Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 9

Removal of sysop status from J Di

J Di has said that she would rather lose the right to be a sysop rather than stay active. You can find the discussion here. Anyone else agree with the discussion on J Di's talk page? Razorflame 14:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As J Di has not made any real contribution to the community since April, and as there many admins who have joined the community since April, I think we should abide by J Di's request to have the sysop flag taken away.--Bärliner 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

if one looks at the time stamps on the discussion linked above, it is easy to see J Di was badgered by more than one editor on this issue until he finally said "take it to AN, I don't have time for this right now". My question is twofold: What harm does it do to leave the tools with a user who is trusted, even if s/he is experiencing a period of inactivity; and what net benefit does the project experience by alienating a trusted editor? I don't know what Razorflame's reasons are for pushing this so hard, but it does not reflect well on him. In fact, this whole discussion seems rather childish in my eyes. Jeffpw (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I think there are a few different things here. J Di's only activity for a long time was switching their status on the Admin and Bureaucrats page from "inactive" to "active" and I find it hard to define making just those edits as "active" - there was no discussion about the tools being taken away, just which column the user should be in. If anything, there are too many admins here (as an aside, not relevant to this) and there has been previous concern that an admin account that is not active is more likely to be hacked (I've never understood that argument myself, to be honest, but it has been made). Then there is the argument that an admin needs to be actively involved in the project in order to be fully aware of change in policy and guidelines. If a candidate went for RFA after nine months of inactivity, they would have no chance of succeeding. Being handed the mop and not using it seems as bad, to me, as those who fail RFA and then go on immediate Wikibreak! Though, to answer your specific questions, I think it is 1) concerns about the inactive account being hacked and 2) Admins need to continually show their worth. I may be wide of the mark, but I hope that helps Whitstable (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If an admin really wants his/her permission to be removed, he/she can ask it directly on Meta. This includes J Di. If there is any reason, aside from his saying he would rather loos the permission (which, I think, wasn't said in a good mood), we can go on and ask it on Meta. Otherwise, let's leave it to J Di to deice what to do with his/her perms. - Huji ^reply 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with him having the tools, just the changing from active to inactive when there is really no evidence he is active. Those of us who were around for his RfA will recall how bad he wanted it, and then seemingly the next day (an exaggeration but in the grand scheme of things fairly accurate) he's gone. If he would just leave it at inactive there wouldn't be a problem. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But there has been an issue of him/her moving his/her name to active from inactive. Razorflame 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Browne34 - surely this could all be solved by an agreement whether the user should be in the "active" or "inactive" column? And it really isn't all that important! Whitstable 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. Let us wait and see. Razorflame 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important. If you're a new user that needs help, and you go to the list of Admins and 'Crats and asks J Di for help, then J Di will not respond for who knows how long. This could strike a meaningful blow to that new editors urge to edit here. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but my point is that we could debate this ad infinitum and get nowhere. A thread on the user's talk went to some length, the thread here is going to some length. I'm minded just to alter the list of active/inactive and have done with it! Whitstable 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which I note has already been done anyway, so surely we're now sorted? The only thing I would add, though, is that your argument, Gwib, would suggest that any inactive admin should be stripped of tools so they are not approached by new users. Not a bad idea, perhaps it should be written into a guideline - "Admins who have not made an edit for one month with have their tools removed, but the tools will be returned immediately on request" Whitstable 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just letting people know that J Di has removed himself/herself from the list of A's and B's. Thought you guys should know. Razorflame 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwib relisted J Di under the inactive admins (link). - Huji ^reply 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that he should remain on the inactive list unless he asks for his sysop rights to be removed on meta or he becomes active again. I don't think there's much else to discuss about J Di at this time. · Tygrrr... 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock req. from Benniguy

Looks like this has been handled already, so just for the record:

(I have been blocked (Benniguy)..) and barliner just wrote that I was allowed to go to any admin to ask to be unblocked, so I am asking you. I was :informed by you, gwib, and razorflame that if i stuck by the rules of my proposition, I would not be blocked. So i stuck to them. However, Barliner :then blocked me regardless, saying that there was a 'consensus' on the AN, even though there was nothing of the sort because not everyone had agreed to :blocking me. As i said earlier, i turned over a new leaf today, but if I am blocked because of what happened before, then I will not be able to help :edit. So please consider unblocking me. 89.242.221.124 (talk) 23:56, 24 January :2008 (UTC)

(original message at On my talk page --Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request was made, reviewed and denied, before benniguy made this post. Benniguy is avoiding the block again.--Bärliner 12:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to keep him blocked, as he has been evading the indef block placed on him. Razorflame 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He is finally blocked (or banned). I think he should be banned (pity that I didn't take part in the Benninguy ban discussion). --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I can't answer for the others, but I was very careful not to tell him he wouldn't be blocked if he stuck to the rules in any of the messages I sent him. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfA/RfB suggestion

Hey there, all. I would like to suggest that we add a new ruling to the criteria for adminship that details a minimum number of support votes needed in order to have a successful RfA. Looking back through the archives, I was shocked when people were promoted to sysop after an RfA had only 5 support votes and that was it (namely, freshstart, aflm, billz) in the past. We need to have this guideline in place so that if a particular user only gets 3 support votes and that's it, that I would think that that isn't enough of the general user population voting to know if he or she will use the tools to his/her benefit. That is why I think we should add a minimum number of support votes for a successful RfA. Note that this new guideline would only be involved with RfA's that only have support votes.

As for RfB's, looking at Netoholic's 'crat vote in the archive, he was promoted to 'crat with only 4 support votes. I think that this is way too few. Although this isn't as necessary as the RfA suggestion, we should still have it in place for when we get bigger. I think that we need to have a minimum of 10-15 support votes in order to say that an RfB is successful.

While these may seem a bit obscure, I hope you guys see the benefit that these will give to the Simple English Wikipedia in the future.

Cheers! Razorflame 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a lot more users now than then if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it'll be a "modern day" issue unless the number of users tails off. We've been relatively stable since I joined just over a year ago. The people who have left have been replaced and we've generally seen growth. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the people that were promoted with 4 or 5 support votes were promoted when there were only 4 or 5 users. I don't really see it as a problem. Archer7 - talk 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What about bureaucrats? Shouldn't there be a minimum for the number of support votes needed to become a 'crat? (Not saying we need more). Razorflame 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of the support votes is not the factor that indicates a user should become an A or a B. A bureaucrat should read the votes and see if they show there is consensus or not. With the number of users at that point of time, the bureaucrat understood that 5 support votes is enough. At the moment, I think no bureaucrat will close an RfA as successful if there are only 5 support votes. Instead of writing numbers in the guidelines (which should be updated as the community grows) we can have trusted bureaucrats (and we do have) which can distinguish whether the votes are enough to represent consensus or not. - Huji ^reply 12:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Return of the movie vandal

During May 2007 we had a rash of vandalism to movie related articles. Mainly it was copy/pastes of en:wp articles (usually lists of movies by specific companies) and adding fake movies to the lists. The vandalism was done from the IPs 125.238.112.25, 125.238.114.103 and 125.238.113.149. Currently we are getting a new batch of copy/pastes, movie additions, and new fake articles from the same IP range: 125.238.112.138. Keep an eye on changes from the 125.238.11x.xxx range to movies as these are likely to be false information or copy/pastes. -- Creol(talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on 125.238.11x.xxx posts from now on. Thanks for letting everyone know about this. Razorflame 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with admin tools on SE Wiktionary

Okay, I feel kinda dumb for not being able to figure this out, but I need another admin to help me find where to change the toolbox links for everyone. I'm trying to remove the "Special:Upload" link from the toolbox on SE Wiktionary. I've checked all system messages and am at a loss. I'd ask another admin over there but there's just a couple of us and I think I'm the only one who'd even have an idea of where to look (and obviously I can't figure it out!). If someone could point me in the right direction, that'd be great. Thanks, guys! :-) · Tygrrr... 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember trying for ages to do that over here, I can't remember where we put the code to do it now, but I'll take a look. Archer7 - talk 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll have to add something to MediaWiki:Common.js, as the toolbox doesn't have it's own MW page (I think). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's here. Copy over the line of code into the common.css over there and it should work. I was just writing that when Mike edit-conflicted me :) Archer7 - talk 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! It seems to have worked. · Tygrrr... 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ChristianMan16

According to WP:SIG, user signatures cannot employ <big> tags. His does not, but is the size of about two big tags. He says that it appears normal to him and won't believe us unless we provide a screenshot of his signature. Here is his signature:

-- ChristianMan16

JetLover ^Bam! 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a screenshot. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot taken and provided. It is of Jetlover's talk page with Christianman's signature and a few other users to compare it to [1]. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! My sig is in the picture:))) But ChristianMan16's sig is no doubt bigger than mines. --§ Snake311 _{(click here to chat)} 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One key point: The actual statement is Markup such as <big> tags... It does not have to be just the Big tag, any tags that drastically change the appearance fall under that statement. While it may not seem large to him, people with a smaller base font size are more drastically affected by an absolute font. My base font is 10px, with his signature of 18px font, 1px padding and 2 px border, that is nearly 2 1/2 lines of text on screen. -- Creol(talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the sixth complaint about ChristianMan16's sig. I see from here that he refuses to change it without a screenshot. He knows it is disruptive. I suggest a final warning to comply with WP:SIG, and all rules as well as the community's wishes. His contributions here so far are mostly to user pages and usertalk. He is banned on ENWP and his commons page shows a final warning the day after he registered. I suggest the final warning because I do not think we need another potential benniguy-type situation. --Bärliner 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish ya'll would have brought this screen ahot to my user page so I could have seen it... I'll change it now...No need to include admins on this.-- ChristianMan16 22:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this better for ya'll?-- ChristianMan16 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what Creol and Barliner was trying to say was to change your sig maybe not just in size but to have a "normal" sig like most users. You can see mines as a ref. But feel free to customize your sig anyway you want it to be as long as it doesn't tick off the admins. :) --§ Snake311 _{(click here to chat)} 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume the message on my talk page means Christianman16 had replied here. I see his signature has changed from 1 px padding 18 font and 2px border to 1 14 4 at the latest effort, still blocking his own message. In reply to User:Snake311, sigs are governed by WP:SIG, not the whims of admins--Bärliner 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You just can't be happy can you?-- ChristianMan16 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that your signature is the exact same size as it was before (24px high), I cannot see how you could think it would change the situation in any positive way. -- Creol(talk) 10:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I deal with this Monday cause today is church.-- ChristianMan16 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Me and Bulletproof from the English Wikiepdia worked on my sig last night and he says this will work. What ya'll think?--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is better, albeit a little strange still. Razorflame 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about second accounts

I want to know if it's okay for me to create a second account to run userboxes with like the English Wikipedia user here?-- ChristianMan16 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With your history of accounts there I suggest you steer clear of a second account here. With our smaller community we have never needed such a large number of userboxes as ENWP. We have always preferred being one large community, without subdividing it. I keep the EU flag on my userpage to show I am an EU citizen, but do not subdivide it any further with the statements of politics etc I used on ENWP or even de:wp--Bärliner 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I guess I use my subpage of my userspace.-- ChristianMan16 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Users can now edit their talk pages while blocked

Users with an account can now edit their talk pages while they are blocked. Oysterguitarist 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Old news, Dude.-- ChristianMan16 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not, the settings for wikis are not setup the same every time, ours had it so blocked users could not edit their talk pages see here. Oysterguitarist 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that kind of thing is old news to me as that's the way it is on the English Wikipedia. (See Here For Proof)-- ChristianMan16 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's like that on English Wiki, but here, it isn't (or wasn't) until recently since "the settings for wikis are not setup the same every time". --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been tested and seems to be working perfectly now. Since I was blocking myself anyway, I also took the time to correct the problem with MediaWiki:Blockedtext not working properly. -- Creol(talk) 06:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Oyster, for the news. - Huji ^reply 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oke-day.-- ChristianMan16 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue with this new feature. IP addresses that have been blocked for vandalism will be allowed to continue vandalizing their own talk pages with this new feature in place. This will make a lot of vandalism to IP addresses' talk pages happen. I would like to suggest that IP addresses not be allowed to edit their talk pages, while named editors can. Razorflame 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new feature, it's just been turned on, and if they are causing disruption, it can be protected, and what good would only allowing registered user to edit their talk pages while blocked? they could just create an account get blocked and use their talk page to vandalize. Oysterguitarist 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is that it will create unnessecary reverting if IP addresses start vandalizing their own talk pages. Razorflame 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard to revert the vandalism, and if they want to request unblock that is important. Oysterguitarist 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just wanted to get this fact out in the open to let people be aware that this could potentially happen in the future. It will be important for unblock requests. I completely agree with you on that. Razorflame 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

QD User talk pages

A (friendly) difference of interpretation between Oysterguitarist and I.

Oyster refused to delete a user talk page as it did not meet QD criteria. I would have allowed this as a user talk page is a userpage under deletion [Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#User_pages policy 2.1.6]. The user is a recently returned user, no warnings at all, and dialogue was most 18 months old.

How would other admins have treated the QD request? Obviously that sentence in the deletion policy which simply says

User pages can be deleted if its user wants to, but there are some exceptions.

should be clarified after this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talk • contribs) 07:05, February 8, 2008 (UTC)

I would have deleted it using your reasoning, though I am not a fan of this guideline. Therefore, I would amend the deletion policy to read, "user talk pages may not be deleted only archived," or something along those lines ;) -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I got in trouble a while ago for warning Jeffpw for blanking his talk page. Just thought that this fit in with this discussion. Razorflame 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Users don't have to archive their talk pages. Oysterguitarist 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User and User talk, while similar in concept, are totally different namespaces. The rules for NS:2 (user) do not always apply to NS:3. QD justification can be covered under the G-series rules, but the U-series does not apply in the same way the A-series doesn't (its not an article either). As to deletion of user talks, as long as it meets a general reason, it should be deletable (attack page, spam, nonsense, etc) but only if that is the entire extent of the user talk page. The history of all other messages needs to be preserved even if it is just old trivial information. -- Creol(talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to "wipe" a user talk page is to archive it. :) Just my two cents! - Huji ^reply 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A very thin line separates appropriate deletion of messages on talk pages and changing the meaning of a conversation on your talk page... --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

לערי ריינהארט

I am not against Hebrew things or anything, but do you guys have a username policy? Because en.wiki does and foreign language names like לערי ריינהארט are not allowed, right? You don't have to block him, but can you at least change the username?--Bianca (talk to Bianca) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has already had a username change. It's Gangleri, or something close to that. Razorflame 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But he just made a change, and nowhere in the recent changes was there a username change. This is either forgetting he changed his username or something. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, we are for usernames with Latin charcters and numbers, but we already had problems with that, as there is the plan of single sign on (one account for all wikipedias), which would mean that "some users have strange names"; in any case, you'll need to talk to a 'crat to do the change. --Eptalon (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Gangleri is an established user in many wikis, and is a MediaWiki developer too. He works with his Hebrew username on most of the wikis (and wiki-related places). Although I personally think it is better to have a username which is easy to read for people who speak in the language of that wiki (that is Simple English in our wiki), I see no serious problem with Gangleri's username. - Huji ^reply 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies

Hey there all. I just want to bring up a point for discussion here. I've noticed that there has been a lot of vandalism of the Wikipedia policy pages, and I think that there shouldn't be any vandalism in these pages. I would like to propose the semi-protection of all policy pages (or at least the important ones) because of vandalism. I feel that IP addresses shouldn't even be allowed to edit Wikipedia policy pages because of the amount of vandalism that has occurred on these pages. I would like to ask people if they would consider the permanent semi-protection of the most important policy pages so that people can't vandalize them anymore. Does anyone else here agree with me on this topic? Razorflame 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to be coming from a large IP range. Oysterguitarist 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I have nothing against protecting policy pages (a simple cascade protect on the template would do the job easily), I have to wonder about te use of the term "a lot". Looking at all IP edits in the wikipedia namespace, there are only two edits to policy pages in the last week (six in the last 30 days [[2]]). Both of these were done by the same IP as virtually the same time. There is a lot of vandalism to Simple Talk, but that can not be prevented, it has to be unprotected after all. There is also random vandalism to various other wikipedia namespace pages, but very few of those can be dealt with for the same reason. The actualy total edit counts by IPs in the last 30 days:

Page Edits Wikipedia:About 1 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 4 Wikipedia:Citing sources (Policy) 1 Wikipedia:Copyrights (Policy) 1 Wikipedia:Edit lock (1 IP) 4 Wikipedia:Glossary 1 Wikipedia:How to copy-edit 1 Wikipedia:Image use policy good faith 1 Wikipedia:Peer review 8 Wikipedia:Recentchanges 1 Wikipedia:Requested articles 8

Page Edits Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser 1 Wikipedia:Requests for deletion 2 Wikipedia:Rules (Policy) 3 Wikipedia:Sandbox 62 Wikipedia:Simple talk 14 Wikipedia:Student tutorial 5 Wikipedia:Useful 1 Wikipedia:Vandalism (Policy) 1 Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress 1 Wikipedia:Wikipedian 1

Looking at the numbers, I would be more worried about vandalism on the Student tutorial than policy pages -- Creol(talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Creol. Does it look like we can't handle this small amount of vandalism? Isn't it that some of our articles are vandalized more than this over time, and we deal with that without protection? - Huji ^reply 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true, pages such as United States or Toilet and vandalised far more any policy pages here. The sandbox even is, with a stretch, a place where vandalism is partially acceptable since it is, after all, a sandbox. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured that there wasn't as much vandalism on the policy pages that I have been aware of, since it just seemed like they were getting vandalized much more than they actually were. I do agree with Gwib that there are articles in the mainspace that get vandalized more than the Wikipedia policy pages, but I just want to make it clear that while I was concerned about these pages, I rather thought that I would get the community's agreement on this topic before I went ahead and asked an administrator directly on their talk pages to get them protected. After reading Creol's post, I have to agree with Creol that they don't need to be protected for now, but in the future, the amount of vandalism that these pages might receive could be a large amount. This was more of a public service announcement than it was an actual request for protection, as I was pretty sure that the community would not protect these pages. I wanted to bring this up to the community as a whole, because this could eventually become a problem in the future that would need addressing. As for now, I am happy with Creol's response and will happily drop this subject for the time being. As soon as it becomes apparent that the policy pages are receiving much more vandalism than they are now, I will make another request to get the policy pages protected, but for now, I think that I will have to agree with Creol. Thank you all for giving your ideas on this subject and for taking the time to actually read this post that I made to the AN. Razorflame 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright, thanks for bringing this to our attentions and who know, you may soon have to check this board more often ;) --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

151.49.0.0/16

I just wanted to alert all administrators about this range of IP's that has been going through and vandalizing Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, as well as other pages. I would like to ask that administrators keep their guard up for any IP address edits in the range of 151.49.x.x as they are most likely vandals. Thanks. Razorflame 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An administrator here has already range blocked this IP range for 24 hours for vandalism, however, once that 24 hours is up, I would like to ask any administrators that are on to keep a lookout for any more vandalizing edits from this range, as I am sure that there will be more vandalizing edits from this range after the block expires. Razorflame 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the range, the setting is wider than it needs to be. All activity in question is from 151.49.0.x to 151.49.60.x. 151.49.0.0/18 would be more accurate. The entire range may belong to the same ISP, but that does not mean the user has access to the entire range. To date, his activity seem limited to only a part of it. -- Creol(talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that the setting was accurate enough, but I guess that you are right in this case. Barliner only blocked the entire range for 24 hours, so it shouldn't be a big deal because the block will expire later on tonight. Creol, do you think that based on the activity of the IP's in question, that a range block was necessary for this IP range? Razorflame 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Third (effective - 1x16, 2x18) block on the range due to incivility - 1 week soft block -- Creol(talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We're starting to get more vandalism from this range of IP addresses, and at this time, it is beginning to be troublesome. I would like to take to time to suggest that we soft block this range for several months or a year because all that we've been getting from these IP addresses and the range is vandalism. I have another concern about this range. It is based in Italy, which if I remember correctly, is the country that JtV is from, so therefore, maybe it is him. However, I'm not positive. Razorflame 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've soft blocked 151.49.0.0/18 for 3 months. Oysterguitarist 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

84.167.114.206

This IP has been creating nonsense articles, but there was no sysop around at the time the pages were created. Please delete them as soon as possible. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. - Huji ^reply 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record. Most of the pages created by 84.167.114.206 were previously created by an IP from range 80.128.0.0 - 80.146.159.255 in 2006, and where deleted at that time too. Both the current IP and the old range bleong to Deutsche Telekom AG (Germany) so probably it is a repeating vandal. On some pages, an IP from range 81.167.194.32 - 81.167.194.63 had also contributed to the vandalism :) At the moment, this range belongs to Lier Kommune (Norway). As the IP in question has no other contribs, I assume either the same vandal had a travel to Norway, or he/she had found an open proxy on Lier Kommune network at that point (late 2007). I don't think this mandates further investigation in the issue for now. - Huji ^reply 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Kommune means county or municipality in Norwegian. Access to Lier Kommune's network should thus be by employees only, one should think. Tho all school kids may have e-mail addresses @lier.kommune.no --Hordaland (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Doran article

I have requested the restoration of an article about Carolyn Doran over here. - PathWrote (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism by Jewftl

This user was created at GMT +8 16:24. He has since been creating nonsense pages and vandalising other existing pages. Please block this user indefinitely and delete all pages created by him. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)