Jump to content

Wiktionary:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 1

Add links
From Wiktionary
Archive 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.

This is an archive of completed Administrators' noticeboard problems. Please add newer completed requests at the top.

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

Could an admin please remove the Wikimania 2006 notice from MediaWiki:Sitenotice please? It's making the whole site look more deserted than it really is :) Thanks, Tangotango 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Tangotango 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmcfoley

I'm not going to be here much (if at all) for now on. If someone wants to drop me from the list of admins feel free to do so (It's done at Meta). You will be able to get me at Wikipedia if anyone has questions. Good luck people! Gerard Foley 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help! You will always be welcome to edit and administer here, and that's why I say you are "emeritus" rather than "inactive" or taking you off the list. We are still very few and far between here, so I'd prefer if you stuck around until our number of regular contributors was higher, but as I said before, I respect your decision. You'll be missed. --Cromwellt|talk 17:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some updates

Just some quick updates: I've added Template:Click and changed the sister projects at the bottom to templates using click; this makes the image go directly to the sister project. In addition, I changed MediaWiki:Uploadtext back to the default text and then added some warnings; I have it currently worded that we won't accept any images unless they're under the GFDL. We don't have any images yet (save for Image:Wiki.png), and I don't see the need to allow any other type of images if they can simply be placed on commons. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered how that image-to-project link worked (on some projects but not others). Glad to see it works here. I see images as quite useful here, but I'm with Flcelloguy that we shouldn't allow any images here directly: they should all be on the commons. That's what it's for! If they really want to add it here, it should definitely be under GFDL. --Cromwellt|talk 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolled edits?

I've been thinking if we shouldn't implement the patrolled edit featured that MediaWiki has; it lets either everyone or just administrators mark an edit as "patrolled". Since we have such a low level of activity here, that would be useful - instead of a couple of use checking each edit by an IP address or new user, we could do it just once. See m:Help:Patrolled edit for more information. I've played around with the settings a little bit but I think only developers can access LocalSettings.php. What do you guys think? Thanks! Flcelloguy 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea. I don't see exactly how it works, but if it helps keep things in line and makes less work for all of us, let's go for it! --Cromwellt|talk 17:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care either way for this, but I would like it as an admin only tool. Gerard Foley 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be an admin-only tool. Users (and even Wiki-knowledgeable trolls) patrolling their own edits could be very problematic. Cromwellt|talk (forgot to sign earlier)
I don't mind either way. It will probably help to coordinate efforts between admins. However, with the relatively small number of edits, I find it quite easy to at least glance over all the changes using the RSS feed, so I don't know if it will help very much, but I'm willing to give it a go. If you want to see it in action, VLC's wiki has this system (though nobody bothers to mark edits as patrolled, even though they do get checked). Actually I think the biggest drawback on this system is probably laziness about actually going and clicking the "patrolled" link. --H2g2bob 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll ask a developer to see if we can test this out with sysop-only patrol; note that the German wiktionary recently turned this on as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Special:Statistics

An administrator needs to update the Special:Statistics page. It is much simpler when it is automated. If those extra pages are counted in English Wiktionary, they need to be counted here also. If not, they have a way to omit them automatically. Because a page similar to this one changes often, a "last changed" date in the footer would also be nice. --Cromwellt|talk 12:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realizing I just showed my ignorance of how this stuff works, I grin sheepishly. But there are some updates that could be done, such as fixing where the word "articles" is on the next line. How are the number of actual article pages calculated? --Cromwellt|talk 13:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is automated, but we can change the text at MediaWiki:Sitestatstext. The text probably depends on browser; it appears on one line for my screen. Thanks! Flcelloguy 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text looks fine to me now, too. I sense the hand of an admin, but maybe it was just a fluke. --Cromwellt|talk 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yumyum

User:Yumyum - massive number of page moves page blamking etc

"Good site" vandal

Please take note that the "vandal" behind this is actually a spambot editing on open proxies. They should be blocked on sight (but please confirm that it is an open proxy!). For more information, you might want to see here. Chenzw  Talk  07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching and they don't reuse the same IP address, so I don't see much point in blocking them. Any other suggestions?--Brett 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why they don't reuse the same IP address is because it probably cycles through open proxies to edit from, therefore, never allowing someone to be able to pin that particular IP address down as one that is used by the good site vandal. Speaking of the good site vandal, it also attacked the Simple English Wikipedia, replacing the content of pages with Hi. Good site! or variations of that. I would have to agree with Chenzw here. Any IP address that can be definitely connected to the Good site vandal should most likely be blocked on sight. Of course, it would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but otherwise, I think it would be fine on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Razorflame 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of templates that are highly visible

Hi there all. I would like to propose that some of the highest risk and visible templates, like {{noun}}, {{verb}}, {{countable}}, {{uncountable}}, {{transitive}}, {{intransitive}}, {{adjective}}, {{adverb}} and any other templates that are highly visible be semi-protected indefinitely as both a precautionary measure against vandalism and to protect them from any form of malicious tampering or editing of those pages, as well as {{plural of}}, {{third-person singular of}}, {{past tense and participle of}}, and {{present participle of}}, but first, I would like to hear what the community has to say about these before I make a request for the protection of these pages. Cheers, Razorflame 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and semi-protected some of the most visible templates here indefinitely to prevent tampering by vandals and malicious users. Please let me or any of the other active administrators know if you think they should be unprotected. Cheers, Razorflame 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that protection should only be used when something has actually been vandalized. Admittedly, I haven't checked if these have been subject to vandalism, but the comment makes it sound like it is only a preventative measure. As such, I disagree. Anytime one of these pages is vandalized (maybe twice or three times to prove there's actually a problem), it should be protected. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it, IMHO. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping of Flcelloguy and Gmcfoley

Hi there all. I would like to propose the removal of the sysop bit from these two users due to inactivity:

Both of these users has been inactive for more than 2 years, with little to no administrative actions since then. I would therefore propose that their sysop bit be removed due to inactivity. It can be reinstated upon their return, but in the meantime, while they are inactive, we don't really need them to have the sysop tool due to their inactivity. What do you all think about it? Razorflame 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that on English Wikipedia, inactive administrators don't have the sysop bit removed. If they ever come back, it's more welcoming if they're still administrators and don't have to ask for the bit. Someone said that inactive accounts are less likely to be used by other people in bad ways than active accounts. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That is good to know. Consider this discussion finished, then. Cheers, Razorflame 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removing of the sysop bit from the two users in question. Since they have not edited since 2006, it is highly likely that they will not be editing here again. (If they ever do of course, they can be given the rights back). Adminship should not just be kept, but used. Maximillion Pegasus 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just making my comment more clear: I oppose desysopping just because of inactivity. See w:en:Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to again, ask the community if they would be willing to desysop the two users in question. If they haven't made any edits since 2006, I do not believe that their flags should be kept because they are not very likely to come back. However, if they do come back (which I doubt), they can always re-apply for the admin flag if they request it. Razorflame 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Coppertwig on this one. I, too, am a relatively inactive admin (as is visible above), but I think that as long as the contributions I do make are good and in good faith, my admin status should pretty much never be revoked. What's the harm of leaving it? Does it actually hurt anything? If at one time they proved their trustworthiness, I think it should require a proof of untrustworthiness for that status to be removed. Plus, it is cool that when I do show up (once in a blue moon, admittedly), I can just pick up more or less where I left off. And I think that's true for these two as well. Now, if the consensus is to remove the admin status for admins that have been inactive for a long time, I would ask that we definitely inform the people concerned of the change (by email, probably) and I would have to differentiate between the two currently under consideration: gmcfoley was I think the very first sysop here. Ironically, even though he has more recently edited (and more recently performed an admin action), he has made clear that he either does not plan to continue editing here or does not see a need to have sysop status (I forget which). I think our discussion on it is in the Simple talk archives somewhere, or maybe the archives here. Therefore, I would be more inclined to de-sysop him than Flcelloguy, who has never said anything of the sort, though I think he has mentioned that he is and will continue to be more active on other wikis. Either way, I'm cool with consensus. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd say that English Wikipedia is one of the few wikis that does not desysop inactive administrators. Microchip08 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose desysoping administrators on the grounds of inactivity. I understand the argument that they can request their rights back immediately if they return, but going through this extra step just seems like a pointless expenditure of energy. Besides, what harm are inactive sysops doing to the project? Tempodivalse @en.wikinews 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Thanks for the welcome Razorflame left on my new talk page! I'm active with cross-wiki-spam cleanup; this is a small enough project (for now) that if someone spams this project, they're probably spamming others so feel free to leave me a note at User talk:A. B. to look into it (I'm automatically informed by e-mail of changes to my talk page here). Even if the spam is confined to this project, I'm still happy to help. If it's persistent and the spammer ignores warnings, blacklisting is more effective than account-blocking:

  • MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist -- This is your project's local blacklist; it only affects this project. Persistent spam that's confined to just this project goes on this blacklist. As of now, it's not been used. See w:en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for an example of what such a page looks like.
    • I can't edit your blacklist page since I'm not an admin here, but I'm an admin elsewhere and I'd be happy to provide the regex text strings for admins here to paste on to the list when you need to use it.
  • meta:Spam blacklist -- spam that hits more than Wikimedia Foundation project
    • meta:Talk:Spam blacklist is where you report cross-wiki spam; I or another meta admin will look into it and blacklist it

--A. B. 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to message me with the regexes that you get as I am an admin here and would definitely be willing to update the spam blacklist here as often as is needed. Cheers, Razorflame 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki abuse

There was recently a person/bot who was creating masses of accounts on most WMF projects. There's a pattern to it - each username has ten characters, and the first and sixth ones are always capitalised. I've noticed a few such usernames being created over here as well. (They have all been created from open proxies, as confirmed by checkuser at en.wn.) This is far too much of a pattern to possibly be a coincidence, so I'm requesting a block on those accounts, specifically TrocaCella (talk · changes), ComonLetoc (talk · changes), and RolviOrdro (talk · changes). I believe the stewards have already been alerted to this. Thank you, Tempodivalse 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to a discussion where this issue has been brought up on Meta or elsewhere? Is this user doing anything more than creating accounts which follow this pattern? Wouldn't a better solution be to block the open proxies themselves? I'd like a little more info before blocking. Thanks, · Tygrrr... 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion at en.wikinews about this: see wikinews:Wikinews:Admin action alerts#Mass creation of accounts. Tempodivalse 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. –Juliancolton | Talk`
Done. Brett got five of them, and I got the remainder that he missed. All socks have now been indefinitely blocked by either me or Brett. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Cheers, Razorflame 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Y Done by steward Spacebirdy. The pages still need deleting though. PeterSymonds 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_1&oldid=109569"