHwildcat5:? Did your change warrant this warning? Your change was described as not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. This means that your change was opinion, or biased against a side. Was your change neutral? I think not. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 20:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No, my edit to Child did not warrant a warning. The ageism edit is obviously a fact, as I am only 14 years old yet I am intelligent enough to handle achieving straight As while running a sockfarm, which includes several administrators.

I have indeffed this user, so we can all stand down now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet, so keep vigilant in case he returns.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, Peterdownunder, as they have stated that their socks include Eurodyne and Auntof6 (extremely unlikely), can I ask whether you are obliged as a CU to verify those users too, even though they're admin, or are we safe to assume SLBH is just trying to kick up a stink? DaneGeld (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a silly question, however there is a range of evidence that a checkuser examines when looking at sock puppet claims, so I am not obliged to verify all claims if there is little or no valid evidence to support them. Without such evidence a check is just "fishing" which I am not allowed to do. In this case, a number of socks have been confirmed and blocked where there was evidence to support a check. Just for the record, admins are treated like any other user, and are not exempt from investigation if there is evidence. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Quite right. In fact, there was a recent case on Commons that shocked many people when an established admin was revealed to have been socking. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: For the record, I considered those claims about socks, as well as the claim about age, to be purely disruptive. That was part of why I indeffed the user. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I have requested a CheckUser for this case. This looks suspicious, and I think that we should ensure that these admins aren't socking.

Single4Life (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Single4Life

A Quck update here too: Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 edit at different times of the day, because likely they are located at different places in the world; also, both have admin status, so they have a lot to lose. Both have pretty much all the rights used in everyday life: Supposing that one was the sock of the other, what would they gain? - Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 have the same rights. In short: If they were discovered, their loss would be much more than their gain. As they have the same rights, neither has a reason for impersonating the other...--Eptalon (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Knights of the Round Table[change source]

This page seems to be a target for vandalism by many unnamed editors. Should it be protected? J991 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Typical rule of thumb for protecting is many different editors vandalizing multiple times a day. That article doesn't really have that much vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fiona Bennett[change source]

Dear Wikipedia Admin

I was delighted to see someone had created a page about me and I set about adding some more up-to-date information but this morning, I found it had all been removed. I am struggling to find a way to contact the people who created/added to the page and I wondered if you might be able to help? Thank you in advance, Fiona Bennett. — This unsigned comment was added by WelshMusicMum (talk • changes) at 08:14, 22 September 2017‎.

@WelshMusicMum: This is not the Wikipedia where that happened. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and the changes you mention were on the regular English Wikipedia. You need to ask about this there. Sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock by User:[change source]

Hi administrators. Further to the help I received this morning from Peterdownunder, DJSasso and others, concerning material needing an RD2 on my user and talk pages, I notice one of the IP's blocked for "bad behaviour" and "harassment" has appealed the block, asking for evidence. Before reviewing that request for unblock, could I please ask administrators to view the evidence I gathered together of the edits where they "banned" me from their talk page, and their edit to Danegeld which was abusive to me. The changes are in a pastebin which nobody else can edit, and I have posted it off wiki to prevent any ip's editing my comments. Many thanks for your help, DaneGeld (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the unblock request, and there is sufficient evidence to uphold the block, before I saw this here, so unless another admin reviews it and feels otherwise, the block is still in place. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Adam braidwood[change source]

Photo was uploaded by a user without my permission. I am the owner of the original photo. I do not object to its use however prefer i am credited as the photographer. — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ (talk • changes) at 06:27, 27 September 2017.

I don't see any recently uploaded photo here. This Wikipedia actually doesn't host most files anyway, so you probably need to pursue this on the site where the upload happened. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I am guessing they are talking about English Wikipedia. There is a picture there for someone with that name. I suggest emailing their help at and they should be able to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism[change source]

A lot of vandalism that would normally be reversed by Chenzwbot has been going live on the site. The bot seems to be having issues and Chenzw has been less active than normal, and thus unable to keep an eye on the bot. This note is in case any admins were unaware that the bot has been off more than on lately. Overnight edits may need more scrutiny than usual due to this ongoing issue. Etamni | ✉   16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Glitch on WP:AIV[change source]

A number of recent edits to WP:AIV seem to be missing. I was checking the status of a report I made and it was gone. Thinking that it had been archived, I checked the history. The most recent entries to that page are about four days old, and the report I was looking for was more recent that that. Purge did not fix the issue. Etamni | ✉   20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you saved the report? You can't made an edit to it since the 25th according to your contributions. There are no deleted edits since June on there. I'm not sure how it can be missing. Only (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Checking your contributions, and limiting them to just the WP pages I show your last edit to WP:AIV was on 9/25 seen Here. -- Enfcer (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've looked for it too. It was an IP vandal report, but I cannot find it in my own contributions either. I'm wondering if something just glitched during the save. The lack of other changes to the AIV page made me assume that something happened there, but the simpler explanation is a glitch affecting one save, not a group of them. Etamni | ✉   06:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to SALT: Roadman shaq (and variations thereof)[change source]

Hi admins. I'd like to request create protection on the article Roadman shaq - repeatedly created and deleted over the last few weeks. Various IPs; someone somewhere must have a vested interest in getting this published, and it's junk. Can we get the ground salted please to stop it coming back? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I salted the current one for three months. What other variations have there been? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Moo cows, Danger snakes and Pikepass shaq, which while not recreated (as far as I know) are all direct copies of the text from Roadman shaq, all QD tagged by myself and still active (and all by the same IP). DaneGeld (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I tagged Moo cows and Roadman Shaq once last week as well. Didn't notice the other one. Moo cows has been deleted nine times since August 15, 2017. Etamni | ✉   22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Moo cows and Danger snakes salted for 3 months as well. The other one has been created only once as far as I can see. Of course, there's no guarantee that the vandal(s) won't just move on to a different name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dawn Gibson[change source]

Please remove her talk page editing privileges. It's a timesink, just like on English Wikipedia. J991 17:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take it under consideration. However, since only the admins would have to deal with anything there, I say give her a chance to make legitimate unblock requests first. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page move[change source]

Can anybody please move page War in Afghanistan (2001–14) to War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) because i can't change the name because just in case of vandalism. Taemdm (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which is the name at and which makes sense since it is still ongoing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Look into user Dr. K. abuse of editing moderator powers on Reincarnation article[change source]

I was working on adding a mention to Zalmoxis and the article adding citations and I got a message saying I am vandalizing and that my editing privileges will be removed. I think this is a mistake because I was honestly and genuinely trying to add valid knowledge into the article.

Zalmoxis is mentioned as being a pupil of Pythagoras by Herodotus and like Pythagoras taught a form of soul transmigration or metempsychosis and multiple source Roman and Greek over the course of hundreds of years apart attest to this. These are not fringe theories but actual historical mentions from actual historical figures. Zalmoxis is also thought to have died and resurrected after 4 years. I think Zamoxis' connection with Pythagoras and his teachings deserve a passing mention in the article. Note that both Reincarnation and Metempsychosis "See Also" make reference to Zalmoxis article as related reading (added by other users).

I started a talk see

According to Edit Wars article the correct procedure in people who disagree on edits should talk it out in the Talk section which I am completely open to but the user by the name Dr. K. seems to think of himself an authority on the subject and there is nothing to discuss and in fact the tone very condescending and borderline threatening accusing me of perpetuating hoaxes and that I will shoot myself in the foot if I mention this to admins

"Please be my guest but be also advised about WP:BOOMERANG. Best of luck. Dr. K. 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" if I mention this to admins.

"No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)"

I ask an admin to have a look into this issue because I believe this user is claiming a monopoly on knowledge and rejecting people's edits out of personal ideas and he is not an authority on this matter and should be open to discussing ideas that he disagrees with. I would like to make a complaint against this user and this methods of monopolizing people's edits and knowledge on the article.

This is the Simple English Wikipedia, and the discussion taking place is on the English Wikipedia. You can take this to the Administrators' noticeboard on the English wiki. --Eurodyne (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you I will do that. Trollworkout (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving request[change source]

Can you move Category:French Prime Ministers into Category:Prime Ministers of France like similar categories in the Category:Prime ministers? Wwikix (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Move done, working on updating the contents. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Return of articles[change source]

Please place the deleted articles back onto my userspace as you suggested on the talk page! LikeGannets (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) I was told to make this request here and have done so! LikeGannets (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI to admins - this user and User:‎Dopenguins have recreated all pages deleted, I'm guessing with the exact same content. May be the same person on both accounts. --Tbennert (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Both are blocked for sockpuppeting and a third. Will have to go through the pages to see if anything is worth redeleting. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I also deleted their versions and in most cases brought over versions with an import. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling User: and User talk: pages[change source]

Yesterday, I did some patrolling of User: and User talk: pages. There were a couple of things that popped out that I wanted to share for administrators' action (or decision not to act):

Multiple accounts
Inappropriate user names
  • It feels to me like New account help Create would be a confusing user name, in that it looks like some official help account when it is not
  • There's a talk page at [[User talk:WhoTheF---Cares11]], an account that was blocked because of its inappropriate user name. How long does that talk page have to stay there before it can be deleted itself? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Talk pages are forever. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And users are all blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:[change source]

Can someone please review the block on Special:Contributions/ They are the same person as Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Request create protection on a page[change source]

Hi, can this page: Nekhbett be indefinitely create protected? It's been created repeatedly in the past for some reason. -★- PlyrStar93. Message me. 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been created several times, but not often enough for salting. Even if it had been created often enough, we don't create-protect pages indefinitely. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: That's okay, I understand that policies can be different across wikis. But could you please also take a look at DING DONG THE PREACHERS DEAD and Smartass Books and see if these are created frequently enough to warrant some temporary salting? -★- PlyrStar93. Message me. 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. I've fully create-protected them for three months. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to Salt: Pickle ricks[change source]


I've QD tagged this at least twice, I believe it's been gotten before by someone else and this is only in the space of a few days. Any chance it can be create protected for a bit please? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 22:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

Noticing of vandalism at Template:Birth date and age. Wwikix (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't be. That template has been fully protected for over five years. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Age was vandalized (this wasn't protected) but an IP reverted it, so I think this is a non-issue now. J991 16:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now protected it (edit:autoconfirmed); there is no reason an unconfirmed user edits this, except for vandalism purposes. J991: thanks for finding the template. --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit filters[change source]

The project could benefit from a few edit filters to reduce disruptive editing. Without getting too much into detail, a filter could disallow the creation of nonsense pages (e.g. "sjoajadojoer") and pages with commonly used attack phrases (e.g. "x is a loser"). Is there interest in putting in these measures? Even for demonstration purposes, we could just tag the edits and see what impact it could have. I have experience using regular expressions with KolbertBot and would gladly collaborate with other editors to improve anti-vandalism filters. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We do have a number of edit filters and a blacklist. Is there a particular edit you saw that didn't get tagged or prevented? Or reverted by our bot?-DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A set of additional edit filters could prevent a good portion of the vandalism. I can't see deleted pages, but I've tagged quite a few that have fit the criteria I mentioned above. A specific filter could be targeted at the revert vandalism that is becoming a frequent occurrence. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest the revert vandalism helps me catch socks but yeah there probably are some more filters we could create. Generally I prefer to be less blocking here because of having less eyes to prevent false positives. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course, the last thing we want is legitimate edits being caught up in the filters. With that being said, a useful approach could be to have a trial period of around two weeks for filters where the edits are only marked, not prevented.
That way we can come back to see if there are false positives and work on improving them if necessary. Loggerhead Key is a perfect example of page creation vandalism that could be prevented with more effective filtering. It's hard to make a judgement without knowing how effective they could be. I suggest we implement a few test filters for a trial period, come back and review which edits they tagged and come to a community decision on whether they are wanted or not. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sju hav ban proposal needs resolution[change source]

User:Sju hav has asked to be unblocked. I feel the ban proposal should be resolved before responding to that. Is there a sufficiently uninvolved admin who will evaluate the ban discussion and say whether there's consensus for the ban? I feel somewhat involved, but I will do it if no one else feels they can. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

12 people commented; of these 9 are in favor of a community ban (as outlined by Chenzw, two thirds of voters), three are in favor of a topic ban (version of PeterdownUnder, or of myself, one third of the voters). Thats for simple counting. 2-3 of the oppose votes are from editors that don't edit often, all of them voted for the original ban Chenzw proposed. Without these votes, it is still 6 for a complete ban, and 3 for a topic ban, so the two thirds for a complete ban does not really change. If the unblock were grated, a topic ban (either Peter's proposal or mine) would need to be set up, and a re-evaluation would need to be done, probably 3-4 months from now (end of 2017/beginning of 2018). If the community ban is upheld, the re-evaluation would be 6 months from now. --Eptalon (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of the people have not commented since the topic ban was proposed, so how do we know their opinion hasn't changed? Computer Fizz (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
All I did was count, and summarize. If your opinion changes, and you don't tell us, then your changed opinion is probably not impotant enough... --Eptalon (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I just meant semi-inactive people like me. The entire community's opinion should count, not just the people who are here daily Computer Fizz (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If people want a voice in things, they need to either come here often enough to see what's going on, or set their notifications so they get email or something when there are updates to the pages they're interested in. There's only so much that can be done to get everyone involved. Most significant discussions stay open for at least a week. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest at this point I considered it a done deal due to the numbers mentioned by Eptalon and figured it was pretty moot at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I get a semi[change source]

here Computer Fizz (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 18:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I get another semi (cause I'm an idiot[change source]

Somehow I did not notice until now that my main userpage is not semi'd, so I would like it to be please. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning From Complex English Wiki[change source]

The user Cathry recently got hit with a permanent site ban on Complex English. They got banned on Russian a few years back. As they can speak English this would be their logical next stop. They often acuse administrators of conspiring with already banned wikis and edit war a lot as well. Just thought you should know. TomBarker23 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They've edited here before so we'll keep an eye out. Only (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspicion of WikiStalking against User:TomBarker23[change source]

Please be advised that I have reason to believe that TomBarker23 may be (not definitely) WikiStalking Cathry. I stress that I cannot say if it's deliberate or otherwise. Regardless of anything Cathry has done elsewhere, Tom has left a message on Cathry's userpage informing them that he came here to say "welcome back and good luck" and that we knew about "complex English Wikipedia". That's true, but only because they (a newcomer of 16 days experience) felt the need to come here and tell us. Now, I've asked Tom outright on his talk page, what lead him to do this - I can't automatically assume bad faith, because that's wrong of me, but I have to voice my concern somewhere, because it has raised my hackles. Can anyone talk to me about this or advise me whether to take this further or shut the hell up? Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't really wikistalking to warn another wiki that an editor that had issues on another wiki has shown up on their wiki. In fact I would encourage people to do that. As for the note on their talk page, just letting them know to be careful isn't in itself a bad thing to do either. We aren't a safe haven for editors who like to get in trouble, so knowing they have had issues in the past allows us to be ready faster to handle anything if it comes up here again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)