This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I was wondering whether it would be in our scope to start creating some LTA pages to track down persistent vandals. Like a sort of staging ground for collecting all information we know about this Disney vandal. Cassandratalk00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a community ban of some kind is in order. Revert/delete/block anything this guy does. It's what I do currently, but would be better for it to be official. A LTA page would be useful to describe the style of editing/how to deal with it etc. Majorlytalk00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global blocking has finally been implemented for all wikimedia projects. Using it, a steward can block an IP on all projects at the same time. The main purpose is to more easily stop cross-wiki vandalism. The Global Block List logs all of these blocks and should be consulted for unblock requests from IPs if no entry can be found in our block log.
Global blocks can be locally ignored on an IP by IP basis using the Global block whitelist but I would strongly suggest you be extremely careful when doing so since if the IP was globally blocked there is certainly a very good reason for it. Whitelisting because an IP requests it should not be done. This should only be used in the case of an established user and after carefully looking into the situation. Either the steward who blocked or a checkuser should be contacted before whitelisting any IP.
The only project where the block does not apply is Meta. This allows any blocked IP to request unblocking at m:Steward requests/Global. All block requests should also be brought up to the stewards there. So far, only one unblock request has been filed, by one of the main reasons for the extension in the first place. All IPs requesting to be unblocked should be refered to the Meta request page.
Todays vandal spree was caused by User:Andrew from NC. The first batch ("Somewhere Out There" through "Somewhere Out There 5" were all created from his own IP. The rest were created using open proxies (now blocked). Aside from the general act of vandalism, socking, and open proxies, there is a deeper issue. Looking at the edits of User:Somewhere Out There and User:Somewhere Out There 5, there is a concerted act against religious beleifs which are not Christian. In effect, a religiously motivated vandal spree, a "wiki-hate crime", so to speak, against evolutionists, Hinduism and Buddhism. The user has been blocked for 1 week for the vandalism/socking and given the basic warning for those actions, but I have to wonder if further action/warning needs to be taken due to the nature of the vandalism (at the bare minimum, this is extreme POV pushing) and its likeliness to repeat. -- Creol(talk) 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems my Wikiproject was hit hard by User:Somewhere Out There, and there isn't any non-Christian material in the articles (unless you count pornography, masturbation etc). However, the edits of User:Somewhere Out There 5 are particularly discomforting. He uses normal edit summaries to try and 'hide' his vandalism, knowingly reverts others, vandalised a userpage and talk page on one occasion and breaks redirects. I would block for longer than 1 week. Possibly 3 months? --Gwib -(talk)-13:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that apology note suggests he thinks evolution is "nonfactual". I can't see how anybody with that viewpoint can ever help build an encyclopedia. MindTheGap (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think AndrewFromNC is a person who has rather strong views. There was a discussion about censorship (see here) on Simple Talk, something AndrewFromNC had to contribute: I came across this and I couldn't resist adding my two cents. Nudity on Wikipedia is inappropriate. If children want to learn about sexual behavior or body parts, they should ask their parents. If adults are looking for that type of thing, they're sick. Those who defend the nudity here on Wikipedia are pornographers. End of story. --Andrew from NC (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I later blocked him for repeatedly calling people pornographers)- If We now imply that his views on religion are similar, then such acts of vandalism can be partly understood (Please understand me right here: It is legitimate to think ideas like Evolution are wrong, but an editor should at least admit that Evolution is an option, and possibly some people are satisfied with the answers it can provide). In very short: He has used sockpuppets to vandalise articles that seem to go against his beliefs - Our duty here as an encyclopedia is to provide information. Since this is his first offense, I think the current block time is in order; if he becomes a repeat offender, then we can look at longer-time blocks. Gwib: I have semi-protected articles like Abortion (because I became sick of the pro-life/pro-choice wars going on there. You might want to do the same with articles you consider to be a high risk. --Eptalon (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This along with Creol's above summary of acts of vandalism press me to an indef ban. These kinds of accusations, namely "he (Larry King) had no such right to homosexuality, nor does anyone else in the world" show that these acts of vandalism to religion-related articles will not stop, he will not repent (ironic word usage?) and, to him, his removal of accurate information was a service. My apologies to MidTheGap, he is completely correct. --Gwib -(talk)-17:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ban him, 6 months. This is a useless editor, who is no help to the encyclopedia, that vandalises with sockpuppets, using his main account as the "good hand" account. If he apologises, we should let him back for a second chance. If that doesn't work, and he does this again, we should block him for another 6 months, and at the end of his ban, we shall see if his behavior has changed any. If not, permaban and it's over.
Personally, I always did think that User:American Eagle, User:ChristianMan16, and Andrew from NC had formed a right-wing friends cabal, a group of people who edit with the same interests, views, and know/like each other personally, or have met on-line before. Their behavior always seemed suspicious, and I think they should all be given a 3-day block for consistent usage of WP for social networking. However, I had no knowledge of this and had nothing to do with it. — Jonas Rand · (talk)20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) "This is a useless editor"? He has contributed constructively before this. Saying he's "useless" when he has contributed positively before is close to a personal attack. What he did here in this situation is an issue though. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ionas, watch your tongue. As someone who's been in trouble on numerous occasions for violent left-wing views, you are running parallel to Andrew from NC. As always, your contributions are useful and necessary, but say it with more caution. --Gwib -(talk)-20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a useless editor? I created a "right-wing friends cabal?" I had never met any of them anywhere, I have never made this a social networking site, I have never vandalized or been bias. And neither has ChristianMan16. He is the only writer of wrestling-related articles and has done well in keeping us updated in it. Andrew from NC surprised me. He is doing wrong and should be blocked with his sock-puppets. A ban is not needed as of now, only if it increases out-of-control later on. — AE (talk)20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) he may have contributed constructively in the past, his social activities with American Eagle (and, if I recall correctly, ChristianMan16) and his disruption at the start of his wiki-career (advocating the censorship of educational material at Simple Talk [User talk:Andrew from NC#Blocked and the section below, showing AE's clear defense of the censorship]). Actions such as this are not to be taken lightly.
No, AE, I was not calling you a useless editor, I meant andrew. However, I did mean that I believe that you formed a right-wing group of cronies.
To Gwib, I always want to avoid drama, but it seems I'm always a magnet for it because of my past. I'll try to restrain myself a bit more, but this just needed to be said. I will be compiling evidence on this friendship editing. — Jonas Rand · (talk)21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--- Now I'm a "group of cronies," wow. I look forward to your so-called "evidence." Partial side note, not to do with your attacks, you have accused people of this before, but I did not know who you were then, see here. Please stop attacking me, I have not talked with either of them in weeks and I have no idea who they are. This could be considered WP:NPA, I have not done anything wrong and have done much to grow our Wikipedia - you are wrong. — AE (talk)23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily protected his talk page as the discussion was quickly going to become a religious debate and argument. It is clear to me that this user cannot adhere to NPOV guidelines and will violate NPA rules if you challenge him. The intolerance he has shown saddens and scares me. - EchoBravo contribs 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of unloading our vandals to a more appropriate environment. He would still have that urge to vandalise mindlessly (i.e. without religious undertones, as he has done here) and to create sockpuppets. --Gwib -(talk)-20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose. Just figured maybe he would enjoy the environment there more and instead of feeling like he had to vandalize he would contribute productively there. -Djsasso (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps he'd find the content less inflammatory toward his viewpoint and therefore be less likely to go on a mindless POV-pushing spree. It's pretty clear from his edits here that he's going to find it difficult to edit with a NPOV. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, he's made it clear that he finds it impossible. He's said many times that he wants Wikipedia to be "pro-Christian", and not to recognise any other viewpoints except his ouwn (because he believes they are the absolute truth). To include any other viewpoints in his writing would be against his beliefs (as he only edits Christian pages). Archer7 - talk12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfD (again)
Again there is a backlog on RfD, some of them should have been closed weeks ago. Can someone at least look at it every once in a while. F SM15:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only backlog was one article which needed redirected (with a one line merge) and a request which had little to no consensus (1 merge, 1 delete).
One of the problems with the new RfD system (and the RfA system for that matter) is that it is making it more difficult to watch the pages for changes. As all the pages are now subpages, each time a new entry gets added, it has to be set to watch. If a person misses it being added, they may never know it even exists were as the old made certain constant reminders were there to check. If I don't get a notice about Rfd and RfA changes, I tend to ignore the page and deal with the other 25 changes I got notices. Missing the one change on the page to add the subpage in a group consisting of 4 people arguing on one talk page, five on another, a WP:CHU request, bot request, three discussions on wp:AN, a couple on Simple and two cross-wiki vandals I need to check on.. not that hard to not notice and not hit "watch" for the pages. -- Creol(talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On English Wikipedia, there's a useful bot that lists all open votes that are ready to close. I wonder if we could get that implemented here somehow... Majorlytalk21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, we get very few RfDs. It is almost useless to have a bot. A good idea will be to check the main RfD page every now and then. ChenzwTalk11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, we can file a bug to add "cascading watching" as a new feature. (if you watch a page with the cascading option, all pages transcluded in it get watched also) ChenzwTalk11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please close my RfA as i now have 7 opposes and no supports. I asked Gwib but I think he has gone offline... F SM20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the general picture... I wish people had said some of these things to me on my editor review. After all that is what they are for. But yes I am sure, I might re-apply in a few months. Cheers. F SM20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a protection notice on this template, yet the page is unprotected. I would normally just remove the notice, however I'm raising it here in case it actually needs protection. Anyways, thanks in advance. mc818:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... userbox templates should not be in template namespace (yet..). Does anyone want it in their userspace? If not, I will move it to mine. ChenzwTalk11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had moved all 3 userbox templates to FSM's userspace. However, the redirects were deleted, they were moved back to the mainspace and my motives questioned. --Gwib -(talk)-12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a layout template for userboxes, not an actual userbox template. As such, it should belong in the template space and not in the user space.--TBC19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a proposed guideline. There hasn't been any discussion or consensus on it to make it an actual guideline. Either way, layout templates (even for userboxes) should be in the template space.--TBC19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I don't see the harm in having them in article space. People are going to contribute or they are not. And having them doesn't hurt the project any. I don't really use them much (yes I have a few) so I don't really care either way but I really don't see the harm. People often talk about this taking up users times they could be using on articles, but people are going to edit articles when they feel like it or they aren't. Userboxes won't change that. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, there's been no consensus over the page. I personally have no disagreements with it, but it's likely that other users might.--TBC20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My theory was that it is consensus until someone else decides that it is not - it's a guideline, agreed with by most editors, until someone disagrees (and thus changes it to proposed). mc821:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is now back to the edited version. Sometimes the software has "hiccups" and the mediawiki interface sets back to the default version. This was probably just a "hiccup".--≈ Lights χ 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Vandal
User:Uareawesome, I beleive, from edit pattern, this is another reincarnation of the Disney Vandal. Aren't they block on sight? If not, just keep an eye on their edits. Cheers. F SM19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have put in on WP:VIP but I wasn't sure. Don't know where they get all these computers to edit from... F SM19:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Lights, I disagree with your block. The user made several good changes, some of which you reverted anyway, and two I reverted back (see here and here). Maybe just IMO, but the user has made several good changes, I don't understand why you would "block on sight" when the user is making good contributions. Especially with no warning. — AE (talk)19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right AE, my block was way to harsh. I should have assumed good faith. I have unblocked and restored all changes. If he ends up making unconstructive changes I will reblock.
In response to FSM: The Disney vandal may have a dynamic or static IP which he can change or changes automatically occasionally.--≈ Lights χ 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all his edits were constructive. The plot summaries he added were copy-pasted from other internet sites (which counts as a copyvio). He does occasionally make good edits, but his vandalism, sockpuppetry, and unconstructive behavior violates Wikipedia's policies. --TBC00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TBC already reblocked User:Uareawesome along with another sock of his (forgot the user name...) yesterday. I would suspect he'll be creating more socks in the time being. How many socks has he created? 10? Not sure the exact number, but this user has been repeatedly been sock puppeting from what I've seen. -- RyanCross (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring to the comuntinies attention former ENWP MedCom chair User:Daniel. Daniel has violated WP:NPA on a number of occations this forghtnight:
On Simple Talk, he suggested banning everyone who has Asperger Syndrome, even if they legitimally have it. He also used a IP (that is being CU'd to make sure) to continue discussion, blanked discussion 3 times at least, and then redirected the page.
On his User Talk page, saying he would shoot me if a sniper reached all the way to Victoria
On my RfA, where he came across from EN, solely to oppose my RfA. Quoting Marjory - "It's sad you have to bring your past grudges to a wiki you don't ever edit, or care about (seeing your talk page).".
I would like Daniel blocked for a period of time for disruption, vandalizim (redirecting pages) and borderline harassment. I suggest at least one month. Thanks -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is very disappointing behaviour, from a former enwp MedCom chair. However, blocking is punitive now. I thought of doing it at the time, but didn't seem worth it. Certainly his behaviour towards you is unpleasant and unnecessary nasty. He should be setting an example. Majorlytalk22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's rather poor form to vote on projects you don't edit on, and not accept the consequences, but he was simply opposing with everyone else. Though his adjective use "Extraordinarily strong" is meaningless in an RfA. He's been disruptive whilst logged out, and if it continues, I'll consider taking action. Maybe he'll get the hint this isn't acceptable here. Majorlytalk22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good to see more misrepresentations. I did not suggest banning people with Asperger's Syndrome; I suggested prohibiting people who have it for using it as an excuse for their disruptive behaviour, as it was directly relevant to the discussion in hand (people who use AS to excuse their behaviour were proposing banning others from citing their misbehaviour at other wikis, and so this was very similar).
And I'm pretty sure that the Victoria thing was pretty obviously a joke, especially as I said it was directly after it. Like, seriously.
Harassment? That's so totally out of left field that it doesn't even merit a response. Don't put yourself into a trust-vetting process if you won't like the outcome. "Not accepting the consequences" would be to vote with an undisclosed sockpuppet, not a globally unified account.
And the only reason I'm not using my account and am using my disclosed IP address is because my account is inaccessible at the moment. Just to appease you, I've gone back and resigned all the comments made by this IP with "Daniel". I've also re-reverted my IP talk page, and I ask that people let Da Punk know that he is not permitted to continue reverting me. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given you created a section on preventing people from using en:wp sockpuppettry as a reason to oppose, his comment reads as preventing (banning) people form using the fact that they have AS as a defense. In no way does it say people with AS should be banned, only that they can't claim it as a defense for their actions.
There is no violation of policy in his blanking his talk page or redirecting it.
Of the 5.2 million people in Victoria, I highly doubt you are the only person he would consider shooting. Taking the joke comment to seriously mean he is personally targetting you is a bit much.
His Sole reason was your RfA? Then why was he here less than four hours before hand commenting in Razorflames RfA? The fact that he was active a couple hours before your RfA even existed indicates it was not his sole reason.
His (stricken) vote: I take it that would be the vote you yourself struck long after the vote was withdrawn and self-archived? The one you struck at the same time striking a vote from a former admin? That edit has been undone. Likely his vote would had not been counted due to activity, but to strike it over 2 months later and to strike an acceptable vote? How is that not vandalism on your part? I would think the 5800+ edits he made would qualify him to be allowed to vote.
You have misread his comments and misrepresented his action and his motification. You have violated policy in actions against him. And you are claiming he is attacking you? -- Creol(talk) 07:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Da Punk '95 is making some extreme claims and he can't back them up. If he doesn't have the ability to realise the comment was about people with Aspergers using it as an excuse rather than wanting to ban (where he got that idea from, I have no idea) then I have serious questions about whether he has the ability to contribute to an encyclopedia. In summary - grow thicker skin. MindTheGap (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Da Punk has retired, need this go on? Let's stop here and with a bit of luck he'll find the maturity to come back and edit without holding grudges. --Gwib -(talk)-12:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the other seven times he has "retired" in the one year he has been here and the two semi-retirements and a Right to vanish (which is useless when he self-identifies and edits his own page using the old account)?. He could be back in a couple days, a week or a month. He retires (and returns) more often than we change the main page.-- Creol(talk) 12:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per what seems to be that I can not edit here, I have blocked myself using a wikibreak enforcer until January 9, 2009, which is the day my ENWP ban ends. I will be disabling e-mail. I will aim to do what Gwib mentioned above, and I apoligize to Daniel for this grudge. I ask that nobody edits my monobook.js page, even if I request, unless en:User:Punk Boi 8 states I am no longer banned. Please also treat this as a ban. This is the only way I can keep everyone happy. -- Da Punk '95 talk 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS RIDICTOLUS. I HATE THAT PEOPLE RETIRE BECAUSE 1 or 2 people make them lost their self-esteem. DON'T RETIRE! StaticElectrify My Thoughts 00:53, Sunday August 312008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we drop this matter completely (ie. no future discussions either). Daniel has "retired" from Wikimedia (see here) so I think we should let it go. (btw. Daniel, get in touch with me at some point...) —Giggy03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Giggy, those people want Daniel gone so they can get back to the way things were. But I know the truth. You've changed things...forever. There's no going back. Cassandratalk04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't necessary. I've created an archive (since they were pesky enough to nominate you at the beginning of a new month), chucked you in it using the new archival system (reason is "Declined Nomination") and placed {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}} messages on it. --Gwib -(talk)-19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget
Here's another.] It adds functionality to the interwiki box - click "in other languages"2 and the box will cycle between native names, English names and the actual link, which is useful if you want to check that the English link actually links to the right English article, without actually needing to click on the link to find out. Microchip•talk11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - While we have this thread going on, can someone check the code of popups? I am unable to use the revert function. In addition, does anyone know what the popups API does? ChenzwTalk12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yet another. Adds a tab at the top, which, if clcked, will highlight all links to redirects in a pretty green, which (could) be good for seeing redirects that could be better off as articles. Microchip•talk12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please change the Interwiki description so it has something like "To cycle, click the text saying "in other languages""? Thanks. Microchip•talk13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Chenzw's question and let others know - The API popups is the newest version of TheDJ's fork of Lupin's popups. Our version of Lupin's in gadgets is the March 2007 (updated through December 07) version based on using query.php. TheDJ's is the March 08 version (updated through a late August 08) using api.php. Api.php started being used near the beginning of the year but query.php was also still supported for quite some time. As of August 25, query.php was finally shut down. This caused the old popup's to start acting odd. Reverts would stop automatically saving, category members would not show up in the preview, the count function linked to the users en:wp edits, etc. I copied over TheDJ's version, fixed the counter issue and added it separately to test and make certain it worked properly. On my computer, everything seems to work fine with it. If anything it seems to be working a little faster than Lupins did. If you are using the old gadget, I would advise switching over to the new one. -- Creol(talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why my reverts wouldn't save. The sandbox reset doesn't save automatically anymore either, and will have to be fixed by someone with better knowledge of code that I. --Gwib -(talk)-14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure your clock is working? On local time (US-EST), I am seeing the vandal at 10:10 (14:10) and 10:12 (14:12) then warned at 10:21 (14:21). No vandal action after warning (or the nine minutes before warning). Check the contributions and talk history again not Kennedy's sig. (Your own sig is saying it is not 15:12 yet.. ) -- Creol(talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know my sig is way off my local time, but I presumed that all edits were made under the same clock here (i.e. the whole of SEWP is 'fixed' in a specific time zone). I looked at the history of the vandalism, compared it with the warning time and lo and behold, he'd vandalised after warning.
If SEWP isn't fixed in a time zone and those times I listed vary depending on which user made them, then I'm probably wrong. But if there is one common time zone, then the times listed above should be right. --Gwib -(talk)-15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All signatures are based off a specific timezone (UTC+0), but logs and histories are based on local time set in your preferences. If you look at the contributions, you see the timezone you have set (I am guessing you are seeing UTC-1 - 16:15ish local time for you) which would have his actions at 15:12. If you check the history of the talk page, the warning will likely have been given at 15:21 with the signature saying 14:21. Comparing signature timestamps and log timestamps usually brings up differences. -- Creol(talk) 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if Kennedy, living in Scotland (I'm guessing), and this IP, living in Florida ([1]), have custom times, then (unless my maths is defunct) two acts vandalism were made before the warning. I might have to double check that, but it should be right. I'll go unblock him. --Gwib -(talk)-15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindenting) Gah, two links is all I needed and I actually used a bloody diagram to go the long way and see how many timezones the two places were apart! This just proves the otherwise accepted theory that Maths is codswallop. --Gwib -(talk)-15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Siggy time does not equal when stuff happens time (unless you happen to live near Ingland an certain parts o Africae) - simply put :) -- Creol(talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP, while it has no history here earlier than this month, has a history elsewhere that identifies it as a banned en:wp user. It has been blocked for 6 months. -- Creol(talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, it turns out that the 1709 vandal was IuseRosary after all? And Simple11 and Novodarsky were Benniguy? I doubt, based on how Benniguy was acting in that timeframe, that he would do such a thing. I'm sure Creol knows about this, or thinks that he does. How was this revelation discovered and where? — Jonas Rand · (talk)08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual 1709 vandal was not IuseRosary. IuR and Bennyguy just created multiple accounts using the name in the same way they used the Simple11 vandal name. The real 1709 is an eastern European (Ukrainian) ru.wp vandal who was very distinctive in the trail he left behind both here and on ru:wp. IuR's trail was as blatantly obvious, but in an entirely different form. The simple11 impersonation was even more funny as I had already been in direct contact with their school (and the gov't organization that runs their internet access - UK school kids realy should learn that their vandalism from school is using government systems and the government is much more likely to take action than a commercial ISP) and they were locked down long before the impersonation started. -- Creol(talk) 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving adminship requests
With the new subpage system, is it even necessary to create archives beyond Archive8? We can list all the requests for a long time afterwards... cassandra (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to archive RfA's after the system went online. The new system is essencially its own archive and the software itself (special:prefixindex and Special:allpages) provides the archive framework should they need to be looked up later. -- Creol(talk) 08:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that – tabling and archiving RfAs allows people to see how many RfAs happened within a given time as well as analyze patterns. For instance, most people withdraw their RFAs when it's clear that it isn't going to pass, and we've gotten about 1-2 new admins a month since the new system went online in August. cassandra (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I feel we are beyond the AGF limit. So far the user has been blocked for under 9 different user names (Iluvteletubbies, Uareawesome, Wow101, Bambifan101, No, Weredozen, Tinkywinkylover, Letmesee and Tinkywinkyisawesomeandnotgay) and used 44 seperate IPs (at least 10 of which have been blocked after we started blocking due to disruptive activity). One thing of note, there is a second vandal who tends to get lumped in with the Disney vandal - the user creating most of the gumby "articles". These are two seperate individuals from very seperate locations. As the Disney vandal has been blocked no less than 19 times already, I can't help but feel long term actions may need to be taken. The person is using a dynamic ISP with three seperate ranges. Each of these ranges is relatively small compared to some of our range blocks (2 /20 ranges and one /18 compared to 5-6 /16 ranges for Benniguy and 8 /16 ranges for Kate McA's stalker) and all activity in the last three months is solely from this single user. -- Creol(talk) 06:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
erm... do not hardblock the "vandal". I believe her/his intent was to vandaliz, due to the hature of the edits. some edits are constructive, while others are destructive. However, the edits look made by someone who is new to Wikipedia. She/he may not have read the rules on Wikimarkup. WP:AGF — Jonas Rand · (talk)16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly they have being doing the same thing on en-wiki for a long time. This is definately not just a new user. They have been warned about this many times. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told 68.220.162.165 (talk·contribs) to go open a topic on ST to merge, and he refused to and continued to revert. Creol, TBC, etc. have told him to stop copying and pasting and articles, and he continues to do so. He knows uor polices, what we do, and refuses to follow them. cassandra (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, this same person is regularly vandalizing numerous articles and talk pages over at the English Wikipedia as well. An on-going thread on dealing with him is occurring at the ADministrators noticeboard, which includes some usernames he hasn't used here and a long list of known IPs. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I really need to provide a reason? I am going to post the contents on a website, as I am compiling information on KA on that external website. Am I doing something wrong? — Jonas Rand · (talk)18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was deleted so people can't see it, meaning that we don't want it posted elsewhere. It's usually fine to release deleted information as long as there's a genuine need for it, but I can't really see one here. The reason it was deleted was to try and stop vandals turning into legends and encourage then by making them think they're somehow important. Archer7 - talk18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information is not confidential in the least. A page informing about a vandal does not trn them into "legends". WP:DENY is not policy on Enwiki, and does not even exist here. I apologize for calling your idea "stupid", which led to my banning a year ago, if what you are doing is holding a grudge against me. — Jonas Rand · (talk)18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I hold no grudges whatsoever. We generally use the EN policies to fill in the holes in ours when we find we haven't copied one over but it seems like too much work when we may only need to refer to it once. It's just a general rule, there are exceptions, but in the right circumstances we do use this one. You are right, the information is not confidential and we will usually release information privately to anyone who asks... as long as we think they're not going to release it publicly. If you do have any specific questions, feel free to ask them and I'll do my best to get you some answers, but I have to say that it does worry me a little if you're "compiling information" - I really see can't see what purpose it would serve. Archer7 - talk18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am worried about how this may relate to your request. I just plain don't trust you. I believe you may be out to harm wikipedia. Can you explain your request a bit further? Kennedy(talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy, I don't "[not] like administrators". Gwib was talking about old history. I am OK with administrators, at one time I did not favor admins very much, and these were certain admins. Creol was one of them. But that incident was not grudge-holding, it was merely a question because I was curious as to why someone would "attack" a new u ser like uptojoe.
Back to the point, I am compiling things for an article on encyc.org and I think that abuse page would make a good addition. The web site has become a wiki about Wikipedia, and some users, including me, are all members. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be copied. There is no personal information, IIRC, in the LTA page. — Jonas Rand · (talk)20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god... I will not provide you with any further information regarding Kimberly Ashton. That article that you've written is just totally wrong, in many ways. It is clear that you are obsessively tracking the Kimberly Ashton case - honestly, he/she/it is not interesting enough to justify hacking in order to obtain information about them. Effectively, you're doing exactly the same thing as KA, but you're doing it to her. I cannot see any justification for such a massive archive of information. I'm afraid there's no other way to put it. Archer7 - talk21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment starting with "Oh my god" - there is no reason for you to track KA like this. It's not right for you to compile this much information about one person. You are basically stalking Kimberly Ashton, and I cannot help you if you are driven by an obsession for information. you need to stop. Archer7 - talk21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my statement above. I will blank the page and ask Emperor, the owner of the site, to delete this, now that TRM, Alison, and Archer7 agree that it is obsessive.— Jonas Rand · (talk)21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jonas, please note that when the decision is made to ban a certain user, it is usually made in order to protect this Wikipedia; For all we can tell, the user Kimberley Ashton in their various incarnations did try to gather personal information beyond what is useful or necessary for this site to work. We therefore decided to indef ban them (to protect our users here). We are not in the least intersted in who KA really is, or what their (real life) problems may be. One of the reasons why people vandalise (generally) is because they want attention; by giving them attention you give them more reason to vandalise. It is therefore a very bad idea to make a "worst Simple English Wikipedia vandals" list. Also, before you publish any correspondence you should ask the users involved - this also applies if only aliases are mentioned.--Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a side note, not that I'm involved: Deleting these pages is also do protect the privacy of the vandals as well. They're still human and it's the WMF's job to protect its users no matter what they've done. *dashes* --Gp75motorsportsREV LIMITER11:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 7-12 as socks, I've dealt with this user in the past, they take articles and paste them into their user page, just block anymore accounts as an inappropriate user name. Oysterguitarist02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this user was IuseRosary or not, there is no purpose in renaming accounts as long as they don't reveal personal information or impersonate users. Otherwise, there is no purpose in renaming users and it is completely impractical. It only wastes time and effort, and does not accomplish anything, such as renaming accounts to (^vandal3). — Jonas Rand · (talk)19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a moderate amount of vandalism at the present, and I have noticed it has all come from the range 210.8.54.0/24. After investigating the contributions of this range, I have concluded that the only thing that has come from this range is vandalism. why don't we just block the range altogether? I have not seen a constructive edit from the range. — Jonas Rand · (talk)02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done AWB access - I did the last one , this one you do. -- Creol(talk) 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, goodnight. Chenzw Talk 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)