Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 6

reason of delete

I've create this mediawiki message (copy from en :-)). what we think about? It's ok? --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fun to see my additions to the mediawiki code go live finally! - Huji ^reply 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think, we should put the links after the comments, not before them. - Huji ^reply 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think? --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page again to see what I had in mind. - Huji ^reply 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From experience on en.wp, I know people usually put the policy link before the comments. However, I have seen it done the other way, so I think either way is fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, isn't there one for blocking too. Oysterguitarist 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

I would like to request that the Main Page get full protection, it is very high risk. Jet Lover ^Bam! 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A poll was/is conducted, the current results are a tie between semi and full protection. The poll is in Archive 5. I already added your vote to the full protection section given your comment here. The page is currently protected Edit-registered user, Move- admin. -- Creol(talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets

I tried my best to import the En WP Gadgets to our wiki, but I didn't have the time to test it thoroughly. Can some other admin please review it and make the requried fixes? - Huji ^reply 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link into new window works perfectly. Just tried it. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest longer block

User:Inherendo has made pretty much nothing but trouble. He inserts vandalism and other malicious content into articles. He is currently blocked for two weeks, I would suggest a few months or indefinite. Jet Lover ^Bam! 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been here a total of a week and a half and racked up his 3rd block (extended to a 2 week block in place of a one week). While there have been a few constructive edits from him, the bulk of his edits are vandalism or non-notable. That being said, any longer block short of just shutting down this account (infinite/indefinite) really serves little purpose without checking further into the problem (wp:beans for the why). The next occurrence looks like it will be a permanent block and may require action from Eptalon or myself in special capacity but currently there is no case for us to justify that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creol (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this user should've gotten the indefinite ban a while ago, when he was banned the second time. At that time, I noticed that he was making mostly vandalous edits, and usually, for vandal-only accounts, you usually get an indefinite ban for that. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionas68224 ban violation

I took a look at User:Liberator and noticed that he seemed to fit the profile of Ionas68224. Took a look on Commons and he's caused trouble for pushing his POV - which I imagine would be quite challenging on a media library. I found an IP that he'd redirected to his page, ran a WHOIS check and tracked it down to his ISP in his area. Can't be anyone else. Blocked User:Liberator and User:Liberator1 indefinitely, email blocked.

Ionas68224 is currently banned for repeatedly vandalising/sockpuppeting despite more chances than we've ever given anyone before. We offered to review his ban at the end of this year, but I personally believe this behaviour shows that he has't changed a bit - any other thoughts?

To Ionas68224 (as I guess you're reading this), do not attempt to create any further sockpuppets. This will only make things more difficult to sort out. You are not required to respond. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for check user, to see if there are any more sockpuppets. Oysterguitarist 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been both welcomed to SEWP by Ionas and a victim User:Liberator's personal attacks I agree with extending the ban from one year to indefinite. It seems obvious he has no wish to change or control an underlying desire to cause harm here at SEWP. A note should be left on the WP:RFA page to show why his vote opposing user:lights will be struck out. -- Barliner talk 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a large range (68.224.0.0 - 68.224.127.255) just in case. Shouldn't be any collateral damage really, but it's set for 2 weeks, extendable if necessary. Archer7 - talk 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio of Living People

I just noticed an article which I think is doubtful according to the BLP: Biographies of Living People policy. The jetsetter Charlotte Lindström sits in jail awaiting trial. Lots of other people in the same situation do not have, or need, articles here. Lindström is apparently "notable" for just this one thing. This article is (originally poorly) translated from Swedish Wikipedia and well-enough referenced. The "What links here" is revealing; the author says s/he is unpopular on English Wikipedia and tries to get others to copy the article there for her/him. --Hordaland 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be in keeping with the BLP policy (specifically the section on relatively unknown people) give the subject being prominent reported in at least 22 news articles from all across Australia (and one from Sweden). You may try requesting its deletion on notability grounds though. -- Creol(talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added note to all admins:

I think a bigger problem here is with our source of the article. Sinbad has a habit of requesting people copy his articles over to En:WP. He has stated in the past that this is because he thinks it would be better coming from a more established editor. The truth is, He is blocked on En:. He has been blocked under two names a total of 7 times. Most of this revolves around BLP issues with Swedish "celebrities" (mainly big brother contestants it seems). His original blocks were under the name Matrix17 and included bad faith afd noms, incivility, harassment, non-notable bios recreation, and impersonating an admin. He got unblocked and had his name changed to Zingostar where he was blocked another 3 times for sock voting (afd of nn swede celeb bio. Imagine that..), harassment, wiki-stalking and general problems with following BLP. Given his past and his current actions here, I think we need to keep a little extra attention on his actions to prevent this from taking place here as well. -- Creol(talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with you here Creol. His actions need more attention than most other users on here mainly because of the fact that he has been blocked 7 times. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Even though I'm not an admin, I've been pretty interested in Sinbad, so I will help keep an eye on him as well, if needs be.)