Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 13

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

IuseRosary

I have indefinitely blocked IuseRosary after he swore numerous times on the RfA board and on my own talk page and inserted nonsense into his own RfA. He also inserted images of me (which I believe to be trolling, or at the very least personal attacks). See here (nonsense on the RfA page), here (more RfA nonsense), here (trolling?) and here (swearing after being warned). I would also advice to read IuseRosary's talk page and my own talk page.

I think a block is in order but I want to know how long other users think the block should extend until, since an indef block isn't yet needed. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably also important to consider the cross-wiki attacks against you from his range (Creol mentioned it in the RfA). I don't believe we're quite at the indef level yet, but I'd say at least two weeks, extending to indef if it carries on upon his return. They're obviously just messing around on the other wikis thinking that we can't do anything based on actions over there. Archer7 - talk 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to list this on Simple Talk. Looks like we are going to have another Benniguy-style debate... Chenzw  Talk  12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say i'm neutral on the amount of block time, IuseRosary was trolling and causing disruption. I'd say to not bring this to simple talk since it would probably cause another stupid debate that goes on forever. Oysterguitarist 13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more voting. This situation doesn't warrant a polling of opinions of all users (I didn't think Beeniguy's situation did either, but what's done is done and it's beside the point). I think a brief conversation among admins should give us an answer shortly. I notice that last time, when a week-long block was suggested, we never actually did it. I think that his actions here would probably warrant a week-long block. The real question is whether or not we want to take into consideration the trolling that's going on at other wikis. If so, my opinion is that a 2-week minimum would be in order, a month might be more appropriate. I'm aware of other trolling but am not yet sure of the extent. I also think a bureaucrat should go ahead and close his RfA immediately. I take his actions (particularly him saying he doesn't accept his own self-nom and voting oppose to himself) as saying he's done with it. Not to mention that there isn't a chance in hell we're promoting a troll to adminship. · Tygrrr... 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this to a close ASAP and as efficiently as possible, I've blocked him for 1 month. With a bit of luck we'll have no sockpuppets, IP vanadlism or trolling for that period and other Wikipedia's won't be hit. I'd appreciate someone keep an eye on my user page and talk page while I'm at school though, he basically has nothing to lose and I rather like my designs as they are. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and we need someone to close Rf's RFA which ended yesterday, and of course this one. SwirlBoy39 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both closed. Hooray, no more discussing and polling! No more paracetamol! Archer7 - talk 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, i've protected his talk page do to disruption. Oysterguitarist 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in my opinion he should be blocked for at least two months, as he breached policy at least five times. I think he could also have something to do with Benniguy/InkPen2, as he said on User Talk:InkPen2 "His party was last week. It was megafun" at one point. How would he know it was "megafun" if he had nothing to do with Benniguy. Sorry if Im breaching AGF, but could I.R be a Benniguy sockpuppet? --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they just knew each other in real life. As friends. --Isis♠(talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, He's been emailed. If he wants to do the wiki good, he'll say. SwirlBoy39 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to their identities, both operated from different IP (ranges); That was checked at the time, when Benniguy was banned. Personally, I have seen them as acquaintances; possibly best friends, given what IuseRosary said. --Eptalon (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were definitely claiming to be friends, if we think back to the massive EN incident which sent them over here in the first place. The chances of them being sockpuppets are rather remote, it would take a lot of effort. Archer7 - talk 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a one month block is suitable. I've noticed that Gwib has changed the indef block to a one month block, and I'm okay with this. - Huji reply 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this is an appallingly inappropriate place to post this, but I'm really just looking for some more [for lack of a gender-neutral term] manpower..

My post is on WP:Simple talk#Legal issues and disclaimers. Apologies, Drum guy (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

202.45.119.*

This page shows 203 acts of vandalism from this range and from 10 different IP addresses. This means that each of the IP addresses in this range contributed to at least 20 acts of vandalism. While most of the edits were made last year, a few were made this year, which gives me cause for concern. At least 50% of the addresses have been blocked; 2 of which have been blocked multiple times.

Here are some examples of the vandalism:

  • 2008-03-17 202.45.119.134 changed (diff) Drunk driving
  • • 2008-03-14 202.45.119.134 changed (diff) Cranbourne, Victoria (/* Shopping centres */)
  • • 2008-04-14 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Legend
  • • 2008-04-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Rosario
  • • 2008-04-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Rosario
  • • 2008-04-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Rosario
  • • 2008-04-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Rosario
  • • 2008-04-08 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) History of Australia
  • • 2008-03-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Marcel Marceau
  • • 2008-03-11 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Marcel Marceau
  • • 2008-02-07 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Xbox 360 (/* Development */)
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot (do u know wot ur doin?)
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot (HI)
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Foot
  • • 2007-12-06 202.45.119.133 changed (diff) Tusk (New page: == Tusks == Tusks are made of ivory which is a very expentsive item to buy so hundreds of elphants get killed for only there TUSKS!)
  • • 2008-04-14 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) Legend
  • • 2008-04-14 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) Fat
  • • 2008-04-11 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) Hypercholesterolemia (Replacing page with 'Uh duh og fuh')
  • • 2008-04-07 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) Distillation
  • • 2008-03-17 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) Drunk driving
  • • 2007-12-02 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) North Pole
  • • 2007-12-02 202.45.119.132 changed (diff) North Pole

This is a truncated list. The full list shows 203 acts of vandalism. I would like to beseech the administrators of this site to be extra vigilant when dealing with this range in the future if the need so arises. While I do not believe that any actions needed at this time, I do believe that administrators should keep their eyes out for any edits from this range as they are most likely to be vandalism. Cheers, Razorflame 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time on this post and would hate to not have this information utilized in any partiuclar way. Cheers, Razorflame 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Snopake

If any of the older admins can remember what we called that vandal that hated Phaedriel and a bunch of other EN users, could you fill in the sockpuppet tag on User:Sergeant Snopake userpage? It's currently set to "unidentified lunatic". The Italian Vandal was mentioned in one of his edits, but I can't remember if he even existed over here. His edits might give you a few hints as to who he is. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was identified crosswiki as another JtV clone attack. I checked the ident to ensure it was him and updated the sock tag as confirmed. -- Creol(talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usurpation request — Jack Merridew

I've primarily been active on en:wp - and I'll answer any questions about that if anyone likes. I've been harassed by en:wp's w:User:Grawp vandal and one form that's taken has been his creation of accounts on other wiki's using my preferred user name 'Jack Merridew'.

See

  • wikt:Wiktionary:Changing username#User:JackMerridew TEMP → User:Jack Merridew [1]
  • q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#usurpation request — Jack Merridew [2]
  • ('twould appear that there's a difference to interwiki linking here as the expected format I tried to use didn't work; so I used full-urls)

where several very similar requests have been performed.

I see above a comment by User:Creol asking that usurp requests be made with out creating a temp account first; sorry, I saw it too late. This is the procedure I've been using and it has worked. Once this request is handled, I will immediately re-create the TEMP account in order to prevent abuse. I rather expect that many here know of Grawp from en:wp and will understand the need to cover all bases.

Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]

  Done. Don't worry about the TEMP account. The main reason against using it is due to the bug in the SUL process (can't rename to an SUL protected name). Since your account has not started the process, this is not a problem in this case. -- Creol(talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have re-created the User:JackMerridew TEMP account to avoid issues; issues I've experienced before, so please understand. Having made one edit to User talk:JackMerridew TEMP with it, I'm done with it; please block it forever (but not w/autoblock which will only ding me). Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling ranges

Hi there. I just wanted to inform all the administrators on this Wikipedia about three trolling ranges that have either been dealt with by Majorly or are currently being dealt with. The three ranges that I have seen trolling are:

  1. 213.103.xxx.xxx or 213.103.0.0/16
  2. 80.170.xxx.xxx or 80.170.0.0/16
  3. 77.218.xxx.xxx or 77.218.0.0/16

All three of these trolling ranges have been continuously recreating the article Gsthae with Tempo! and we have blocked at least 5 or 6 IP addresses for these ranges:

  • 19:28, 23 April 2008 EchoBravo (Talk | changes) blocked 77.218.197.238 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Creating bad pages)
  • 19:16, 23 April 2008 Majorly (Talk | changes) blocked 213.103.96.107 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (troll)
  • 18:05, 23 April 2008 Majorly (Talk | changes) blocked 80.170.50.239 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Creating bad pages)
  • 17:47, 23 April 2008 Majorly (Talk | changes) blocked 213.103.125.88 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (bye troll)

These are just some examples. Majorly has already blocked the 213.103.xxx.xxx range and probably will block the others. I just wanted to let you guys know what was going on. Thanks, Razorflame 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the first two, and will block the third should it start editing. The big issue here is this will block 196,608 people. Thus I've only done blocks for 24 hours. Any more issues with this user, and we should be contacting the ISP. Majorly (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the third started vandalizing again (admins can view the changes at Special:DeletedContributions/77.218.249.139) I've blocked the third one for 24 hours. I've also blacklisted pages with "with tempo" in the title from being created to prevent future problems.--Lights Deleted? 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is only minimal colateral damage on all three ranges combined (a handful of interwiki changes (fr.wp only) from IP edits, 1 registered account with no edits). Extended range blocks are not likely to cause an issue. -- Creol(talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChristianMan16/RIP sis

Someone hacked my user name and requested the deletion of the above page...I did not want it deleted and I would like an admin to restore it please.--  † ChristianMan16  21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one hacked your username, Eptalon probably just made a mistake. I have restored it. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks.--  † ChristianMan16  21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games protection request

I am requesting Olympic Games is protected as it is a target for vandals and there has been a large number of vandal edits --  Da Punk '95  talk  03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I think 2008 Summer Olympics and China should be the ones. In the case of persistent vandalism by just one IP, it should be blocked, not the page being protected. Anyway, it is still a bit too early. There are still 4 more months. Maybe you can make a request again next month or when there are new clashes in Tibet. Chenzw  Talk  05:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive user creation

From 14:27 to 15:04, it appeared that someone was mass creating user accounts. Is there a way to verify this? What should be done to these accounts? Chenzw  Talk  07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser should verify this (not taking into account WMF policy, however it should be ok as it could expose a sockfarm), and the accounts (should CHU come up that these are socks) should be indef blocked as sockpuppets. --  Da Punk '95  talk  08:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed that CAPTCHA doesn't allow mass creation of accounts, unless it is done by hand. I don't see a reason to CU the accounts now. All we can do is to keep a record of this, somewhere (like with a permanent link to that section of account creatin log which is about these accounts). If, after some time, one of these accounts turned out to be used for vandalism, we can check the rest of them against it. - Huji reply 09:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a permanent link: [3] Chenzw  Talk  10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a limit of six new account per IP per 24 hours, but it's obviously an IP hopping vandal. It's probably all the same vandal (with probably exceptions), that should be CUed, the proxy blocked, and all the accounts blocked (except the legit ones). Maxim(talk) 11:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that in the last 7 hours we have had 43 new accounts created and 40-ish would be normal for an entire day.. this is looking strange. I spot checked a couple of the accounts, but there was nothing to indicate a common link between them. This may require a more through examination as Maxim is likely to be right about this situation. -- Creol(talk) 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting odder. I checked 15 of the creations and got 15 different IPs and likely 14 computers. A hopping vandal would usually create multiples from one and then move to the next, too much effort to change each time this drastically. Most of the hits I am seeing from checking the IPs seems to be a lot of Chinese interest (possibly other Asia language). This all may be being generated by someone mentioning the site to some group of people and causing interest (for good or bad is unknown.. AGF..) -- Creol(talk) 11:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem, personally. Majorly (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with everyone in this case. This seems a little odd. There were a few accounts that I noticed that could be blocked for unacceptable usernames: that one Non-latin name and User:Empty11 for being too close in name to Simple11. Could this possibly be because of the range blocks that we did on the troling range up a little ways on this post? Cheers, Razorflame 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck is Empty11 close to Simple11?--  † ChristianMan16  04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number 11. However, based on Simple11's pattern, he would have created his own user page already, so he is very unlikely to be Simple11. Chenzw  Talk  04:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it close...If a person created mono356 and another person created alpha356...that two completely different things...the only similarity if the number 356 which is minuscule.--  † ChristianMan16  04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

212.219.0.0/16

I believe that this range should be range blocked for having an excessive case of vandalism from this range. If you don't believe me, just check out some of these changes:

  • • 2007-11-27 212.219.95.3 changed (diff) User talk:212.219.95.3
  • • 2007-11-27 212.219.95.3 changed (diff) User talk:212.219.95.3
  • • 2007-02-07 212.219.94.37 changed (diff) Operating system
  • • 2007-02-07 212.219.94.36 changed (diff) Operating system
  • • 2006-10-26 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Wii
  • • 2006-10-24 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) PlayStation
  • • 2006-10-24 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Xbox
  • • 2006-10-23 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Windows XP
  • • 2006-10-23 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Linux (/* Tux the penguin */)
  • • 2006-10-23 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Linux
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Cigarette
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Cigarette
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) McDonald's
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) God
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Penis
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Microsoft Windows
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Operating system
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Microsoft
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Operating system
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) PlayStation 3
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Windows 98
  • • 2006-10-18 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Windows 98
  • • 2006-10-12 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Pornography
  • • 2006-10-12 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Tony Blair
  • • 2006-10-12 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Earth (/* How the planet Johndude likes cocks began */)
  • • 2006-10-12 212.219.94.35 changed (diff) Earth

Here's some examples of the blocks that this range has received:

  • 05:32, 25 April 2008 Lights (Talk | changes) blocked 212.219.81.196 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)
  • 05:44, 25 April 2008 Lights (Talk | changes) blocked 212.219.235.211 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)
  • 08:54, 24 April 2008 Creol (Talk | changes) blocked 212.219.59.241 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (IP previously warned after second time abusing the unblocked template when not blocked.)
  • 07:12, 21 April 2008 Creol (Talk | changes) blocked 212.219.232.90 (Talk) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)
  • 10:03, 12 March 2008 Lights (Talk | changes) blocked 212.219.59.241 (Talk) with an expiry time of 48 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)

This is just a truncated list. The whole list is a list of 754 changes from this range, which I believe the majority to be vandalism. After checking through most of these changes, I have found that most of them have been reverted. I haven't yet checked into the block history for this range, but looking at the number of changes from this range, I have reason to believe that this range is abusing their rights here on the Simple English Wikipedia and that this range needs to be blocked for excessive vandalism.

The link to the whole list is here. You must have the new gadget enabled to view the list.

Cheers, Razorflame 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't call for a /16 block. A /23 should cover it. Or just block the IPs, there's only 4 - it's from a college/university, they won't be at it for long. Majorly (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, if you are just checking the four IP's from the examples that I gave, I would highly recommend you check the link that I posted so that you can see all 754 edits made from this range and see if you still think that a /23 block is enough for this whole range. Cheers, Razorflame 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for a /16 block. I put /16 because I didn't know how many IP addresses were editing from this range as they were all bunched together. Also, now that I've counted all the edits from all the IP addresses for all 754 edits, I found that there are 114 different IP addresses from this range that might've contributed to this vandalism. Cheers, Razorflame 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't worth it. You're wanting to block for edits made in 2006 and 2007. What's the point? Majorly (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it isn't worth it? Having 5 addresses blocked within the past month from this range seems like it would be worth it. What if this range was to continue vandalizing? I am not wanting to block just the accounts for vandalism from 2006 and 2007, I am wanting to block this range because of the total amount of vandalism that this range has given out to this Wikipedia over the course of the past couple of years, and I believe that I have provided more than enough information that this range block is justified. Cheers, Razorflame 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five is nothing. Rangeblocks should be used as a last resort, not for minor instances from a college. I seriously don't think it's worth blocking it all. Majorly (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that rangeblocks should be used as a last resort, but now, thanks to you, I do know that they should only be used as a last resort. Razorflame 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the range falls under JANET and is seperated into /23 and /24 segments, a /16 block there would kill one hundred or so school districts and other government agencies in the UK including affecting registered users in good standing here. Shutting down a district or two in cases of mass repeat vandalism is one thing, but 1/2 the schools in a country? That is a little overkill. -- Creol(talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that I would have to agree with you on this. I now think that this should be served as a wake-up call to the other administrators so as they can keep a sharp eye out for any other vandalism from this range. Cheers, Razorflame 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creol is correct. I would add that any range blocks (/23 or /24 or smaller even) shouldn't stay any longer than two to four weeks. They can be repeated with the same duration if needed, but it will be decided when needed. - Huji reply 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Creol. If needed, a /23 or /24 range block should be placed, not a /16 block.--Lights Deleted? 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Obviously, I still need work on using range blocks, but since they aren't required for an administrator to know...At least I was able to identify that this range needed to be looked at. I also agree with Creol. Obviously there needs to be a smaller block. I didn't know how small, so I just suggested a /16 block because I couldn't identify any smaller ranges that are part of this range for blocking. Cheers, Razorflame 13:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehaving bot

I've temporarily blocked, after not having receieved an answer, User:John Bot II, and I've left a message here.

Since the bot was approved for Redirect fix, I couldn't find any trace of community consensus nor approval upon its massive orphan redirect creation. --M7 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there was no consensus for it to do that. Majorly (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Compwhizii (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects are worthless, but it would be just as worthless deleting them all. Majorly (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll lift the block, but I don't think it would be a good idea creating anymore orphan redirects... --M7 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the redirects going to be deleted or do you need help..? Why I'm asking that Twinkle has script that can do this job in a few minutes very easily, yet I don't have sysop access so obviously I'm out of the question... Maxim(talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they need deleting personally. I do however have my own delete script I can use. Majorly (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.184.206.83 Racist Vandalism

See diffs [4] and [5]. Very offensive. --JulesN Talk 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Majorly (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_13&oldid=2326166"