Jump to content

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

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freddy?

Per these I'm wondering if this is Freddy considering he said he made John Paul II a VGA, and this is one of Freddies known articles. ?? fr33kman t - c 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Majorly talk 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for

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

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

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

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

An unexplained yearlong rangeblock is causing collateral damage

On July last year, Gwib (talk · contribs) range blocked Special:Contributions/89.241.0.0/16 for a year because of 'mistake unblock'. User talk:89.241.77.90 is requesting an unblock and I think it's causing a lot of collateral damage. Could some look into this and unblock the range? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(<-) As to the range 89.241.0.0/16, we currently have two users in that range; one of them is the IP mentioned above, the other is currently blocked user Samlaptop85213; but please note that currently checkuser records only go back like 3 months.--Eptalon (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

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

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

Translating on wikimediafoundation.org

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

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

Inappropriate username

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

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

User:Richard Relucio

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

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

Proposal to semi-protect Martin Luther

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

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

Disney vandal?

Could 69.85.235.3 be the disney vandal again? Just want to make sure. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_23&oldid=1441464"