Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 22

Username change

If I get a username change on this wiki will it mess up my SUL? I reckon I'll need Eptalon's help on this one but an admin might now... so please help if you do. Cheers. FSM ^Noodly? 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have it changed everywhere, otherwise SUL won't work. Majorly ^talk 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. If you change it, get it changed everywhere as Majorly said, and then re-unify. Don't do it the other way round because then you can't be renamed everywhere else. Cheers, Gob lin 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages

A quick question: when I delete a page then I lose the username/ip adress of the person who created it. Is this right? It makes it hard to leave a message on their talk page. Am I doing this right, or should I leave the message first, then delete? Peterdownunder (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't lose it. You can see the IP on the undelete page. It doesn't matter whether you delete first or warn first. Chenzw Talk 11:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew I must have been looking in the wrong spot.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spambot on the loose

Just a heads up to people encountering anons creating such an article:

1. A rich mummy, usually green or bald.

2. To overbreak toes, i.e. to put a cat into a fish or into a dog.

3. To stab an elephant with a nostril.

This is a spambot, and should be blocked on sight. Chenzw Talk 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I already do. Majorly ^talk 14:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an IP that created a page such as the one listed above and have listed it on the ViP page. Razor flame 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert IP edits?

An anon IP user, 24.16.56.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making tons of edits to List of colors (Revision history). I'm not sure wether it is vandalism, spam, a test edit(s), or a good-faith edit. He has been editing the page since Feb. 2. So I thought the admins might be able to decide on this. This is the revision before the IP user started editing the page.[1] --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've messed the article up for certain. Might be best just to revert right back. Majorly ^talk 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag enabled

Administrators can now grant themselves the flood flag, which works in the same way as a bot flag: hides your edits from recent changes. Accessible through Special:UserRights. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here. Thats more interesting. --bar ras 13:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email abuse

I've been getting dozens of threat e-mails from Opinionss (talk · contribs) (as well as weird emails from wiki asking me to confirm password changes). I disabled e-mail on his account a while ago, so I'd appreciate if another admin could look into it. Thanks, –Juliancolton (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had no involvement with that user whatsoever. I think it is just a one-off case; an email block should suffice. Chenzw Talk 10:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikproject on how to create sock puppets.

I just deleted a "wikiproject" on how to be a sock without getting caught at User:Kalajan/templates. Makes you wonder whose puppet Kalajan is. Too bad you can't use checkuser without evidence of who the puppetmaster is. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See en:User:Kalajan and the block log. Speaks for itself really. :) PeterSymonds (talk)

I am a little slow today, normally I check that and hadn't even thought to do it this time. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, no problem. I went over there because I thought it was an admin, so I was confused. Must've got two names mixed up. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup looks like another sockpuppet refugee. en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoMamma6188/Archive -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has now created an essay essentially about the same topic minus the step by step process of how to do it. I am debating if its a valid QD since its in userspace. I think the topic is contrary to what should be on wiki. So how far does essay status in user space reach. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QD it, even if it is in his userspace because he is clearly trying to be disruptive. Razor flame 16:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats what I want to do but I want a second admins opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion doesn't count, even though I am not an admin? :( Razor flame 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You opinion counts. But you can't push the button to do it. :p -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were the Simple English Wiktionary I could ;). Razor flame 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, let us not start off on the wrong foot. I copied the essay from and en.wiki admin Chrislk02 (talk · contribs). Lets just stay away from this. It was just a stupid idea that ran through my head. ←Kala jan→ 17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un)I think that the essay should not be deleted yet. It actually only states facts. If it gives any indication on how to get round the blocks then it should be deleted. But currently it is only a few sentences on how blocking works. Kennedy ^(talk) 19:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original essay. The comedy is that Chrislk02 wrote the essay in response to dealing with the steady flow of sockpuppets that got Kalajan perma-blocked from en. Precious Roy (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well an essay can always be used here too. ←Kala jan→ 15:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose temporary semi-protection for Alex Rodriguez

Hi there all. Because of the Alex Rodriguez scandal that is in the news right now, I would like to propose that his article here be semi-protected temporarily for a period of a few days as both a preventative measure and because I know that there will be vandalism to his article here. Thanks, Razor flame 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine right now, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that no protection is needed right now, but because he is in the news, I just thought that there might be an increase in vandalism to his page. Cheers, Razor flame 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Pakistan friend...

Take a look at this. Is it alright to add a coat of arms just like that? I checked the MoS on EN but can't seem to find anything about it. They only mentioned flags. Chenzw Talk 13:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this coat of arms aren't neccessary because there are the flags of the states in the box at the right handsite. It doesn't look nice at the top of an article. --bar ras 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add anything does it, not even an explanation is being given to aid the reader. I was considering rollbacking when you posted this. fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't go on rollbacking him. Is someone able to post a message on his talk page? I don't know how to tell him about it (breach of policy? disruption?). Chenzw Talk 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a message if you'd like to review it. fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were faster than I. I added a message too. --bar ras 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) They are good enough. Now we just sit back and watch (and take action if necessary). This particular editor is notable for ignoring messages. Chenzw Talk 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't stop so wen can interpret his contibutions as vandalism. --bar ras 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to stop this. He/she is not adding {{enwp based}} tags to the talk page and is not rewording for Simple English, therefore these additions (new) are not helpful and can be QD G12, or what ever if the rule for direct, unreformated cut and paste from en:!! fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have calmed down a bit, but Razorflame just undid a POV push in Kashmir fr33kman ^{t - c} 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly but surely going through his clear copy and paste jobs. Can't keep letting him just copy articles over like that. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know: posting something on their talk page is generally not the problem; the problem is more that their talk page either gets ignored, or that they have issues understanding what is written there. User active here and on EnWP; hasn't created an account, and I am not aware of them ever replying to a message. Went through a number of blocks, and is usually back shortly after the block. Ideas appreciated; for precedents look through the admin noticeboard history. Known to operate from 3 or 4 ip address (ranges); some of them are shared by many users.--Eptalon (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree that warnings are probably useless, but at least they understand that someone is watching :-) (The good natured person in me has to try) :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 16:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Something else: Editor is currently the only one editing Kashmir/Pakistan related topics (Bangladesh/India-related one one or two occasions), to my knowledge; and easily recognisable by that. --Eptalon (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we isolate the exact ranges that he edits from so that we could block those specific ranges? We could range block for a period of time and allow account creation (because I doubt that he will create an account, and it allows others who use the IP addresses to create accounts)? Otherwise, I guess that we could always just block on sight for all IP addresses that edit Pakistan articles solely. Would either of these proposals work? Cheers, Razor flame 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be worthwhile; at least one of them is a "school" of sorts, we do not want to block a school because of one disruptive editor. As for the others, yes we know the ranges, but again, range blocks are out of the question (possible collaterals, need to check, inappropriate to have a range-block for one editor). --Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about we institute a kind of block on sight for any IP address that the Pakistan editor uses from now on? If range blocks are out of the question, then the only thing that we can do is adopt a block on sight policy for any IPs making mass edits to Pakistan-related articles. Would this work? Razor flame 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal-Used last warning

User talk:198.20.32.1 ←Kala jan→ 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP hasn't made changes in several months. No action is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why defend him, he vandalizes pages and dosen't listen to warnings. ←Kala jan→ 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. The IP's last changes were in September. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He vandalized about 5 mins ago. Are we in september? Quite cold huh? XP ←Kala jan→ 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? –Juliancolton (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Juliancolton here. We only block vandals if they have made significant vandalism to this site within the past 48 to 72 hours, not the past 3-4 months. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism first before posting anything about vandalism again. Razor flame 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just realized. But at recent changes there was a link directing to his talk page. Dunno. ←Kala jan→ 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And IP addresses can be shared by millions of people, remember Soup Dish (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. G'day! ←Kala jan→ 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]