Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 5

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Usernames

Please check the username log; it has some bad usernames not yet blocked (Jeorge W. Bush and BOT - George. W. Bush). Also DerHexer is not DerHexer like on en.wiki and de.wiki &mdsah; it's an obvious impersonator. As DerHexer created BOT - George W. Bush). Thanks! Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done: All usernames associated with the "Admin Username Vandal" created from August 21 forward are now blocked. -- Creol(talk) 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on protected page

Please add {{Goodimage}} on Image:Wiki.png. I'm marking everything in the Image namespace that should stay here, on simple, with the template. Thanks! Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can an admin also replace MediaWiki:Uploadtext with User:Maxim/Uploadtext? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename possibly needed

Can a bureaucrat please rename DerHexer (talk · contribs) to something like "sillyimpersonator" or similar. It's obviously not en:User:DerHexer or DerHexer as he created a vandalism account; I believe it was BOT - George Bush, or something similar. Thanks. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Archer7 - talk 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the accounts was renamed to User:^(impersonator-1). - Huji reply 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent unblock requests

Creol blcoked a rather broad IP range (66.174.0.0/16) after his checkuser investigations about a username vandal who created 43 vandal accounts, with the names of admins or famous people in them. Today, 88.198.175.78 and 88.65.92.19 where used to post unblock requests for the blocked range. As the unblock requests were not filled correctly, I deleted them. The IPs do not reside in the same country too. Anyways, I thought it'd be useful to report it here, so if the requests continued (and were mentioned in a valid form), we could consider restricting the range a little, if possible. Best, - Huji reply 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Add 12.96.164.115 to the list too. This time, it is from the same country. I'm going to ask for CU again, to see if these IPs belong to open proxies. - Huji reply 15:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done88.198.175.78 and 12.96.164.115 are both Tor proxies, I can't find proxy information on the third IP, but the systems used for all three IP's appear to be the same computer so it is a likely proxy as well. The original check on the IP range showed no edits from the entire range which were not a part of vandal account creation although many different IPs in the range were used in the situation. The two known proxies are now blocked. -- Creol(talk) 15:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Huji reply 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88.65.92.19 is also a Tor exit node [1].--Werdan7T @ 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

What's the policy on redirects in the talk namespaces, usually resulting after page moves? Because on en.wiki en:User:DerHexer has deleted about 60 000 talkpages of redirects. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure if there is a policy, but I would say that the talk page should only redirect if the article is a redirect too.
What I meant are talk page of redirects. Are they really necessary? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure if there are any rules about talk pages on redirects, but personally, I don't see the need for them. After all, a redirect takes you straight to another article, so you would even have time to discuss anything :) Happy editing, ( arky ) 23:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would admins mind if tag most of these redirects for deletion? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 19:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirects are not helpful then I say tag'em, I don't think the admins would mind. Oysterguitarist 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I guess we sort of discussed this on IRC too, some time ago. As an admin, I think it would be okay to tag those redirects which are obviously useless as QD. However, please also notice that if a QD request is returened, the page can only be deleted through RfD (discussion). - Huji reply 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK for me to start to do so? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You also may want to start with fewer items in the first days, and limit yourself to the most straightforward cases for now. - Huji reply 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username vandal

We have over time dealt a lot with the Username vandal. This is the person who creates most of the accounts targeting people who either revert or block his (/her) actions here. I originally blocked a rather wide section of ip's to limit the problem, but this isn't going to stop them, it will only slow them down. The original block was set against all Verizon wireless users. Basically, the user was creating accounts via the web browser on their cell phone. This allowed them to create at any time of the day that they got bored. With the main block, they were limited to doing it from their computer at home (or friend, library, etc) but at least they are partially limited. Since the initial block, their actions have been limited to hunting out open proxies to cause their disruption. To combat this, I am (more or less) routinely checking IPs on those accounts which are blatant socks of this vandal to identify the IP and then try and verify if it is an open proxy in need of blocking. I am doing this pro-actively on the most obvious instances rather than waiting for a Check user request for each and every name this person creates as part of an on-going vandalism problem. At least two computer profiles have emerged in addition to the cell phone for this person.

As the entire range of IPs has shown no actions which were not tied to this vandalism and the likelihood of a productive editor coming from a group that uses cellphones to edit is very small, I do not see blocking the entire range as an issue. As a worst case scenario, a person who actually does want to edit that way can create an account from home and then edit whenever via cellphone (block is anon-only). There is also a range of open proxies from a specific company that is presenting itself as a problem. Several of the open proxies are all controlled by a specific web host out of Chicago. This is a company that serves as a commercial source for web spaces. I do not think we are likely to get anything but trouble from any person who would re-route their connection through a commercial source like this. A check of their ip range has included only one semi-valid edit (which was later removed due to POV). If this group continues to present a problem with open proxies, a wider block many one day be warranted. -- Creol(talk) 06:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent user account block

Hi. Please block permanently User:Петър Петров as I use User:Petar Petrov (latin letters). The userpage and talkpage are already redirected. --Петър Петров 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked per request. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLLLZZOR Block

LOLLLZZOR (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked with block options set to prevent account creation, but on their talk page it says they sould create a new account if they want to contribute, but they can't because of the block options. I suggest they should be un-blocked then re-blocked so they can create a new account or they should be informed that they can't create a new account. Oysterguitarist 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

This page has been protected since January. Can you pleez unprotect? Amorrow 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionas68224

Ionas68224 joined the #wikipedia-simple channel a while ago, and admitted to being the "Wikipedia facing serious attack/Linda E. Mack/Chinese text" vandal, blaming his "uncontrollable urge to vandalise" on his ban. I also believe he created User:Amorrow as well. Archer7 - talk 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archer7, I am tired of being framed. No, I am not amorrow, and Amorrow is a person who has a terrible history on English Wikipedia. He was a freaky person who stalked all the female admins and found their addresses. This really is a jab at me and my reputation, and checkuser can probably prove this is not me.
Yes, banning me caused part of my brain to get angry, and to seek out revenge and vandalise the encyclopædia. I was the one who vandalised with all those sockpuppets, however, if you hadn't have banned me, none of this would happen. I just want to return without you harassing me. --ionas
A CheckUser can't disprove it now - you've dug yourself into a hole that's too deep. It seems too much of a coincidence that you return, and a few hours later he appears with a totally obvious username - and we have no way of disproving it. Can't blame us for that one.
Seeking revenge? For someone that's so passionate about fairness and really wants to make this encyclopedia a better place, massive vandalism seems rather out of character. If you really wanted to help free knowledge, you wouldn't destroy it every time you get a little annoyed. You can't pin this on me for banning you - you got banned after more warnings and second chances than anyone has ever had on this wiki - we've even been sending you emails during your ban to help you better understand it. Open proxy block evasion and vandalism isn't the best way to say "reconsider my ban". It just tells us that you are completely unable to function in this environment, and makes unblocking even less likely. You must immediately stop all usage of the Simple English Wikipedia and IRC channels if you wish to have any hope of someday returning. Archer7 - talk 00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ionas, the best way how be retrusted by other editors to stay in this wiki is to first chill out by taking a break from wikipedia for a few weeks. When you're ready to come back (in the nice way), tell the admins (or 'crats) that you're sorry and try to appeal them as to unblocking your account if you could. Also, if you ever receive a "final chance", try to start small again and be humble to other users, rather than continuing the old ways. But, if I was to return to this wiki (for example, that is), I wouldn't vandalize pages and would have also heeded the warnings the other editors gave you before you were blocked. While these are merely my suggestions if you really want to come back, I mostly agree with Archer about your past actions which you are held accountable for. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect and understand that you are trying to help Ionas, Snake311, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with your advice to take a break and then apologize. Archer knows what he's talking about when he says that Ionas needs to stop all usage of SE and IRC immediately. The last thing Ionas needs to do is take a "short break" and then "try to appeal to the admins" about being unblocked. He has done this repeatedly and it doesn't work. He is, in fact, only making his situation worse. If he really wants to contribute again some day in a positive manner, he needs to respect the block he has been given and let it run its course. He needs to stop trying to shorten his block. That block was given for a number of valid reasons and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to shorten his block. · Tygrrr·talk· 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid the block will now have to run it's course, there is no option of unblocking. People that have known me here for a while probably know that I'm usually quite flexible on blocks, but only when I can see improvement. I've received many "apologies" from Ionas, but unfortunately none of them have shown any sign that he will improve his behaviour - many of them even had insults further on in the email. I'm afraid it has reached the point where it's just not something we can consider. Archer7 - talk 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Ionas is already helping Simple English Wikipedia, by providing us with a list of open proxies ;) - Huji reply 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, nice one:))) --§ Snake311 (T + C) 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ionas I think you should stop trying to be un-blocked, no admins will un-block you, trying to may only get you blocked longer. Just take a break and come back when your block is over. Oysterguitarist 04:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, didn't we say a month (September 20) ago "...Don't respond and don't make another edit or you ban will be permanent" (BrownE34). According to this Ionas's block should now be a Indef Ban (as "Comunity Ban per the EN Banning policy). However, I, being only 1yr older from what i have seen, think a year should be enough for immaturaty, and if he keeps going, just keep adding 1yr to it. Only thought I should bring this up. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was if he tried to evade the block again. Oysterguitarist 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has been constantly evading the block to vandalize. A good number of the proxy blocks I have been doing are due to him. Not only is he evading, but he is doing it solely to vandalize unlike KA who actually did contribute each time she was evading. -- Creol(talk) 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I think he was warned before and should be blocked indefinitely. I don't hesitate to do it myself, but will wait to see what others think. - Huji reply 08:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ionas has received numerous warnings and is now blocked for 1 yr, but does banning him achieve anything? --§ Snake311 (T + C) 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


<copy-paste because I edited from a text-deforming bugggy proxy>

"Indeed, Ionas is already helping Simple English Wikipedia, by providing us with a list of open proxies" Even I had to laugh at that one. :)

I agree, I was way too harsh on the Community at first, and I need at the very least a 3 month ban, but 9 at most. I won't be taking a year break from Wikipedia.

I was rude to the community, being disruptive and pranksterish (maybe an understatement). I understand that while most of my activities were in good faith (only I can know if they are or if they aren't), I surely didn't show it, and I devastated this site. I truly and humbly apologise for the activities I have done and hope to clear of my past and contribute as I did with one sockpuppet, smalltalker, which, you have to admit, did contribute constructively.

However, my apolog(y|ies) may not be taken seriously, for I vandalised with sockpuppets, the first being COCO, eventually spiraling into what I call "WP attack", replacing pages with the chinese text and the words "Wikipedia facing serious attack!". However, there are two types of vandals: 1) Situational vandals, who vandalise when a certain action happens to them (in my case a ban which I thought was unnecessary), and take out their rage against what they see as manipulating them, and 2) Outright vandals, who vandalise to troll, and get attention. I am the first, and I was quite rude. So, since certain parts of my brain debate with each other, the vandal part of my brain wins the debate over the sensical side, I begin to vandalise with anger.

Since I am a situational vandal, I don't always vandalise, and if it weren't for the ban, I wouldn't have vandalised. But, if I think about it, I caused it myself for disruption. It was my own choice, that I didn't think ahead, that 1) I was doing something stupid, and 2) it would damage my reputation here forever. I was immature, and I have only myself to blame.

But if I were given one, just one more chance to edit constructively (after 6 -12 months, of course, since that was the original ban, plus the sockpuppets), I would gladly thank the administrators who granted my wish.

The only reason I keep editing here is because I feel if I didn't respond, I would be ignoring you. I also want to respond as quickly as I can to respond to and answer all questions.

I would like to thank Snake311 and Spiderpig for being the nice people they always were. Your kindness helps me along times like this. --Ionas


Hello, Ionas; Hello rest-of-the-crowd.Here are a few things we tried to get across. I have personally e-mailed you these, so there should be nothing new to you.

  1. You have been blocked from editing, about 2 months ago. The current block will run for a year. It is therefore perfectly fine if you do not respond (rather than using a proxy).
  2. We are aware that a block of one year is a long time. We (The admin team) will therefore periodically re-evaluate if this length of time is still necessary. It is only your behaviour during the past time that influences the decisions we take.
  3. All you gain from vandalising or editing is that this decision is more likely to go against lifting the ban. In addition, other bans may be enacted. Therefore neither of the two will help you.
  4. We do not classify vandals in the way you propose, we protect this community site against them; no matter what their motivation of vandalising may be.
  5. If you feel you must respond to this, you can email me. You should have my real email address, so you do not even need to use a sockpuppet to send me mail. I will then post your reply here.

In the hope the message gets acrosss --Eptalon 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.R might have socked again, see RFCU. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Latin usernames

Hello everybody, I've notice that there are non-Latin usernames being blocked, just because they are non-Latin. Can you all please stop this, because the Wikimedia Foundation is going to launch the Unified login which enables us to use one username and one passwords for all Wikimedia Projects, without registering one by one, and this allows non-Latin usernames. The English Wikipedia has allowed non-Latin usernames. Please unblock all non-Latin usernames and welcome them to contribute here. Thank you. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection

Hello, I have noticed that Wikipedia received a lot of vandalism, could it be protected? JetLover An animal with an Uzi! 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally protected do to this post so, a user could edit it, it should probably be re-protected. Oysterguitarist 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Page was unprotected on 24 Oct 2007 after a vandal requested unprotect and has been vandalized 5 times in as many days. Protected (Edit - User, Move - Sysop) for 6 months. We can re-evaluate it's protection next April. -- Creol(talk) 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75.119.23.180

I blocked 75.119.23.180 for a period of one year after checkuser investigation. The IP is the source of eight vandal only accounts since October 4:

8 accounts (+the IP itself), 8th block, 1 year.-- Creol(talk) 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't reveal IP's over users. Blocking is O.K., but doing so publicly isn't good. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suggest using something like {{Checkuserblock}} in the block summary. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF policy explicitly permits the disclosure of such data, Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (see Privacy_policy) --M7 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on protected page

Can somebody add the interwiki [[en:Bob Baker (boxer)]] to Robert Baker? Rigadoun 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done -- Creol(talk) 05:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increased level of vandalism

Hello Community, hello fellow admins. I hinted to Wikizine that we had reached 20k articles. This brought us more visibility. With this came a higher number of editors, and a higher amount of vandalism, coming mainly form anonymous users. The big question now is, if we as the admin team still fight vandalism the right way, or if this way should be changed. At the moment, most vandals get 3-4 warnings at least before being blocked. Well, I was just thinking lound... --Eptalon 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon, the effect of Wikizine hint can be temporary... but that doesn't mean your question is not valid :) - Huji reply 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The increased vandalism from wikizine may only be temporary but, I think that 3 to 4 warnings is enough to realize that the user is not here to contribute constructivley. Oysterguitarist 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of My school sucks

My school sucks (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked with the settings set to auto block disabled but I think it was supposed to be account creation disabled, I think the block should be reset so they can not create a new account since they are a vandal. Oysterguitarist 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Yegoyan 15:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ForestH2/blog

This page was salted back when cascading protection was not an option, now that we have cascading protection this should be deleted, and moved to Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages. Oysterguitarist 05:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done--Werdan7T @ 06:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling

With a recent change to Wikimedia wikis, patrolling option has been made available for sysops of all Wikimedia projects. Apparently, a few of our sysops have noticed this and used it, and the rest can read more about the feature here.

Also, Special:Newpages have been changed a bit (described here) which makes fighting vandalis a little easier. - Huji reply 08:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like patrolling has only been turned on for new pages, rather than every edit. Looks quite good. Archer7 - talk 11:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good, look like it will help out admins protrolling newpages. Oysterguitarist 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Emergency-bot-shutoff}}

This template should be protected because, right now, anyone could change the code to block a user, and if this went unnoticed it could cause some damage. Oysterguitarist 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Yegoyan 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected talk page

Hello, I would like to contest the protection of Talk:Jimbo Wales. It has not been edited, and I do not see why it should be protected. JetLover Bam! 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not proteted from editing. It is only protected from moving by non-admin users. This usually happens when a page is subject to page move vandalism. I'll ask Vector to describe why he thought it is necessary in this case (with no apparent history of page move vandalism in our wiki). - Huji reply 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Jetlover, you said "It has not been edited", which is wrong. There are five deleted revisions for this page (which you don't see as a non-admin user). The last one, for example, was made by an IP and was blatant vandalism. - Huji reply 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there's no reason to move that talk page and the page, but for not admin I report the 5 deleted edits: 

# 22:00, 16 November 2006 (diff) . . 84.56.35.147 (Talk | block)
# 18:11, 16 November 2006 (diff) . . The life of brian (Talk | changes | block) (deletion call)
# 18:01, 16 November 2006 (diff) . . 84.114.131.27 (Talk | block) (jimmy wales ist ein krimineller der falsche informationen im internet verbreiten und alle unterstützen diesen schwachsinn benannt wikipedia, die massen sind tierficker genauso wie es jimmy wales ist)
# 09:53, 6 November 2006 (diff) . . Vector (Talk | changes | block)
# 09:52, 6 November 2006 . . Crapwikipedia (Talk | changes | block)

but all can see this: (log move) 

    * 15:40, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Jimbo Wales!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‎ (revert)
    * 15:38, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Jhjhj ‎ (revert)
    * 15:36, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Abc ‎ (revert)
    * 15:35, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Archer 7 ‎ (revert)
    * 15:33, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Fuckyou ‎ (revert)
    * 15:30, 15 March 2006 Slobodan Milošević! (Talk | changes | block) Jimbo Wales moved to Fhsgfgg ‎ (revert)

so I think that the protection is usefull, right? --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to open my eyes more! - Huji reply 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O_O? --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotect the page and the talk (protected 1 year ago) --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Thanks - Huji reply 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised Wikilinks

I have noticed that a recently protected article, Sandy Robson has been vandalised. If you look at the source, you will notice that some of the wikilinks have been edited to be links to each letter or part of the word (eg. slalom downhill skier) instead of the whole word (eg. slalom downhill skier). Have a look at the changes made after the recent vandalism in the history. Some of the changes were not reverted. It would be great if it could be fixed. Thanks, -- JJIG (reply|contribs|email|en) 07:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Protected for one week by Vector. - Huji reply 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Robson

Is there a reason that this is full protected or even protected? the vandalism that was occurring above was done by 216.76.248.72 and now that they are blocked there is no reason to have the article protected or at least full protected. Oysterguitarist 14:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The page needs to be fixed up, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I unprotected. I expect Vector intended it to be semi protected. Majorly (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry sorry sorry sorry, I have protected 30 ([edit=sysop;move=sysop]) pages 30 minutes before :(((, Yep I intend a semi-protection sorry sorry :(( --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the blocked user can change their IP address, hence "unblocking" them. (Look at the history) I suggest that the page be semiprotected. -- JJIG (reply|contribs|email|en) 06:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power

There has been a lot of vandalism to this article from sock puppets, I'd like to have it protected. Oysterguitarist 07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protected for 1 week, as log. --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Protection

I have noticed that the Adolf Hitler article has been set with cascading protection, I am requesting that the cascading protection be removed, since there is no need for cascading. Oysterguitarist 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Its now regular semi-protection (allow auto-confirmed)--Eptalon 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement vandal

Please block 203.52.130.139, who keeps vandalizing International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked by Werdan7. Oysterguitarist 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to WP:VIP for vandals. JetLover Bam! 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_5&oldid=2326155"