Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 10

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closed RFD's

I noticed that {{result}} was being added to closed RFD's, I was wondering if we want to add the template to a closed RFD or leave it as is? Oysterguitarist 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see any reason to use it. When I archived the last batch of closed RfD's I archived the original content from the edit prior to the result template being added. -- Creol(talk) 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is called protocol. This lets users know not to change it...and yes even stupid ones edit wikipedia and need to be given extra instruction like new users do.--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (modified 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This kind of template is law like on EN....I don't see why we can't shre that with EN.--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pointless, a closed RfD is quickly archived and the item deleted. A "do not change" template would only be around for a couple of days before being archived, so it is unnecessary.--Bärliner 11:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's not needed. Like Creol, I archived the version before the template was added. Most archives are done pretty quickly after the decision is made and we haven't had any issues with people voting after closing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. · Tygrrr... 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A template like that is useful for wikis which use subpages for each RfD. We don't, so we don't need such a template. It is enough to inform people on the top of each archive page that they shouldn't touch it. - Huji reply 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Huji here. This kind of a template is not needed as we don't use subpages for our RfDs. If we did use subpages, then we would need it, but right now, I don't see any reason for this template to exist. Razorflame 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are looking past the point here...This template doesn't have to be used on a subpage and not everyone read the pages this is called a back up measure. As for it going away once the discussion is closed it's not supposed to. My point is it's EXTREMELY useful and needed.--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add your vote to the RfD for keep. I would suggest that since you've brought it up now, to step back and calm down while waiting for the result of the RfD. Razorflame 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State vandal

On SE Wiktionary we've had some trouble with what we call the "Kent State Vandal" - a user or users from IP range 131.123.0.0 - 131.123.255.255, which WHOIS shows as Kent State University. Since we're smaller there, it's a little more obvious, but some digging here has unearthed the same user(s) making the same types of vandalism. Distinguishing features include quotes from Scrubs, South Park, Adam Sandler movies and other similar types of shows and movies, as well as making edits regarding general dissatisfaction with the United States economy and president. A lot of time and energy goes into reverting the vandalism from this range; I would imagine most of us have blocked a few of the offending IPs (I know I have). An admin on SE Wiktionary contacted Kent State with no response, so we recently did a few range blocks covering the main ranges of vandalism. I'd like to suggest doing so here as well. · Tygrrr... 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example of edits:

7 users in this range have been blocked in the last month with edits (and blockings) going back to November 2007. The user often stops just short of being blocked so the amount of time and energy spent on reversions, not just blockings, is much higher than what it shown in the block logs. I would consider this to be long-term abuse and thus think a long-term (6 months to a year) soft block may be warranted. · Tygrrr... 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through my changes to see how many different users I have warned in the past month from this range, and these are the results:
  • 3 Level 1 warnings
  • 3 Level 2 warnngs
  • 1 Level 3 warning
  • 1 Level 4 warning

I've only warned 3 users from this range in the past month. This, to me, says that there isn't enough information honestly, to warrant a range block at this time. I think we should wait and see if more users from this range vandalize, and if that's the case, then we can consider a range block at that time. This is just my thoughts on this, Razorflame 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more information above. "Wait and see if more users from this range vandalize"? Dozens of IPs vandalizing from the same range over the last 3+ months has been enough "waiting and seeing", imho. · Tygrrr... 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did not take the block log into account when I posted my comment above. I was merely taking into account my encounters with the range in question. Based upon the number of blocks that have occurred in the past 3 months, as well as the number of previous blocks that each IP in question has accrued, I would have to say that I agree with your proposal to have it soft blocked for 1 year. I think that it should be 1 year based upon the amount of disruption that the Simple English Wikipedia has received from this range in question. Razorflame 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two points.
1) I agree with Tygrrr. I noticed from IRC that some weeks ago I gave a series of warnings to the Kent State vandal, who then moved to SEWikt within minutes. I would be happy with a one year block of the range.
2) Razor, again you have jumped in with half the info. You often give the impression of racing to be the first to post. Slow down and look at all the angles. There is no prize for being the first to reply, but a fuller contribution would look better, especially when you have an RFA and should be wanting to show how useful you are to the community. --Bärliner 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a large amount of IP vandalism from 131.123.0.0/16, I'm not sure of how many users have been blocked that were using that range. I think a one year soft block for 131.123.0.0/16 would be appropriate. Oysterguitarist 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check on the IP range shows 122 edits over the last few months from 27 separate addresses. One of the batch is a registered user who has been blocked three times already. Only the registered user seems to have any positive contributions and the negatives seem to more than off-balance those. I would suggest 1 year and block the registered user as well. -- Creol(talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Inherendo has been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account after another act of vandalism. · Tygrrr... 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: 131.123.0.0/16 soft-blocked for one year. · Tygrrr... 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People have been telling me to look at it from all angles, so that is what I am going to be doing now. Hypothetically, wouldn't a soft block allow those vandalous people vandalizing the pages allow them to create accounts to vandalize even more? If that would be the case, then hypothetically, we could still get vandalism from this range. Even though hard blocking isn't very good, would you think that in this case, it might be more beneficial to completely shut off these people's access from the Simple English Wikipedia? Just a thought...Razorflame 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is such a block would cut off the address, which could, of course be shared by legitimate users. Are we getting any useful activity from these IPs, or from already registered users sharing one of these addresses?--Bärliner 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured out as much. I just made that comment based on the range's history of using sockpuppets in the past. I would also have to agree with your point, Barliner. We can't know for certain if there are any legitamite users editing from this range, unless that is within a Checkuser's power to do so. Razorflame 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the range's history of using sockpuppets"? According to Creol, the range had only one registered user: Inherendo, and he has been blocked as a vandalism-only account. The thing about the soft block is that anyone in that range has only 2 options: 1. create an account and work here productively or 2. create an account, vandalize, and be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Unless the vandalism-only accounts become outrageously frequent, there's no need for a hard block of the range. · Tygrrr... 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

203.208.0.0/16

I have noticed this range has been vandalising alot recently, so I went through the block log and found the ip's in the range of 203.208.0.0/16, while doing this I had noticed that they were close to the IP's that me and Cometstyles have been blocking as open proxies, which might explain this. Going back further I noticed that this IP's from this range were being blocked close to the times that attack username where being created for admins and the JEW BOT names, and going back even further I noticed that some of them were school IP's (the ranges listed at the bottom). These go back to January 2005, I feel that a range block is needed here, because the range has been vandalizing since 2005, most of the are probably open proxies, and some of them have been blocked for long term vandalism. What are your thoughts. Oysterguitarist 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the blocked IP's on this range:

  • 203.189.4.98
  • 203.14.53.46
  • 203.12.22.51
  • 203.10.121.82
  • 203.12.22.51
  • 203.12.22.56
  • 203.52.130.138
  • 203.52.130.139
  • 203.25.82.46
  • 203.14.53.45
  • 203.10.121.83
  • 203.10.121.80
  • 203.33.181.30
  • 203.122.254.24
  • 203.12.22.56
  • 203.208.93.24
  • 203.121.71.169
  • 203.89.172.161
  • 203.14.53.46
  • 203.42.86.114
  • 203.36.44.15
  • 203.208.91.82
  • 203.6.250.70
  • 203.161.115.134
  • 203.122.254.26
  • 203.14.53.46
  • 203.10.121.82
  • 203.161.115.134
  • 203.36.44.15
  • 203.36.44.17
  • 203.36.44.18
  • 203.89.172.161
  • 203.37.206.213
  • 203.62.10.3
  • 203.208.93.226
  • 203.36.44.16
  • 203.32.121.131
  • 203.47.250.138
  • 203.123.74.122
  • 203.208.65.209
  • 203.94.158.186
  • 203.10.121.80
  • 203.10.121.84
  • 203.36.44.18
  • 203.208.91.82
  • 203.97.98.98
  • 203.52.130.136
  • 203.122.254.26
  • 203.14.53.46
  • 203.10.121.84
  • 203.14.53.45
  • 203.145.159.45
  • 203.153.237.92
  • 203.166.96.238
  • 203.52.130.0/24
  • 203.10.121.0/24
  • 203.166.99.0/24
  • 203.166.99.0/24
This list has 58 listings that includes 26 separate /16 ranges from four different countries (Australia (22), New Zealand (2), Malaysia (1) and India (1)). It includes most of the major states of Australia (ACT, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia) and major ISPs for the entire country (Telsta and Verizon business). In many cases there are single listings from an entire blockable IP range and a few multiple listings for the same address (203.14.53.46 shows up 4 times). The actual section title's range (203.208.0.0/16) only accounts for 5 of the 58 entries listed. Even without checking (26 seperate full range checkuser scans) for effects of collateral damage from a move this large, I would have to say this is a very bad idea. Certain smaller ranges in that group (203.10.121.8x- Department of education library, Queensland, 203.14.53.4x - Education department of Western Australia, Perth) can be dealt with in this way if needed, but the overall list is just way beyond a blanket block such as this. -- Creol(talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about your comment, I realize this would be a bad idea. Most of the IP's are old and not recent there have only been eight IP's from 203.x.x.x who have been blocked or have vandalized recently. If a range block was to be done it would be 200.0.0.0/5 instead but that would be unnecessary and would end up blocking and 134217728 users, when only eight IP's from that range have vandalized or been blocked. Oysterguitarist 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to...

Please remember to check CAT:UNBLOCK, I checked there today and there were some that needed to be taken care of. Oysterguitarist 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

82.198.250.xxx

All right. I have been going over all of the users that I have warned throughout my time here at the Simple English Wikipedia, and I noticed a trend with this IP Address range. 82.198.250.xxx is the range that I am talking about. Almost every single address of this range has been warned at least once. Some examples of how they edit can be found by checking out these addresses:

  • 82.198.250.77
  • 82.198.250.79
  • 82.198.250.71
  • 82.198.250.4
  • 82.198.250.2
  • 82.198.250.3
  • 82.198.250.6

are just some examples of the users that have been abusing their privledges here on the Simple English Wikipedia.

Further investigation of the reversions made by administrators, User:Creol, User:Barliner, and User:Tygrrr have turned up another 15 addresses that have all been warned at least once. Investigation of the block log has revealed that even though none of the addresses have been blocked, the warnings given and the amount of addresses warned should prove long term abuse to this site.

An investigation of each user's contributions in the range 82.198.250.xxx (0-255 for the x's) have revealed that almost 90% of these users have been warned at least once in the past. Although I do not think that this is enough evidence to warrant a long term vandalism block, I just wanted to bring it to people's attention that I have found a trend in vandalism. Thank you for reading this long message. Razorflame 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean any offense, but I would really like to see a response to all my work that I put into this post :). I want to know if it was appreciated, and if I should do it again; or I want to know if it is not something I should do again in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The range (xxx=0-16 and 67-80 ( /25 ) looking at recent activity) appears to be from one or more schools or places similar (a UK "Computers for Pupils" provider). Multiple computers with multiple IPs using a proxy with multiple outside IPs (all told, those multiple yeild about 75 seperate signatures..). In addition to the anon edits, there are a total of 12 recently created/active accounts on that range. Of these, two are vandal-only-blocked, 4 have active contributions and the rest were just created and left alone. Random vandalism from this type of range is pretty much expected. -- Creol(talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not bother doing this sort of search again, although Razor must have put in a lot of time. Warning using the ISP template could be useful. I found one frequently warned site registered to a collection of 12 school districts, over 300 schools. --Bärliner 15:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To see a comprehensive list of all of the edits this range has made, see this page. Make sure to have Huji's newest Gadget enabled. Razorflame 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

This message that I am leaving here will touch base on a huge number of topics that I want to discuss here, so I have added the inuse template to the topic of this page so that nobody will edit conflict me while I talk about the 15 issues that I am going to bring up to the AN. Some of them don't fit here, but since the majority of them did, I decided to make this post here. Please bear with me whilst I write an extremely long message (probably around 15-20kbs). Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting PGA's and VGA's / Demoting PAD's

The first issue that I would like to bring up is the fact that I think that it should only be administrators or bureaucrats that are able to close PGA/PVGA/PADs, like in the RFA page. This would provide some amount of control over what articles are allowed to become GA/VGA's and what articles aren't allowed to. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't agree with it. This is not an "administrative" task, so administrators have no say in it other than all other editors. Bureaucrats are also only responsible for special tasks, which directly relate to the administration of the wiki, not the content.
If we (at some point) really get into to trouble with letting every one have this (as you called it) control over the articles, we can set up an election and choose three or four users as "moderators" or whatever, to represent the decission of the community. However, it is extremely unlikely, as I find it. We have already had cases where there was no agreement about a VGA promotion, yet we successfully handled it by talking and reaching consensus. Seems like we can do it just like this :) - Huji reply 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a good reason why a regular named editor should not be able to propose an article for such a category, or change its status? --Eptalon (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about this. The reasons that Huji has given me are valid and I will abide by them. Razorflame 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More GA's and VGA's

While I do commend the Simple English Wikipedia for getting 11 GA's in the past month, I still wish that there were more GAs and VGAs. Currently, I think that if there were about 20 GA's and 10 VGA's that that would be a sufficient number of articles to have in each category. I would therefore like to ask all editors here if they could please write some more articles that would be good possible GA/VGA's in the future. Thank you. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should choose quality over quantity. Focus more on the quality of our VG articles rather than how many we have. We're not compensating for anything :p. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I can't understand is, how does this have anything to do with administrators? If it doesn't, why is it discussed on "Administrators" noticeboard? - Huji reply 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the introduction that I posted earlier in this topic, right under the main heading of Concerns. Razorflame 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both GA's and VGA's were introduced to highlight those articles that have a higher quality than the rest; Given the way things work now, and the size of the community, I doubt we can speed up the process much more, without new (regular, high-level) editors; look at the History of articles like World History to see how much work went in there. It has been nominated as a Good article candidate; it will probably fail at the moment, because it simply is not ready yet (and I am not even talking aobut those issues whether the title is good, or how to extend it). In short, I do not see ways to speed up this process; If you want more such articles faster, you will need more manpower (editors), which we currently don't have. --Eptalon (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer time was spent to created 25% less stubs than 10x the number of GAs and VGAs. Too much emphasis is placed on making pretty bells and whistles than expanding the general wiki. In most cases, to reduce redlinks in a GA/VGA canidate, multiple stubs with little to no information are created. Better to have a few relinks and many more reasonably well expanded articles than a handfull of charms on someones bracelet being supported by an endless pile of one or two sentence stubs. -- Creol(talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing test1a and test4a templates

I am puzzled as to why there isn't a test1 or test4 template for removing content warning templates. Obviously, there should be, as we use a 4-level warning system, but for some reason, they don't exist. I hereby suggest that both of these templates should be created as soon as possible so that people who warn vandals can warn them better. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why you insist on "as soon as possible" in your above statement. There is no rush however this enhancement can be helpful. Anyways, I think {{test}} is our version of test1, and {{test3a}} is for warning about "removing content" (what you asked in your first sentence). Feel free to create redirects to them as needed. - Huji reply 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the template {{test1a}}. We do have a test4 template, it is {{RepeatVandal}}. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat.js and Pilotguys whackamole vandal tools

I am very disappointed that neither of these important js's work anymore. I would like to take the time to ask that if there are any JavaScript people out there, if they could correct both of these JavaScripts to make them work on the newest version of MediaWiki. Thanks. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-fools! Do it the old fashioned, less efficient way. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Gwib said, why use a high tech, complicated overpowered device you can't understand how it works to deal with a problem that can simple be solved with a pointy stick. Two years of studying the intricacies of javascript vs "pointy end goes into target".. And people wonder about my love for pointy sticks... Poke=win. Poke, break = get a new stick, make it pointy, poke, win. It realy is that simple. -- Creol(talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of HotCat in general. I liked Whackamole thing; I figured it is not working the way I wanted it, so I used a modified version of it on my Monobook.js. I noticed it wasn't working any more a few days ago, but didn't have time to fix it. If there is no objection, I'm thinking of changing it to a "gadget" so people can use it more easily. - Huji reply 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Go ahead and do this if you can. Razorflame 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the gadget and named it "Vandal Warner". - Huji reply 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed/improved HotCat.js, please check Oysterguitarist 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I update Vandal Warner, making it possible to costumize the messages set. Read Wikipedia:Gadget/Vandal Warner for more info. - Huji reply 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that MediaWiki:Gadget-vandalwarner.js is upgraded to version 0.1.2 :) - Huji reply 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock abuse

I am also very disappointed to see that there are people out there who would abuse the unblock tool. This probably isn't that big of a deal, as administrators can easily protect the page to prevent them from abusing the unblock tool, but I think that we should stop it before it happens. Those are just my two cents.

Unblock needs to be available, yes it is abused, but if we didn't IP's that may have been blocked by mistake couldn't request to be unblocked, IP's that are not proxies anymore could not request unblock, users that don't have email wouldn't be able to request unblock if they think they were blocked unfairly, and so on. Oysterguitarist 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I know that it is required. I guess that this case can rest now. Razorflame 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promote ourselves

Now to tackle the first big topic that I am going to bring up to the AN. Lately, I have been trying to devise ways of promoting ourselves so that we can get more active editors onto this site. I came up with a few ideas:

  1. We make a post to the regular English Wikipedia's Village Pump asking anyone who edits that page if they would be willing to come and join our smaller, more indepedent Simple English Wikipedia to help make it better. I think that this could provide us with many potentially good editors coming over here from the English Wikipedia and that this could be a very good thing for our Wikipedia. The only downside to this is that it is kind of like proclaiming ourselves available on the internet. This means that I think that it would increase the amount of vandalism that occurs here on the Simple English Wikipedia. The question is, do we have enough administration to be able to deal with a small influx of vandalism because of this?
  1. The other suggestion that I came up with would be if every active user on the Simple English Wikipedia were to go out into their real lives and ask 5 or so of their friends if they would like to come to the Simple English Wikipedia to help us become a better encyclopedia. Downsides to this include the possibilities that their friends don't want to help us become a better encyclopedia, and would rather harm the encyclopedia instead of helping it, and the fact that not every friend would be interested.

Both of these options are good choices (the first one more so than the second one), and both of these, I think, would be beneficial to this site more than they would harm the site.

Alright, that's one big topic down! Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Militantly disagree with this statement. I loathe huge communities where it's hard to keep up with whatever is going on, where people regard each other as users, not people and where we have more than one Benniguy-type vandal along with countless other less subtle ones. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wikipedia has several problems; one of them is that it is too much centered on "Europe and the US", that is its editors are; If we were to recruit new editors from other wikipedias, I'd prefer we take Wikipedias like the Japanese, Chinese, Russian or Arab ones, not the regular English one. This is so that we get a more open background in the editors; But as Gwib, I am against actively recruiting people from another project, pretty much for the same reasons as he is. --Eptalon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of bug 12827. Oysterguitarist 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inkpen2/Benniguy

The next big topic that I would like to bring to the administrators' notice in particular is of this whole issue surrounding Benniguy's latest unblock request. The request can be found here. People from around the site have been answering the call to this unblock request, and now, I believe that it is time that we provide a serious discussion about what is going to happen now. Ben claims that he is on better medication, and therefore, is in better shape to be editing this Wikipedia. He has posting up some very mature apologies, and all of his answers on this page have been very mature. I am in favor of letting him be unblocked, but I still have some issues with Benniguy:

  • I still have concerns about whether or not he is mature enough to edit Wikipedia. Even though he has been creating good articles, he has had trouble keeping his comments either positive, or mature in the past. This is one of the concerns that I still have with him.
  • I wonder if he will be able to edit articles more than he is able to edit talk pages. This fact has not been one of his best points in the past. Wikipedia is not MySpace.
  • I wonder if he isn't just soaping us up with all these mature replies, only to cause more disruptions when he is unblocked. This is something that I am formost keeping in mind when I vote for him to be unblocked.

Looking at some of my concerns above, and reading some of the other people's concerns at the unblock request page, I would therefore like to propose that we vote for him to be unblocked now. It has been about 1.5 weeks since Barliner proposed that we wait 2 weeks before voting for him to be unblocked, and now I think it is time. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I want to keep him blocked. But he's, to use a political term, the Israel in my Palestine. I'm going to be very biased towards this issue, so it's probably best I don't intervene. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not saying that he should be unblocked. I am merely asking if the community would like to vote to have him unblocked. It doesn't mean that I support him being unblocked. Razorflame 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a good reason first! And for now, count my vote as the second (after Gwib's) opposing vote. - Huji reply 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User gets blocked for mass mischief on en.wp. We go grr..., then enough people say "Second chance!!!". 5 chances later we go grr... again. Pointy sticks come into play and all is good in the wikidom again. A short time go by and lo and behold, it wasn't his fault. He had a condition, but coincidently the gods of timing (and as I have been told Britians often less than timely medical system) comes to the rescue and miraculously stops all of his issues and makes him a canidate for "editor of the year". Nearly everyone rejoices and says "sorry for banning you, have another chance" (which will likely turn into 5 more as history loves repeats so much that it lives in syndication).
On this miraculously timed medicated miracle, we have the word of two people. One has a history on two wikis questionable veracity and apparently going out of his way to cause disruption. The other, while apparantly atleast trying to become a valuable editor, is RL friends with the first and has not exactly been the most honest in the past in his actions. His comments on the matter need to be considered in light of this fact. Short of a certified letter from a registered health care provider, we have no actual proof that any of this story is real. All we have is "Assume Good Faith" and that horse was beat to death weeks ago in this case. Let the poor horse RIP and let him stay exactly where he worked so hard to be - infinite blocked. This case has already wasted far too much of our individual and collective time. -- Creol(talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Creol, but I believe that your comments towards me above are unjust. But, I shall say no more on the matter, as we are not discussing me. As I have said a few times already, I know it will be hard to believe me for alot of you, because Ben is my Friend, and I very well could be lying for all you know. But, I believe that here, I am becoming a helpful and valuble editor to the team here and I would like to believe that you can trust me. I can assure you, that if I knew that Ben wanted to come back with ill intention, then I would cast my vote for him to stay blocked, because (as a few of you know), I am now into reverting vandilism, and if ben came back and played up, I would have to be one of the users here to help set things strait again - and I really would rather that not be done. Getting onto Ben's treatment, He had been on a waiting list for about a year to recieve this treatment, and has finnally been put through to recieving it and I am grateful to the lord that it is having a posative effect on him, althpough it did not have an effect for the first week or so, it is all in full swing now. At school, he has been cheerful and enthusistic, as well as persistantly hard-working in the classes I take with him. He has also been quite the perfectionist - being hard on himself when he gets questions wrong or doesn't understand something. He seems to take more time and care over his work, and his mood swings havn't been seen at any time, infact, he goes to school all five days a week now, which used to be quite the achievement before. I have been told that I should not participate in this vote - so you don't have to worry about me swinging the vote in Ben's favor. But to be honest, I'm neutral in this vote anyway, it won't really make a difference to me either way, because I'm just here to edit now. Thank-you, I hope you take on board all that I say, but i completely understand if you choose toignore what I have said because of my closeness to the situation. But, as the only one who knows ben in real life, I have to say that I have seen a dramtic change in him for the better since the beginning of his treatment. Ben tells me that he will be scanning his medical certificate of treatment into the computer and uploading onto commons for those who are not nsure about wheather or not they belive him about his treatment. Thnank-You again. IuseRosary? (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure scanning his certificate is a very good idea if you were serious about that - although that is a point to be taken into consideration, there are many other factors in this decision, and I think it is taking things a little too far to be uploading evidence for us, not to mention the privacy aspect. Archer7 - talk 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said he doesn't mind, but i'll pass the message that you don't think it's a good idea. the certificate doensn't have to many details, just his name, DOB and aload of medical mumbo jumbo. IuseRosary? (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very, very bad idea, and it will probably be deleted if he tries. Archer7 - talk 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told him not to upload, and instead I will raise his unblocking here (below)--Bärliner 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of hisk-risk templates

I would like to ask administrators if they think that we should be protecting high-risk templates like en:WP does. Do any of the current administrators here support this idea? If that's the case, then the following is a list of templates that I think should be protected because they are high-risk templates:

If you think up of any more templates that you think need to be protected, feel free to add them to the list. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't a user earlier just notify you of a spelling mistake on the welcome template? They're not a high source of vandalism and generally other users who know of their existence help them rather than hinder. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, letting people edit all pages is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Unless there is high load of vandalism, I oppose protecting a high-risk template for any duration longer than a few hours. - Huji reply 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demotions of users from positions

There are several users that have been fairly inactive from this Wikipedia that I would like to propose that we remove their permissions due to inactivity:

Why do their rights need to be removed if they are inactive? TBC just came back from a break, whose to say that others will not come back. Oysterguitarist 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they do come back, they could always ask to have their rights given back at their request. Razorflame 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion of M7 from Checkuser

Even though this user has been fairly active on this Wikipedia, however, the last checkuser thing he did was back in November of last year. I would therefore like to request that he be put up for removal of his Checkuser status due to inactivity. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I agree about my unnecessary CU flag, new elections for CU and bureaucrat should take place. --M7 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he doesn't want it, don't make him keep it. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust M7, and I know he is dealing with CU as a steward (just not on this Wikipedia, perhaps). However, I second what Gwib said: we can demote him if he thinks he won't be able to help us as a CU any more than before. - Huji reply 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall checkuser comment: One thing to note, even with M7's acceptance in this case, I would strongly caution against removal at least until a replacement is selected. At a time with a dire need for checkusers we were hard pressed to drum up the needed 25 votes needed to pass. As that need is not as essential now, we may not be able to get enough votes. IF a new user is selected, then would be the time to deal with this. While the activity level is realy not enough to demand 3 Cu's at this point and the rules only require 2, the third can act as a tie breaker/ mediator in cases where the other two do not agree on a case (and yes, there has been issues but they have been discussed privately and dealt with for the most part). As to the activity and need for CU at times, RfCU is not the only source creating the need for checks. Cross-wiki vandals create a constant need to determine activity and account creation from many IPs all the time. CU's from all wiki's constantly relay information of vandal attacks to each other to prevent the damage from spreading (WoW, JtV, multiple stalkers, etc). There is a lot of action that needs to be dealt with that no one without access to the CU logs and mailing lists sees. -- Creol(talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you here, and hereby ask M7 to postpone his request for removal of CU flag to when we have successfully selected a new CU to replace him. - Huji reply 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of Tygrrr for Checkuser

Following up on the last post, I would therefore, if the community decides to demote M7 to nominate Tygrrr to succeed him. Tygrrr is much more active on this Wikipedia than M7, and therefore, I think he would be a better choice for Checkuser. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion of Blockinblox from 'Crat

Blockinblox, even though he has done a great job of being a bureaucrat in the past, has not been very active recently. Even though he does have some amount of activity, the last time that he did any bureaucrat work was back in November of last year. I would therefore like to propose to the community that he is replaced with someone more active. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Creol for Bureaucrat

Following up on the last post, I would therefore, if the community decides to demote Blockinblox from bureaucrat to nominate Creol to succeed him. Creol is much more active, has done many great things for this Wikipedia, and is a very, very, very good candidate for becoming a bureaucrat. I would therefore like to say that Creol is a better choice for a bureaucrat. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it a good idea, so I nominated him for B - Huji reply 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Aflm and Freshstart from Sysop status

Finally, I would like to suggest to the community that both of these sysops be desysopped from this Wikipedia due to inactivity. Both have done no edits since late 2006, which is just ridiculous. Just having them retain their sysop status would endanger us if a hacker got into their accounts. Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Di?. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say J Di. It was decided that if he/she doesn't want his/her sysop flag, that he/she could go to the Meta board to have it removed. Razorflame 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't these users do the same? J Di shouldn't really be given unique treatment over these others, especially since Angela is huge over at En Wiki. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is because they have obviously retired from this Wikipedia. I think that we, as a community, should decide this matter, since neither of these people have been around for more than a year. Razorflame 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned en:WP users

I am sorry for bringing this up, but I just have to bring this up. I disapprove of anyone that is banned on the regular English Wikipedia from coming here to edit. I see of it as though we are both a testing grounds for banned users to rejoin the regular English Wikipedia's community afterwords, and as a way for those banned users to evade their ban. I am sick and tired of all the stress that it has caused our community in the past, and I want to prevent this from happening in the future. I would therefore like to suggest to this Wikipedia that all banned accounts from en:WP that create accounts here get blocked for the reasons that I have stated above. I would like to also ask all the administrators on here to talk in detail about this problem, as I believe that it is one that needs to be fixed. Cheers! Razorflame 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think Benniguy, a banned user from en Wiki, should be unblocked and given another chance... --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that I disapprove of anyone from this point on coming here to edit from the regular English Wikipedia. Hope this clears it up. Razorflame 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements are quite close to contradicting themselves, but you gave good reasons to back your arguments. However, we do try to "assume good will". --Gwib -(talk)- 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are able to show that they are going to give good will to this Wikipedia, I would be fine with letting them edit, however, if they are not able to show good will, then I see no reason to allow them to edit here. Razorflame 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would therefore like to suggest to this Wikipedia that all banned accounts from en:WP that create accounts here get blocked". This statement pretty much cancels out good will as well as everything else. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As a separate wiki, users banned on ENWP are not evading a ban here.
  2. The blanket proposal of Razorflame ignores the "assume good faith" principle
  3. What of statements made by Benniguy at User:Inkpen2, and updates on my talkpage by IuseRosary? Would such a blanket ban allow compassion? --Bärliner 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on this Razor. I'm a banned enWP editor. And this is my way of showing them I've changed...plus it keeps me on Wikipedia.--  † ChristianMan16  20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ditto the above comments. -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_10&oldid=2326162"