Wiktionary:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not change what is on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or add comments to an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pakistani editor

Hello there all. Recently, we've gotten several POV-pushing IP addresses who have been blocked on the Simple English Wiktionary before in the past, as well as the Simple English Wikipedia several times previous to this time. I believed that at the time, we should just block any new accounts that edit any pages that have to do with Pakistan that follow the same behavior as the ones that have been previously blocked. In case he decides to use a different IP address in the ranges that he uses, I range blocked several small ranges (each only affecting 256 addresses, not all of which are users on this site) to help prevent this user from abusing multiple IP accounts as well as evading his block from a few weeks ago. I think that we need to adopt a block on sight policy for these IP addresses that fall into the same behavior as the previous IPs that he has used. He seems to favor 92.x.x.x IPs, so keep an eye out for them. Cheers, Razor flame 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysop flag

Hello there all. After thinking this through and viewing the discussion, it seems that a project has the ability to opt out of the global sysop flag if they so choose. Given that I believe that we have enough administrators who are on enough of the time, I believe that we should opt-out of the global sysop flag because I believe that we can take care of ourselves without the need for anyone else to get involved. Furthermore, I do not believe that the amount of vandalism that happens on the Simple English Wiktionary is enough to support opting into the global sysop flag at this point in time. What are your thoughts on this? Razor flame 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say we keep the global sysop flag enabled. Remember that IP vandalism spree that happened a few weeks ago? The vandal managed to deface dozens of pages before anybody even noticed, and the stewards had to intervene. The whole idea behind global sysops is to stop things like that from happening. I don't see what harm the group is causing, at the very least - global sysops will only use their tools in case of emergency, never for anything else, imho they can only help the project. Just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support enabling the global sysop at this wiki. There aren't many admins here, and they won't always be here. Shutting out people trusted, and have recognised experience with vandal-fighting on a global level, seems counter-productive. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the proposal, this project would not be one of the projects affected anyway, as we currently have exactly 10 administrators and have more than 3 with logged actions. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but IIRC we can still opt-in if we obtain community consensus, those requirements are only for wikis where global sysops would be turned on by default. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but Razorflame's suggestion is to "opt out", but we cannot opt out because we would not be part of it by default, but we can "opt in". But I think there are enough admins here to deal with vandalism in a reasonable amount of time. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess that I did not read it closely enough. Yeah, after re-reading the proposal, I see no reason why we need to opt-into this because we have enough administrators who can deal with the vandalism as it occurs. Most of the time, there will be an administrator here to deal with it. The situation that we had with that massive IP vandalism spree seemed to be a one-time event, which I do not think needs something as drastic as enabling global sysops on the Simple English Wiktionary. Razor flame 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In urgent cases can stewards handle admin taks on this wiki. Therefore, I think we don't really need global sysops. Barras (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that can be said of every project. The idea is to reduce the workload for stewards or respond to urgent cases when there is not one around to do it that second. I think this would be a net positive, and see no real argument as to why it is not needed. I would support an opt-in. Tiptoety (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this project, we have plenty of admins to deal with vandalism in a reasonable amount of time, so I see no real reason to opt-in, so I have to oppose. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but what is the harm in a few extra helping hands? I mean, 10 admins is really not that much. There are going to be, and have been, plenty of times when none of those administrators are online. Tiptoety (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of experience here yet, but must echo Tiptoety's concerns. On the Simple English Wikipedia, for example, we've recently had a bunch of attempted outing vandalism that has stayed up for up to 30 minutes until a Steward can be contacted to handle the situation. The more admins the better, as far as I am concerned. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now full disclosure: most people know how I got here to simple wikt (that 130 edit bot vandalism) so we probably know a little bit about where I come from. I can sum up my stance simply (rare for me): Why not? Thats the biggest thing, technically we won't get automatically included, thats true, but we will soon if we continue with the dysyop policy as voted on. We only have 11 admins (10 or less is the default setting) 12 if we get PMLine and not all are active. I can't honestly think of a whole lot of bad things about having a global sysop able to pop in and fix things when no ones around.Jamesofur (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind having it enabled, but we don't have to decide on it now. This is my proposal: After the global sysop flag is implemented, why don't we wait for a few weeks to see how it is without us being opted into the global sysop proposal, and then have a few weeks where we are opted into the global sysop proposal, and then we can discuss which one we liked better and whether or not we want to keep Global sysops enabled. That is my suggestion. Razor flame 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more antivandalism help we can receive, the better. This is a small wiki, and we only have three or four active admins, and sometimes none of them are online which leaves us somewhat vulnerable to vandal attacks (as the IP bot vandal demonstrated). I don't see any harm in enabling the global sysop flag; it'll only help, imo. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Please rename me to User:Pmlineditor. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Brett (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol group

Hi all! The bugzilla:21439 was assigned and admins are now able to grant and remove the autopatrol flag. THe right can be requested at Wiktionary:Requests for permissions. Best --Barras (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wiktionary_talk:Autopatrol about the rules. Thanks --Barras (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback feature to User:RubiksMaster110

Hello. I came here to ask you for rollback feature so I can start patrolling and reverting vandalisms here in this wiki. I am a rollbacker on simple english wikipedia and spanish wikipedia. You can see my global contributions here], as you can see I have never been blocked or warned or something like it. Thank you guys, I hope I can be part of your community! Greetings, RubiksMaster110 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Use the manual undo feature for reverting for now. Full reply on WT:RFP. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, could you grant me rollback?. Maybe the wiki isn't edited much right now, but it is sometimes vandalism. I'm connected a great amount of time of the day and I could be helpful, because this isn't a very large wiki. :) Thanks. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think you can be trusted. But please, make sure to only use rollback to remove edits that are blatantly vandalism. For anything else, use "undo" with a descriptive reason. :-) Thanks for volunteering. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take care now that I patrol +600 wikis :D --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Could I have rollback? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Barras ^talk 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Me too? Have on simple. (Barras deleted my userpage and I just wanted to link to my simple Wikipedia page. It is not vandalism.) I-20 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - but it was Brett who deleted the pages since you created it as IP. -Barras ^talk 09:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one is only to ask for the rollback bit at Wiktionary:Requests for permissions, perhaps someone should update Wiktionary:Rollback feature and remove "You may ask for rollback at ... Wiktionary:Administrators' noticeboard ..." Just a thought. :) Avicennasis (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOne, thanks for the info! -Barras ^talk 20:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]