KidzSearch Encyclopedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 20

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archives}}

User:Tharnton345

As has been noted on his talk page, has been a persistent nuisance on en:Wikipedia, using multiple sockpuppets including w:User:Tharnton345 after first appearing as w:User:Fila3466757. He has also edited from a range of IP addresses, including 78.148.240.181, which are registered to Opal Telecom DS. . . Dave souza (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I first registered as w:User:Farlack907. Tharnton345 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The default policy for this is that we choose which bans to enforce from other wikis, unless it's a formal ban from Jimbo Wales. I think this shouldn't be one to enforce over here. The block was made early February, so I think the time frame is long enough to 'ignore' the ban. Edits such as this one display vague maturity, wheras this doesn't. We'll have to see what time brings. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 10:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The latest block is only a little over a month old. There are 13 confirmed socks, 17 likely socks and a host of IPs connected to him. He is also blocked on Commons for vandalism and failure to follow rules (Sept 12, 2008). Looking at my talk page, I do not think much has changed in the last two weeks since Commons blocked him. This looks like another Benniguy-esque case - no real reason not stop it now and not let it fester. -- Creol(talk) 14:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, only checked out w:User:Fila3466757, completely forgot about his other puppet. Checked out (this time, more throughoutly) the allegations against him. They are serious, and he seems more childish than anything, but his contributions here are legitimate and show an understanding of our MOS. We could try the Benniguy-style rules?

Any sign of puppettry or vandalism would lead to indef, but as long as the contributions are constructive, he can edit here. Remember that we harbour several puppeteers and indef banned users who contribute constructively without a problem. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this guy has filed an RfA... Microchip • talk 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's been closed. He also had two RfAs on en.wikipedia that were basically a "hi, it's me" RfAs. Look at this RfA and this RfA the day after his first RfA. He threats RfA as a game in my opinion. And then he's blocked on en.wikipedia, and comes here to edit a few articles and then file an RfA. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran another RfA here again soon... – RyanCross (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He also made a request for a Bot flag which was quickly denied based on his en:wp/Commons ban as well as the fact of it being an antivandal bot. We don't need bots controlled by problem users.. -- Creol(talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. I hope you can't block me. Please. I really don't want to. Thar nton 345 08:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Addison Browning

This page has been deleted 6 times now. The last time, it was salted for about one day (expires 21:27, 4 October 2008). Then (23:37, 4 October), two hours and ten minutes it was recreated again. I think its time we upped the protection time to a week, or, indef protect. It doesn't appear to be notable, and en.wiki doesn't have an article either. So if and when you guys get tired of deleting it... Synergy 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Majorly ^talk 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Synergy 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone change this?

Screenshot of page where a user logs in with a nonexistent username

I just tried to log in with my old username, Ionas68224, and it came up with a message. This message states that a username does not currently belong to a registered user. The message has a link, attempting to point to Special:Userlogin/signup by a piped link, however this appears in plaintext, shown in the screenshot at right. Can someone please fix the problem? — Jonas · talk 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As the link it is supposed to point to is only an inch or two below it, I undeleted the mediawikidefault edit without the piping. It appears to be system-wide as en:wp replaced also replaced the default there with an unlinked version. -- Creol(talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Winger84 has attempted to out someone - Please take action.

The actions of user Winger84 are in bad taste and may be breaking Wikipedia rules. This apparent attempt to "out" someone is way out of line and without merit. Winger84 has been blocked twice for breaking rules. He needs to be banned, as his actions show he has not learned to follow the rules. 77.74.198.121 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Er...wrong wiki? Sebb ^Talk 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, we do not have a user by such a name, at least not one editing regularly here. Except for (very few cases of) mass-vandalism, we do not block users here for things they did on another Wikipedia. --Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tholly

MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js needs updating, for obvious reasons. Microchip • talk 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite move protection for Template:Geobox River

Hi all. I would like to request either indefinite full move protection for {{Geobox River}} or something else like that, as well as indefinite semi/full protection for all components of the Geobox series of templates. These templates are all uniquely tuned to make all the Geobox templates work correctly, and if any vandal were to move any of these pages or change any part of them, it could cause drastic errors throughout many thousands of articles on this site. While I am not demanding it, I would like to note that this is somewhat important as these templates are very vulnerable right now. Cheers, Razorflame 22:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I normally would except that the policy on SEW seems to restrict to autoconfirmed by deafult on high-risk templates, i.e. recently my full protection of Wikipedia:RecentChanges was scaled down to autoconfirmed . alexandra (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do a semi-protection of all of them then :). Cheers, Razorflame 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Terry Ananny

This artist has become increasingly annoying. Here's the tally

• Terry Ananny deleted three times
• Terry M Ananny deleted once
• Semiprotection of the deletion discussion page

Various IPs used:

Short of contacting her (info at terryananny.com), can we rangeblock this vandal? alexandra (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the amount of vandalism that all 7 of the users have done was/is severe enough to warrant a range block, then you most certainly should range block them (i.e. a lot of vandalism (more than 3 acts of vandalism per user OR a block for each user)). If all 7 of said users have been blocked, then I would say that you should do a rangeblock on the 74.14.123.* range of IP addresses. The 76.64.153.* and 70.54.8.* should probably not be range blocked as there has not been enough IP's from that range to warrant a range block. Just block the individual IP's from those 2 ranges. Cheers, Razorflame 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine vandalising Wikipedia would be a public image look for this artist. I think an admin should drop them a friendly email asking to stop. Block if they don't. Giggy (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Terry Ananny (hi, Google!) is not our conventional vandal. All of the listed IPs are throwaways. She vandalizes once and then switches them. To warn her does no good. She's clearly read the RFD and knows why we deleted her article but she continues to recreate it. alexandra (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think emailing will help, they are obviously going to vandalise so blocking is the way forwards:

• There should definitely be a range block for 74.14.123.*.
• If you look at 70.54.* there have been no good edits, but it is still quite a big range to block. Perhaps waiting to see if more vandalism continues from that range after the individual blocks would be a good idea.
• The 76.64.* range has got some edits that could be good faith, so I don't think there should be a range block there, just individual.

Does that seem logical, or am I missing something? Also could someone please tell me how you do range blocks? Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

She has been doing this on all the various language wikis. I have had to have atleast 10 different wikis delete her articles. She has been doing this for years. -Djsasso (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tholly: mw:Range block. Microchip • talk 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to escalate this into a global block? alexandra (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Won't protection of relevant articles or potential articles so as to limit editing to registered users help - protect the deletion discussion page and protect against recreation of the article pages? She doesn't seem to be a vandal in the sense of ad hoc vandalism, she just wants an article about herself. --Matilda (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This has already been done. Both Terry Ananny and Terry M Ananny have been protected indef. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

92.1.95.219 + Pakistan

Back again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, this could be a very good editor inside their field of interest (Pakistan-related topics). The big problem however, is that Wikipedia is a Community project. Unfortunatley this requires osme form of communication between editors. This specific editor seems ot ignore talk-loage messages alltogether. If anyone therefore has ideas how to start establishing some form of communication, please feel free. Btw: Have we tried IRC yet? --Eptalon (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe not. But how would we convince this editor to come on IRC if we can't even get him to reply to our messages? – RyanCross (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention it casually, or put the IRC address in the block reason? Chenzw  Talk  06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My RfA is due to end today, 19th October. However as there is no clear consensus (7 supports, 5 opposes) I wondered if it could be extended for a while? I thought I would ask rather than just let it run over, cheers. FSM ^Noodly? 15:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a clear consensus. 58% of votes are for promotion, but according to the criteria, 65% is needed for promotion. Deadlines are clean-cut, so we can close it, but your talk page is always open for constructive criticism? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't clear at all. It's a mere 7% off. And if the RFA is close, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask for extension. Majorly ^talk 15:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So how long can I have then? btw this isn't just to give myself more of a chance, (although that is part of the reason) I am actually interested to know a bit more about what people think of me and 13 votes isn't many compared to recent RfAs. FSM ^Noodly? 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's up to a bureaucrat. Majorly ^talk 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people do not vote when they feel their vote is not needed and will have a negative impact. This is common with Opposes as if they vote they tend to need a suit of armor and a well stocked armory to defend themselves. If they see enough oppose that their vote is not needed to get the outcome they need, there is no need for them to both pile on and open themselves up to attack. If there is a ton of support and their oppose could not likely turn it around, there is little need as well. At the time the vote was scheduled to end, it was at 5 support, 6 oppose - 45% so there was no need for anyone to risk it for an oppose. After closing time, 1 reversed and two added on votes to get it as close as it is now. -- Creol(talk) 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't closing time at the end of the closing day? FSM ^Noodly? 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's traditionally in the early hours of the closing day. Usually they get closed as soon as Vector shows up that day as he tends to be sneaky quick when it comes to closing RfA's. -- Creol(talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jonas_D._Rand

It appears that this user learned little from his recent one-year ban. This week Jonas has chosen to (in his own words, yet), "butt in" after I answered a personal attack from Berserkerus concerning the graphic used on Amplitude modulation and Frequency modulation. Jonas has accused me of "biting a newcomer", and thinks he needs to explain to me again and again the purposes and guidelines to this wiki. Meanwhile he accuses me of "rudeness" and of "ageism", while he in turn makes backhanded and overt insults, talks down to me, calls me an "anonymous expert", etc. and does essentially the same things he has accused me of. (Is there such a thing as "reverse ageism"? Maybe.)

Berserkerus has a history on Russian Wikipedia (which I checked out; it appears Jonas didn't), so I am sure he is no stranger to Wikipedia norms and expectations. (I also believe he can fight his own battles, and does not need Jonas's help that way.) Berserkerus's attack on me was unwarranted; I did not create the graphic he chose to replace, and he should have directed his words to the person who created it, if he is so convinced the original graphic is "non-sense" and "a lie", as he insisted on my talk page. To my experience, his graphic is inferior to the one that was replaced, and his comments belong on the graphic's talk page (or its creator's, or the article's), not my personal talk page. (Which I told him in a reply. And which he chose to ignore.)

For the record, I am a graduate of a broadcasting school, as well as college. I worked in radio. I have worked with oscilloscopes (which the graphics in question emulate), and their virtual equivalents. My "sources" are my years of schooling and job experience; not all of it came through textbooks. Not all of it is documentable. Meanwhile, I notice neither Berserkerus nor Jonas have provided "documented sources" such as the latter has demanded from me (while derisively calling me an "anonymous expert"). Call it OR if you want to, but facts are facts, and I'm pretty sure neither my profs nor my eyes lied to me in those years. (Jonas did provide links to other graphics on my talk page, as his "sources"; the last two actually support the original graphic, and in my opinion undermine that part of both their arguments.)

I advised Jonas politely after his first message to me that he would do better to let others handle the situation, considering both his history and the fact that he is not an admin. (His lack of maturity shows plainly in his ongoing comments and attitude.) He chose instead to go on the attack, and continues to do so. I believe that to let this matter lie would only encourage him to develop an even worse attitude than he already shows. I would set my education, my life experience, and my edit history against his, anytime, and I suspect the reason he has come on so strongly toward me is that I turned down an invitation to join a separate wiki he created last year. (This after checking out his prior history. I also wasn't interested in the topic.)

This matter drew the attention of RTG, who chose to "award" me a "Vandalism Barnstar" on the grounds that I "don't understand what vandalism is", and "confused" him. Forgive me. I saw a good graphic replaced with a poor one (whose characters were not in English), and where I come from, a "berserker" is someone out to cause trouble, and/or indulge in carelessness. I used the automated setup to revert the graphic, and send a notice; "vandalism" was the closest default to what I saw in the situation. - I do not need this hassle, from any of the parties mentioned, particularly from less-authoritative, less-experienced persons. (Especially those who have less-than-clean records on Wikipedia, and talk more than they listen or reason. By this I mean Jonas, most of all.)

I do not have a problem with this boy's age in itself. I presently work as a teacher, and if a student knows something I don't on a topic, I invite them to speak up, and to correct me if necessary, and I make sure their classmates hear the correction. My problem is with the attitude I continue to see coming from him, which to me is little different from the kind that gets a student sent to the office. (I write referrals on students as I see the need, and call parents likewise. That's not an option here, but a notice is, and I did warn him previously. He chose to ignore the warning, and tried instead to give me "lessons" on what Wikipedia is.)

Sharing what I know and have learned in a forum such as this should be a pleasure. Situations like this make it a chore, and a waste of time... not just for myself, I'm sure. Since Jonas doesn't want to hear about it from me (and he and Berserkerus only seem to be encouraged by stressing me out), I would appreciate an admin stepping in at this time. Zephyrad (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You want an admin to do what exactly? It wasn't clear from your message. If it is what I think, no we will not block Jonas. Yes I find him to be annoying with his incessant accusations of sock puppetry including Gwib and I but there is little anyone can do about it. You are not exactly clean yourself Zephyrad, you reported Bersekerus to WP:VIP when he blatantly was not vandalizing. FSM ^Noodly? 19:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Zephyrad only has one edit on WP:VIP and that was from last February. Berserkerus reported Zephyrad [1], not the the other way around. (side note to below: as for the "expertise" in this situation, none is required. This is not about being an expert, its about one of the most basic functions of an O-scope, in point Sync/triggering. amfm2.gif is synced off the negative trigger of the FM signal while amfm3.gif is either not synced or impropperly synced. This takes less expert experience than setting the clock on a VCR with the manual in your hand. Flip a switch and turn the knob until the image stops fluttering. Its about as complicated as the vertical hold on your tv.) -- Creol(talk) 21:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "expertise". However, this is a subject many have worked on, and if this is true, it has to have been documented somewhere. You had to learn this somewhere, it was not just a voice of wisdom that whispered to you. I am not saying someone had to teach you, but you had to have seen this before. Now that you've claimed expertise, made a contentious edit about the subject (regardless of the order in which it was done), and refused to give sources, please identify yourself according to User:Jonas D. Rand/Transparency, on your user page. I have no intention of "stressing you out", Zephyrad. However, I wasn't being ageistic, and if you considered what I did rude, you need to realize that when you do something questionable (like make undocumented and contested claims without telling who you really are) and are called upon it, the proper thing to do would be to 1) cite some source(s), 2) provide your real name and qualifications, and/or 3) admit that it was all a lie and leave. Do not report me and accuse me of hypocrisy and put emphasis on my one-year block.

Whether I am an admin, an adult, or a previously blocked editor is irrelevant. Quit being fallacious and trying to deflect attention to the real issue, which is your anonymous claims of expert knowledge. As for accusing Gwib and FSM of sockpuppetry, I raised the possibility of the latter after Creol made a dramafest out of it, and I had a small suspicion that the former used MindTheGap to troll about Benniguy, but I realized that it was stupid. I never accused him of sockpuppetry. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No Sir, I have not seen reference to your credentials except by your own assertion. This statement is a personal attack of sorts, but not of the sort to discontinue my permissions here. It is a constructive argument. Reference is a rule here. If you are an expert you should have more ability to reference your knowledge (iteration is not reference). And when you do, you should enter on WP:DYK ...that radio waves travel backwards? Because for me that would be an interesting one indeed (and I know nothing of them). You do not have to reference from Oxford or Harvard but also you cannot reference to your talk page. As for the anti-vandalism star, it is a clear description of vandalism. That guy did not vandalise (insofar as changing the picture), even if his description was incorrect. I didn't like to see you guys getting heated without discussing the picture. That is why I involved myself. (although you shouldnt be getting heated anyway, it won't fall apart if the letters were Russian by accident, let it slide) ~ R.T.G 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE A berserker is a (viking?) who when engaged in war would tear off their clothes, paint themselves red, and try to enter the killing field as insanely as possible (a bit like the New Zealand All Blacks) ~ R.T.G 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the only edit I will make. No. Jonas should not be reblocked. He needs to be given a chance. If he's kicked off, then you'll take all his dignity away. He needs a chance to improve. Maybe mentoring him - I'll come out of retirement to mentor him. --  Da Punk '95  talk  00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jonas has as much right as anyone to participate in discussion, I'll leave it at that. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree to mentorship, and no offense Da Punk, but I would like a more experienced user to do it. I thank you for your efforts during my ban, it was much appreciated. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Jonas, I will respect your wishes. However, I urge whoever becomes Jonas's mentor to read my Mentoring plan on ENWP and see if thats approriatte. I will check back frequently to see how this is going. I will return proberly in a week to upload some pics of railway stations, as I am going down next week to the city on Public Transport. --  Da Punk '95  talk  02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zephyrus, but your idea that Jonas does not have some right to involve himself in a discussion about an article is wrong. This may be contrary to some unblock condition of his, I do not know. If you feel he did something further wrong you should discuss it, but certainly, his taking part in discussion in a reasonable manner, doesn't raise many questions. I think that if the discussion is examined, Zephyrus will be found to talk about age, lies, vandalism, personal attacks, not needing to listen to other editors (in fact, not to be contacted at all involving changing pages). And, I think Jonas, seeking guidance, should rise above the quotes on his talk page. If you display war trophies, but you have no army, you will be the first target when the soldiers come. In fact, you will find that soldiers with guns leave their medals at home. Displaying that stuff may have confused Zephyrus into thinking that you only fight. Try displaying stuff you have done to help the wiki in that space. ~ R.T.G 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

I'm pretty sure a week's passed. Jonas hasn't been assigned a mentor. He has got another warning, this time for posting IRC logs. I therefore propose I WP:BB, and mentor Jonas. However, I would like to have a admin co-mentor in case I need to block (and to satify Jonas's want of someone with experence). I'm thinking Gwib, Majorly or Creol. If anyone is interested, can they please post here or on my talk page.

I will do a draft mentoring plan in my Userspace, based off my Mentoring plan from ENWP. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Struck the inclusion of my name to the list as both Jonas and I know that would never work. Way too many issue there. -- Creol(talk) 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can try. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Creol. I should have relized he never liked you :). Shapiros10 - yeah, I'm happy to have you as a backup (I actually will be away 3/1/09 for 2 weeks (elapsing my ENWP ban end date)). Gwib - might be best if your co-mentor. --  Da Punk '95  talk  00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the mentoring plan proposed by Da Punk '95 looks good. I accept the mentorship, and Shapiros10 and Gwib, being experienced in English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia respectively, would be good mentors. I am however curious about one point: does Wikipedia: space include this or Simple Talk? I think that may be a bit excessive, because I cannot offer any solutions to the community or give my two cents in a community discussion. What is the purpose for this rule? — Jonas (talk · proposal) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To prevent personal attacks towards other editors until I (please note that I am also a mentor (I therefore propose I WP:BB, and mentor Jonas. However, I would like to have a admin co-mentor in case I need to block (and to satify Jonas's want of someone with experence)) teach you how to deal with how to express anger. It won't include WP:ST and WP:AN (and WP:DYK and other pages when we get up to that).

I will start adding notices to your userspace now. However, I need you to make one edit. At the mentoring plan (now located at User:Jonas D Rand/Mentoring, there is now a section marked Aprroval. Please read that section and say that you agree to that. --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Minor User interface corrections

Could an admin correct these minor capitalization errors at the beginning of the group's name.

• bots Mediawiki:Group-bot
• administrators Mediawiki:Group-sysop
• bureaucrats Mediawiki:Group-bureaucrat
• rollbackers Mediawiki:Group-rollbacker

These are just minor changes, The English Wikipedia capitalizes these groups too. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 03:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These do not need fixing, nor are they errors. It doesn't matter what "English Wikipedia" does. Majorly ^talk 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a meta system. Capitalised userrights are local rights (rollback, admin, crat), while uncapitalised userrights are those granted through meta (checkuser, oversight, import, etc). It's not just an enwiki thing (at least that's what I was told by Prodego). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

These interface pages will just show a userright in a different name on certain pages like Special:ListUsers and Special:ListGroupRights. If you want to change userrights for a user in Special:UserRights, it doesn't have any effect there, it just shows sysop etc. Techman224^Talk 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not the issue we're debating. See the differences: here and here. Note the differences in capitalisation for the different user rights. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

While I do not spend much time reverting vandalism in comparison with creating articles, I know that rollback will be useful when I do notice vandalism at New changes. Could an administrator please enable it on my account? Thanks in advance, Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done-- Creol(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Creol! Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If only an RfA were this simple... :P Kennedy ^(talk) 09:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request rollback, as well. As with Malinaccier, I'm not terribly active when it comes to reverting vandalism. Also, I haven't been here that long, but I've been around en.wp long enough to know what's vandalism. Thanks, Juliancolton (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Juliancolton (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can also count me in too. I'm a en.wikipedia rollbacker who hasn't been active here for very long, but I have seen vandalism here and reverted it (using undo). I know from my en.wikipedia experience what vandalism is. Could a admin enable it for me? Thanks Techman224^Talk 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. – RyanCross (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Techman224^Talk 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. – RyanCross (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What about me? :p Special:UserRights/Maxim. Maxim_(talk) 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

what about Maxim .  Done - --Cometstyles 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I HAZ THE POWAHS. I mean... thanks a lot. :-) Maxim_(talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose I could get in on the action eh? I am an admin on en so I know what I should and shouldn't rollback. -Djsasso (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Majorly ^talk 00:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -Djsasso (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a en.wikipedia rollbacker (>1,000 edits) in hiding over here - have had enough over there of having articles I'm in teh middle fo creating creating, trashed out from under me - not in a hurry to go back there! Please can I be in the club too? Foolestroupe (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - As far as I can see you are not a en.wiki rollbacker. see here. Because of the things on your en.wiki talk page, I would not feel confident giving you the tool. Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 09:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he is a rollbacker on en.wp. (see w:Special:ListUsers/Foolestroupe). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. However, Foolestroupe has 6 mainspace edits here, to 5 articles, none of which are reverts. I don't think this tool is needed yet. Please come back if you often use the undo tool.

We can't just give every enwiki rollbacker rollback here too, we don't do it with admins! ;) - tholly ^--Talk-- 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went by that refusal on his talk page. His replies to a lot of the comments there suggest immaturity, not someone to have rollback. Kennedy ^(talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel that I am too immature, then perhaps I should not waste any more time here either. Some helpful clown (who really can't see anything wrong in such an act of vandalism which ignored the guidelines on checking out new articles) moved an article that I had created minutes before to my user space, causing the edit I was saving to fail on an edit conflict, losing all the content - being overloaded with stress, I naturally objected strenuously to to some idiot deliberately ignoring the 'under construction' tag (this is becoming far too common over there, driving lots of newbies away, when they find their content created only a few minutes ago is nuked - speedy deleted - within minutes of being first created, instead of observing the guidelines of 'giving new articles a chance to let other contributors work on them'), which was what he kindly moved to my user space! My level of maturity is reflected by the fact that I decided that making a big fuss was pointless - even though the damage being done by such short sighted individuals is not good, and decided to just try new challenges (such as writing in 'Simple English', rather than the 'post-doctorate level' which I normally do!) here. Don't worry, I don't EVER want to become an administrator - be sure bookmark this for your future reference - if you nominate me, I'll refuse. I probably won't have much time before XMAS anyway to revert any real heavy extensive vandalism (more than one or two simple undoes) anyway, so without rollback, I'll just ignore it if it's going to take very much of my time or I'll just notify one of you who DO have that power to do any such extensive work in the meantime - how's that for immature?! I've had far too much of that sort of level of responsibility in my past 'hobby time' and only want to do some basic grunt work - for fun and relaxation. If I'm not wanted just say so outright and please save me wasting my time - at my age and state of health, I've got far too little left of that to give it where it is not wanted. Thank you for your time in reading this. I won't ask for anything 'special' again in a hurry: I'm sorry for upsetting you. Foolestroupe (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you were denied primarily for your edit count here. We like users to show at least a reasonable level of activity before granting extra rights, which is why KevinJ19 was denied the tool as well (below). Please don't take this as a personal slight. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough room left for another rollerback/accountcreator (Verify) from the en and member of the SWMT to get rollback :P ? All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. – RyanCross (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan :). All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to have rollback? I did some reverting on the English Wikipedia. I would happily patrol this Wikipedia. Rollback would make reverting much easier. Thanks! KevinJi9 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...How about you edit here for a bit, and then let's see if you need the tool, okay? All the best, --Isis♠(talk) 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have I proven myself yet? I can't find any more pages to revert. KevinJi9 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think you should edit more than just one day with a few edits. Come back in a week and we'll decide then. – RyanCross (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have about 50 edits now. I did some reverting before and I have rollback on my en.wiki account. May I please have rollback here? MathCool10 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. – RyanCross (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have the rollback flag added please. I Understand what vandalism is and when to revert it. Hopefully my resent Reverts prove this. Thanks Daisy (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daisy, I have dropped a not on your talk about this - perhaps you could address them and then request roll back at WP:RfR? I can't give it but I can comment ;) Thanks for your work! BG^7even 15:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Sure thanks for the help Daisy (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! The link should be WP:RFR, not WP:RfR! (But i've now made it... ) BG^7even 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacker requirements

Tholly brings up a point about need for rollback. There probably should be some basic criteria needed for granting rollback. This does not need to be (and should not be) very strict, say "2-3 weeks active, 50 edits minimum, did some vandalism removal, prior experience a plus". We should at least have some idea they would use it before we give it to them. Basically, check the contributions for the account: does the "next 50" link show up? got some summaries that say you reverted vandalism? Good to go on criteria! -- Creol(talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we like to bring up issues from other projects so very often, I think admins/rollbackers from other projects should be granted this tool without requirements. Majorly ^talk 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins - we know they know what vandalism is. (should get rollback here) Rollback - we know someone else thinks they know what vandalism is. (should be treated like any other user). Note that rollback is granted by admin discretion on en.wiki without any official requirements. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFRB?

Maybe we need Wikipedia:Requests for Rollback? --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CU request

Outstanding request here. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 15:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Chat

I just had a chat regarding Ric, that did not involve him. I considered it quite rude that it was set up where anyone could attack Ric, and indeed people did, and he had no opportunity to defend himself. This is a violation of proper decorum, and basic dignity. The log was here: User:Jonas D. Rand/StaticFalcon, before it was censored by Gwib as an "attack page", because he didn't want to show the truth. Why else? — Jonas (talk · proposal) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why else? Because you just don't do it. Thats why. Synergy 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, other than it's against policy. But I personally wouldn't mind. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Because posting logs publicly is a bannable offence on freenode? (You've been banned from the channel, btw). Majorly ^talk 20:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Public logging is not allowed by Freenode unless permission is granted, and the first sentence was an attack towards AE and I. SwirlBoy39 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not know it violated Policy, either. I thought that it was OK. Under this rule, User:Microchip08 should be banned for posting those IRC logs, unless Upperclassman and SwirlBoy gave permission to do so. And no, I haven't been banned from "the channel", as far as I know of. I have been banned from #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia. That log was from #wikipedia-simple. Unless someone banned me in the past 35 minutes, which surely is possible, I haven't been banned from there yet.

Plus, regardless of policy, I felt I had a moral obligation to publish that, as it was an attack on someone who was not even present. Apparently though, ethics is second to policy on Freenode. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Posting it publicly and making a scene wasn't really the best way to go about it, don't you think? If you were concerned, you should have spoken quietly to a chanop in a private message, and the discussion would have ended. This is probably the worst way to go about things. Majorly ^talk 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think it appropriate to republish on wikipedia conversations held elsewhere on the internet and it is certainly never appropriate to republish without the consent of all those involved. --Matilda (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Mentoring

OK. Jonas has now approved Mentoring. Please be aware he is not do to the following:

• • make any edits on pages that start with "Wikipedia: other than WP:AN and WP:ST"
  • start a discussion on anything to do with English Wikipedia
  • edit the User Talk page of any admininsrator / RfA candicate other than Gwib and Da Punk '95 (unless you have Gwib or Da Punk 95's permission)
  • Create any sockpuppets

If he does, he is to be blocked for 48 hours on sight, and it logged at his Mentoring subpage. Mentors are Gwib, Sharkpedos10 (backup) and Myself. --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel I got pulled into this... You 'nominated' me, and then declared me mentor before asking me. I'll still do my best to guide Jonas through the Valley of Darkness and into the sockpuppet-free light, but I don't guarantee I'll always have time and should be used as a secondary or backup blocking mentor rather than a primary mold with which to fashion Jonas. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking as part of mentoring? Query recent block of Jonas

• I am very surprised to see that Jonas was blocked as part of his mentoring. It does not seem to be in line with the blocking policy at Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. It is mentioned as potentially happening at User:Jonas D. Rand/Mentoring. I regard this as a most unorthodox mentoring plan as it is inappropriately punitive to my mind. He was blocked in relation to this edit [2] - I do not see why he should not report a breach by another user whom he thinks is evading a block/ban. --Matilda (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in this at all. I have not read anything about mentoring over on English Wikipedia or here. I don't know what is in accordance with mentoring policy or what is to be expected. I was asked to do the block, and though I thought it was odd, I trusted it was merely because of my ignorance of the subject. I've tried not to be part of this, as I don't trust myself to be around this user. --Isis♠(talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bad block; please overturn it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However, he was told to not edit certain pages, and that if he did he would be blocked. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A 2 day block for adding some extra information to a page seems punitive, as Matilda points out. His behaviour was not disruptive, nor was it unhelpful; yes, he probably shouldn't have done it, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it does seem harsh (I agree), this states quite clearly: "DO NOT make any edits on pages that start with "Wikipedia"" and Failure to follow these instructions WILL result in a 48 hour block. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate Isis made the block in good faith, however I do not believe the mentoring plan is appropriate and thus the recommendation for the block in accordance with the plan is not appropriate. --Matilda (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't overturn it. He's perfectally aware. It can be reduced to a day, but not voided compleatly. But next time - it'll be 48 hours no discussion. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be reduced to 24 hours. Request herby made. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked, as it was a good faith block, but a bad mentoring plan. The block was designed to be punitive and not preventative. We should hold a community discussion for mentoring, where we agree on a desired result in accordance with his history. Synergy 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see an admin be the mentor. His restrictions should also be discussed. Synergy 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: This page was created by Da Punk by using his own mentor plan that was placed on him for sockpuppetry. And as such, I think it is entirely ridiculous for him to impose it on another user, regardless of what that user has done. I have removed the content of Jonas D. Rand's mentor page. We will need to discuss this in length, and I don't think the direction in which Da Punk has handled this has been appropriate. Synergy 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though I am not an administrator, I feel I could mentor Jonas. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness Da Punk 95 did alert the community above that he was going to use his own mentoring plan from en [3] and that blocking was involved in the plan [4]. At least two admins reviewed the mentoring plan (for spelling checks and formatting) [5] [6] and did not object to the blocking proposals. Doesn't make it a good plan and I think we should have been more alert to the fact that Da Punk probably needed more support to do this. --Matilda (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, check Basecamp. I'm thinking of resigning. And I deserve a block. A long one. One year would be enough. --  Da Punk '95  talk  02:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I just wanted to point out that when I unblocked Jonas in August he'd promised me to act civilly; his unblocking came about a year after his original block, and about half a year about Oysterguitarist's block; Jonas had basically been blocked for some behaviour that can be seen as immature, thats why I unblocked him about one year after his original block. My unblocking has nothing to do with later efforts in "mentoring" him. I am not involved in those efforts. As far as I can tell, Jonas has not broken his promise to act civilly. As already pointed out above, if Jonas should not edit certain pages as part of a "re-education plan", that does not concern me. I am not involved in his "re-education"/"mentoring" --Eptalon (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So what are we saying here? Does he even need to be mentored at this point? I'm interested to see everyone's thoughts. Synergy 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support mentoring - Gwib and Jonas have access to a draft on Basecamp (e-mail me for login), will present when ready. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my view it is not appropriate that User:Da Punk '95 be involved in any mentoring efforts - he needs more experience as an editor himself. --Matilda (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's common sense that it should be an administrator that does the mentorship. I don't know why that's the case here. ס ^Talk 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. In consensus with community consensus, I relinquish my power as mentor. --  Da Punk '95  talk  02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Futhermore, I wish to say more. As you know, my ENWP ban for exhausting the communitys patience not sockpupperty, ends on 9/1/09. I have sorted out a mentor over there, ArbCom member Newyorkbrad (and Jimbo helped). Brad and I are having a chat on G-Chat tomorrow AU Time. I may ask Brad starts the Mentoring over here on Simple, so I don't dent my EN reputation when I return. I am not going to continue mentoring Jonas. The Basecamp account, as it was in my name, is cancelled.

I am not going to edit until Mentoring of me has started. I hope for this to be after Brad and I talk tomorrow, but may not be until 18/1/09. Thanks, and I am very sorry for any wrongdoing I have done. --  Da Punk '95  talk  05:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Block by User:Synergy

Ok, i debated for ages as to whether or not to bring this here, and I decided I was going to.

Synergy has blocked GoblinBot with little need. It has been approved by Creol imo, but Synergy claims that it is not approved as it does not have a flag.

This came because I complained about User:Techman224 Interwiki Bot as it was flooding RecentChanges several times throughout today, and had clearly exceeded it's 50 edit test.

Synergy claimed that any bot without the flag was not approved, and so blocked mine as well as Techman's.

I feel this is inappropriate as I had already told him and PeterSymonds on IRC when the concern was raised that I would not edit further with it until clarification or a flag was given.

We need some policy on Bots urgently.

Thanks,

BG^7even 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You said that Techman224's bot needed to be blocked, as it was flooding and wasn't approved. Just because your bot wasn't flooding, makes no difference. I'm not here to play favorites. If one unapproved bot gets blocked, all do. Bots that do not have a flag, should not be editing. Synergy 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it needed to be blocked, I suggested that it should have either a Bot Flag or be blocked until one was added. I never said anything about approval. And actually, why run a bot with a bot flag if it's not needed? The only reason for the flag is to not flood RecentChanges. Bots that don't flood RC have no need for the flag. I also still fail to see how my bot is unapproved. It has nothing to do with flags or otherwise. Creol himself gave reasons. Indeed, later Tholly gave reasons why it shouldn't have a flag, as it was making errors. This is a poor lapse of judgement from an admin. /me regrets supporting... BG^7even 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Once a few more people show up and discuss this, we can come to a decision as to whether "unflagged" bots can edit, or if we will allow them to edit without a flag. In my opinion (as you already know), I don't think we should. And to us them for editing after a crat has not approved them is grounds for blocking. Synergy 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but my bot wasn't not approved. It was not approved a bot flag as it doesn't make enough edits to not flood Recent Changes, therefore it does not need one. My other bot, GBot2, doesneed one, as it's edits (at one stage up to 15 a minute) would have completely flooded RecentChanges. What is the point in flagging bots as bot edits if they don't need to be? Imo it's another transparency thing - if they don't flood RC let them be seen by default! BG^7even 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, its not about the flooding. Its about approval via a crat. All I am doing with this block, is upholding the crats overall decision. Synergy 18:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When did the 'crat not approve the bot? Surely it would have been written down? Also, why is it in the AWB approved list as a Bot? And, if Creol wanted to block my bots, why did he not earlier when GBot2 was malfunctioning? And actually, this thread is very much about flooding rc - that is what the bot flag is for, nothing else (other than of course marking them as bots, but seeing as most bots have "bot" in the name...). If Creol had wanted to block it, or if Creol didn't want it operating, he would have blocked it himself, or asked me. As would tholly who followed up Creol's comments.

Furthermore, how can bot's perform test edits? Every single one of the ToTW edits has been a test - i've used a new script every time, and all but one has had edits. Today's edits were requested by FSM. I gave him a choice of Bot Flag or No Flag, there was no responce so I used my initiative and operated it with no flag in case there was an error or otherwise - and i don't feel that such edits, where actual content is involved, should be hidden from the eye of anyone who does not know how to access them.

Finally, in future have the decency to tell me what you are going to do before you do it. We were talking on IRC and the first I heard was 3 minutes after being pinged by the IRC Recent Changes feed - why not just tell me on IRC? Not that qualities I expected from you Synergy. As I said, I regret supporting. BG^7even 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done some careful considering of the situation. The policy states bots all need flags, but since Creol refused on the grounds it doesn't make many edits and wouldn't need the flag, the rule may not apply. I think we should wait until 'crat comes on for clarification. To Synergy - maybe you could have held fire and asked a 'crat before blocking as the bot wasn't really causing harm... To BG7 - Creol didn't give you express permission to do anything with Goblinbot, he only refused it bot flag status. Maybe you should have asked him to confirm what it was and wasn't allowed to do. FSM ^Noodly? 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does it state that? From Wikipedia:Bots: To get approved to run a bot, you should be a good contributor first. Describe your bot on the talk page, create a new account for it, run some tests for a short time, and get agreement from other users that the bot's use is a good idea. Once that is done, your bot may be given a bot flag by a bureaucrat. // I have bolded the part of interest. Also, GoblinBot was approved as a good idea. Looking on that page also, I see "Some other bots make occasional edits here, usually creating interwiki links, but do not have a bot flag:" - does this mean they are approved? Once such bot is Techman's bot...

While I may not have had express permission I interpreted his denial as a no because the edit level didn't warrant it - not a no that the bot wasn't approved. The bot is on the AWB Whitelist for god sake so it must be approved?!?!

Synergy: Undo the block and all will be fine. I am not going to edit with it, as I said on IRC, until this is cleared up - GBot2 will deal with anything that needs doing.

FSM: Thanks for your input: it is very useful.

Creol (if you appear) please solve this once and for all and then let's move on to creating a better policy.

Finally, I haven't added my bots to the list at Wikipedia:Bots as I felt it wasn't appropriate to add my own bot - clearly some users (Techman) do not share this view and they have added their bot. This needs clearing up as well.

Thanks,

BG^7even 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Our bot policy does not require the flag for a bot to be used. At least one other bot is fully fuctional here with its bot flag denied (CommonsDelinker). GoblinBot works fine for the 2-3 edits a week it does and has no need for the flag. Its flag was denied because it was unneeded, not because the bot itself was denied (unlike techman244's which I felt was not safe at this time to operate under the bot flag as there was not enough trust in a new user.) I probably should have listed it under "bots operating without flags" though and prevented this problem. I personally see no reason for the bot to be blocked (now goblin2... oy, that one.. :) )-- Creol(talk) 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Creol: I'd appreciate it if you made all of this clear in either the blocking policy, or the bot page. This way, we can know the reasons for blocking, and can enforce them better. Synergy 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done and done - blocking policy got an addition about bots operating either unapproved or other than how approved, Bot policy makes separation between approved with flag and approved without flag and unapproved (bot or usage) -> blocked.

Range block

Hello, User:Oysterguitarist recently declined the unblock request for 78.145.55.72 as he could not find any block for that IP address. I would like to inform the community that Creol blocked 78.145.0.0/16 as Benniguy's range. This is quite a broad range, and it is quite probable that this is not Benniguy. Could someone please block that range with Account Creation enabled, so the user can create an account? Jonas D. Rand ^T 05:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not likely to be Benni, but it is an exact match to WashingMan (overlapping ranges). -- Creol(talk) 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Option to hide the donations advertisement

Hello, would it be possible to create a gadget to hide the donations notice? They've done this on the English Wikipedia and I think it's a good idea.

Please create MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.css and add this text:

.siteNoticeBig, .notice-wrapper {display:none;} .siteNoticeSmall, .notice-wrapper {display:none;}

as written (please get that source by clicking the edit button; it is unreliable to copy/paste while not in edit mode). Then MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice with this text:

"Hide the donations site notice." - (or a variant in Simple English)

Then add:

• HideFundraisingNotice|HideFundraisingNotice.css

to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition (below browsing-gadgets).

That should allow the notice to be hidden. I stress again that it's only for logged-in users, as anonymous users can't access preferences. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do. It's annoying for us logged in users that either have donated, or have contributed in other ways such as building the encyclopedia - I really don't think it's necessary for logged in users - didn't it dissappear altogether last year at en-wp? Cheers, BG^7even 11:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Chenzw  Talk  11:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

after c/cThanks a lot, that's much better! BG^7even 11:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Chenzw. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ChristianMan16

...Is up for QD. But I can't see where the QD tag was added. In fact, that page hasn't been changed since 17th October? Why is it suddenly up for QD? Kennedy ^(talk) 09:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

More than likely one of the templates/subpages he is using is up for QD and its carrying through to the userpage because the QD tag was not put between noinclude tags. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but theres no other page up for deletion, none of his subpages as far as I can tell... C-Man, have you QD'd anything lately? Kennedy ^(talk) 08:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see his page up for QD. I assumed it had been corrected by now. Perhaps its your cache? Try deleting temporary internet files. -Djsasso (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mark any of my pages for Qd or Rfd fot that matter...maybe an error? Or Vandalism?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  05:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Its away now. I was tempted to delete it anyway :P Kennedy ^(talk) 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's mean LOL-- ✧ CM16  04:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Santa Claus

Can someone protect this? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Synergy 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say please! :O Apologies. Thanks Synergy! PeterSymonds (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this user is now blocked, their talk page has been deleted and protected against creation --Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request No.2

I'm annoyed by vandals posting misinformation into pages and/or blanking it, and I've undid many of them. I want rollback so I can undo repeat attacks by persistent vandals. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 06:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper usernames

I'd like to point all administrators to the User creation log and the last three. Something's up.-- ✧ CM16  22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Synergy 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:63.64.127.45

This user is seriously overvandalising. He has vandalized both my U-Page and my talk page, but luckily the vandalism was reverted. Is there any chance we could give him an Indefinite Block? Tharnton345 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising your user page and user talk page is not grounds for an indefinite block. Although you may feel angry at this, please take note this is not enough as overvandalising. Chenzw  Talk  08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't indef block an ip anyway. The block length was set for a month and if it continues to vandalize, the length will continue to go up. Synergy 09:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Hourglass

There's a persistent vandal, 85.31.137.11 who has been vandalising Hourglass at least 10 times now. All the edits were blanking and adding nonsense to it. Please block the user too. It's seriously overflowing too fast and way too frequent! - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 12:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you can only warn a user so many times --Chris 12:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Hourglass protected for one week (unconfirmed users) and IP blocked 24 hours. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mypasswordisa

A "My Password Is" account has arrived. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 22:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but what does that signify? FSM ^Noodly? 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's based on this. But they have made valid contributions; why not ask them to rename instead? :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you're not being stupid. Since the user has chosen to put their (one-letter) password in their username, I think the user should either be blocked, so as to prevent impersonation by vandals, or, per PeterSimmons' post above, have their name changed. It could boil down to a security issue. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 22:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried, and the password for this account is neither A nor a. There should be nothing to worry about. Jonas D. Rand ^T 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's all I was concerned about. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hellooo

Can a bureaucrat please take a look, the users requesting a name change. Oysterguitarist 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Without a name to change it to, I am wary of a rename. I have approved the unblock request for 24 hours to allow him to request a name change. -- Creol(talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Innapropriate username

I think this account should be blocked, per EN's guideline on misleading usernames. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? PeterSymonds (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have fixed the link. PeterSymonds, I suggest you re-read the comment :) Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Impersonation of well-known pop singer. Although, i've checked their contribs. They should probably just be renamed. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just asked them to request a change of name. Yotcmdr (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. "Well known". Lies. :D PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:D!Yotcmdr (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Be on the lookout

En.wiki is having some trouble and I'm sure we might get a least a small taste of this. I'm advising admins to be careful because one block could stop a large group of people from editing. Synergy 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing the IPs for convenience:

• 89.167.221.3 (talk • changes <deleted> • WHOIS • block user • block log)
• 62.30.249.131 (talk • changes <deleted> • WHOIS • block user • block log)
• 212.134.155.210 (talk • changes <deleted> • WHOIS • block user • block log)

--Chenzw  Talk  02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if a block on these addresses is the only way to stop problems, keep it very short term and Anon-only. Do not hardblock it as you will also be blocking our UK admins if you do. All username blocks should not be set to autoblock their IPs as well as this could likely shut down the proxies most of these users are routing through. -- Creol(talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins should not be affected by blocks as they have the ipblock-exempt right. The warning still applies though as normal users will still be affected by this block. By the way, it would be good if all admins subscribe to the following bug on Mediazilla: bug 16569.--Chenzw  Talk  11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Im caught up in all of this and I know that many of the ISP ip addresses that have been allocated for en.wikipedia have all used there allowance for account creation. I know I shouldnt have but I created this one through an open proxy and I am editing via the Sky broadband connection which at the moment is unaffected. I went and spoke to the next door neighbour and he said tha I could use his wireless which I think I owe him a few beers. I will however help out where I possibly can. Corruptcopper (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Update I have now been blocked by the ISP from editing. Now on proxy. Corruptcopper (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked after vandalism post final warning (given by Yotcmdr). I gave a block of 24 hours with Account Creation allowed, as I believe this to be the most effective as it stops the vandalism, is not a 'hard' block and allows accounts to be created. However, if anyone disagrees, leave a message on my talk page. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Even with account creation allowed, the IPs are bound to hit their 6 registrations/day limit. How are we to settle this when they hit the limit but want an account? EN's ACC interface is only for the English Wikipedia. I don't think Accounts-enwiki-l is willing to help us either. Chenzw  Talk  03:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Update: The IWF has released a statement removing Wikipedia from it's blacklist. This problem will gradually be resolved as respective ISPs synchronise their own blacklists with the IWF's.[7] Chenzw  Talk  02:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Affected IP Addresses

• - ISP = Opal Telecommunications (TalkTalk) [#1]
• - ISP = Opal Telecommunications (TalkTalk) [#2]
• - ISP = Virgin Media
• - ISP = Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica
• - ISP = Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica
• - ISP = Demon Internet [#1]
• - ISP = Demon Internet [#2]
• - ISP = Easynet/UK Online/Sky Broadband
• - ISP = Plusnet [#1]
• - ISP = Plusnet [#2]
• - ISP = Plusnet [#3]
• - ISP = Plusnet [#4]
• - ISP = Eclipse Internet / Kingston Communications

A list so far, subject to tweaking. Synergy 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating to the list can now be done at User:Synergy/UK ips. Synergy 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection for Resent Vandalism

Please could a sysop Protect this page List of comets as semi-protected. It has resently been vandalised and the problem need to be resolved. Thanks, the vandalists IP is: user talk:72.159.148.3. Daisy (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, semi-protected for 2 days...--Eptalon (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Eptalon. I have been told to use the Vandalism in Progress to report this so sorry it was mentioned here. Daisy (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many users are creating inappropriate pages

Here's a problem that has been going on for more than a week about Korean schoolkids making inappropriate articles (see here and here). They have mostly made complex articles that got deleted very quickly, but today, they've been spamming, writing fan articles and advertising. I've put this here because it hasn't been addressed much (apart from Kennedy salting and Creol CUing the IPs) and they've been warned many times and it's becoming a real problem. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Username block

Could we get a block of User:Ihatefatchicks for offensive username? Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Synergy 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are there any users aside from Benniguy and IuseRosary that are banned from the Simple English Wikipedia? --Dylan620 _{(Sign this plz)} 13:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at Category:Banned users for all banned users here (including socpuppeteers, proxies etc). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Banned users is empty. User:Kimberly Ashton is also banned, as are vandals. User:FastReverter (formerly User:ShockingHawk) and I were once banned. Jonas D. Rand ^T 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Techinally, I wasn't community banned. I was de facto banned. ✼ VandalFighterFR bad warning? 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:The "Disney Anon"

Can someone block User:Whenmoney as the Disney Vandal? Jonas D. Rand ^T 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Creol. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

==

1. REDIRECT Template:Template link

==

I would like the template {{Small}} to be protected as a sensitive template. It hasn't been vandalized that I know of but it is a sensitive template. Widely used so it should be either Semied or fully protected. Thank you.-- ✝ CM16   22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done by .-- ✝ CM16   23:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Range block needed!

I don't know how to perform a range block, and if you look at Special:RecentChanges, it's obviously needed... – RyanCross (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the range that you should block is 89.178.240.0/22. Jonas D. Rand ^T 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the IP has stopped... so I'll wait. – RyanCross (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking no chances.  Done Synergy 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK copyedit

Could an admin put some italics on Jagged Little Pill on the first line of the DYK template? Thanks, Either way (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. The template is only semi-protected, so as long as you're autoconfirmed, edits to DYK can be done by non-admins too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm still a day or two away from hitting the autoconfirmed standards (odd that it does that for global accounts). Thanks for the fix, Either way (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe ;). Just a note that in future things like this can be avoided by more active editors reviewing the hooks! Cheers, BG^7even 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I can't seem to find a dedicated page for page moves, so I'm asking here. Can an admin move Martha Jones(Doctor Who) (note the missing space) to Martha Jones, which is currently a redirect to Doctor Who companions? — Edokter • Talk • 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Martha Jones(Doctor Who) to Martha Jones (Doctor Who) (with a space) because I think it should mention she's a doctor whpo character (as everyone might not know that before reading the article). Also, I've redirected Martha Jones to Martha Jones(Doctor Who) as I don't think anyone famous in real life has that name :D . Regards (and well done for spotting the missing space), Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and created a requested moves page, which includes requests for non-controversial moves. The idea behind it is to keep current move discussions in one place, as well as being a central place for moves in general. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that is required? I don't think it will come up very often. Can't we just use ANI or ST? Kennedy ^(talk) 16:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, move discussions will inevitably increase, and while ST/AN is a good place in general, discussions can get lost. I figured, we have a WP:RFR, so a RM would be fine as well. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwib

I've been trying to create the article about Japan Cap, now the translation of the week. He has been deleting it for utterly spurious reasons. Can someone please restore the article to give a chance to work on it? Maxim_(talk) 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it, but please don't call Gwib an incompetent sysop, or swear on his talk page. Thanks. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what kind of sysop is he? IMO, he is clearly incompetent. Maxim_(talk) 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down. It's your opinion, but most people don't share your view about him. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being so aggressive Maxim. No one is going to listen to you if you can't argue your point without attacking somebody. Majorly ^talk 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Can an admin give me access to AutoWikiBrowser? I have access to it on the English Wikipedia and I would like to help out more on the Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks! MathCool10 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Majorly ^talk 20:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

200.88.80.0/20 range block.

A user (the only user) on 200.88.80.0/20 has been randomly creating fake articles about movies and television series featuring teen actors (and usually herself and friends/family) as well as adding false information to various articles (mainly the links to the fake movies). This has been going on for about two months now. 40+ IP addresses have been used to date from the range to continue the trend. They tend to get in, edit, and get out at or before being given a final warning, so only one of the IPs have a block history. Given the amount of vandalism, the duration of their activity, te lack of good edits and the number of IPs involved, I blocked the range for one month. --Creol(talk) 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Either way (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. MathCool10 20:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair block to me. RyanCross @ 20:16, 27 December 2008 (