Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 20

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Revision as of 02:37, 30 November 2008 by Chris G Bot (talk | changes) (Reverted changes by 70.54.11.86 (talk) to last version by RyanCross)

User:Tharnton345

As has been noted on his talk page, Tharnton345 (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

Hello. I first registered as w:User:Farlack907. Tharnton345 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note that this guy has filed an RfA... Microchip • talk 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please. I hope you can't block me. Please. I really don't want to. Thar nton 345 08:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Majorly talk 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Synergy 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Tholly

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

 Done. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Terry Ananny

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

Various IPs used:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tholly: mw:Range block. Microchip • talk 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to escalate this into a global block? alexandra (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

92.1.95.219 + Pakistan

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I guess it's up to a bureaucrat. Majorly talk 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Isn't closing time at the end of the closing day? FSM Noodly? 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_20&oldid=1195877"