Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 4

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/archives}}

Contribs

While we use the word changes for contributions, as in my changes above the page, or User's changes in the toolbox (left), the links to the user contributions in the log pages and history pages are shown as cotribs contribs. I think it would be a good idea to change MediaWiki:Contribslink to changes. - Huji reply 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's contribs :) But a good sugggestion, I did the change... Majorly (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I got an edit conflict, when I tried to fix my typo above! I'm done with it now. Thank you. - Huji reply 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Exampleuser

I created an example user. Anyone can be Example. There are rules for the account, see User:Example. The password is hellojack15. You can use the account for anything, from testing to giving him adminship and see what buttons admins use and the advantages (and disadvantages) of adminship. I thought this is a cool idea. ionas talk contribs 05:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Password has been changed, and the account blocked. - Tangotango (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

System message

Just wanted to bring MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext to your notice, in case no one is a watching it. - Huji reply 09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nocsysop

Template:Noping (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has "sysop" in his username. Block the username (there is a notice on his talkpage), but DO NOT block account creation. See Nocsysop's talk page. ionas talk contribs 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is a good idea to put "sysop" in the username blacklist. - Huji reply 09:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you. I was blocked. Is the username blocked now? Please do, and let him create another account. ionas talk contribs 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Māori

The Māori article has been reciving large amounts of vandalism over the past days and may need to be protected. Oysterguitarist 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a dynamic IP, or just lots of vandals in different houses (unlikely). Semi-protect, because some registered users are actually contributing. ionas talk contribs 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

The pages I list below are subpages used on the Main Page, and I think they should be at least semi-protected, to reduce the possibility of vandalism of the Main Page:

Regards, - Huji reply 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to protect the main page with the cacading option enabled then to protect each one individualy? Oysterguitarist 20:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Cascading option is only available for full protection, and not for semi-protection. As I have sysop rights now, I'm going to semi-protect all those pages, to reduce a chance of vandalism on the Main Page. - Huji reply 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
18px Done- Huji reply 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for U/Name change

Punk Boi 8 sounds bland, so ill change it.

Punk Boi 8 - Spiderpig0001

  • Current Username - Punk Boi 8
  • New Username - Spiderpig0001
  • Reason - Punk Boi 8 sounds a bit bland.

Punk Boi 8 05:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. Archer7 - talk 09:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- Spiderpig0001 07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Username change

I'm active mostly on en. as en:User:Maxim, and I might be a bit more active here, so can a 'crat please rename to Maxim? --Evilclown93 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. Archer7 - talk 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) Maxim 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel ← Daniel.Bryant

  • 20px Clerk note: The current username is over 6 months old. Daniel.Bryant 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am w:User:Daniel, for the record. I left a note on User talk:Daniel about 5 minutes ago, and generally usurpations are processed seven days after that note is left. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

18px Done. Sorry it's a few days late... Archer7 - talk 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Could somebody please change my username to User:Jordan. I don't think there's a user with that name yet. I just don't want my surname in my account name. Jordanhatch - talk 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. Archer7 - talk 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ionas68224 block evasion

Just a notice to all other admins. Ionas appears to have made two attempts tonight (Thurs, Sept 13) to evade his block again. He used his home IP for the one evasion. I have blocked it for six months (matching the account block). There was also an open proxy used to edit his userpage, the IonusRand user page, and to vote in an RfD in support of his position. The vote was reverted and the IP in question was permenantly banned as a proxy. It is also a distinct possibility that Blissyu2 is another sockpuppet. Checkuser request may be needed to rule out it being yet another attempt to bypass the block.-- Creol(talk) 05:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The level of our need for a local CU is increasing, I think. - Huji reply 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think some local CheckUsers are now necessary - the stewards are often taking over a week to process requests, and we're needing more and more of them. Archer7 - talk 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Huji and Archer. How do we determine who gets CU status? A vote? · Tygrrr·talk· 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Some things to consider: according to meta:CheckUser policy#Access to checkuser,
1. As of 11 April 2007, Checkusers must be 18 years of age, of legal age in their place of residence, and willing to provide identification to the Wikimedia Foundation in order to qualify.
2.On wikis without an Arbitration Committee (there's no ArbCom at Simple, right?), either two CheckUsers must be chosen with the approval of 25-30 editors, or that wiki must rely on Stewards at Meta to cover their requests.
I mention #1 because I'm aware that not all editors here are of legal age. As for #2, I'm not sure if we have a large enough active community to comply with this policy. --Kyoko 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently we have a "regular editor basis" of about 30-35 (named, non-vandal) editors. About tow thirds of them are admins. --Eptalon 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am ionas68224 using an open proxy who is coming to confirm 3 things:

  1. I did evade the block using 68.224.239.145, although I do not consider it evasion (you already knew who that was)
  2. I also evaded the block with the open proxy surfonsteroids
  3. I am not the user named blissyu2, and I am pretty sure that it is the Zordrac from en: because of his Australian English spelling of Kimberly as Kimberley.

Ionas 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem very much like you were blissyu2, because both users have accounts at Wikipedia Watch, blissyu2 proposed putting the KA page as a subpage of your page (why?) and you can't just say somebody's Austrailian because they spelt a word differently. Jordanhatch - talk 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have extended Ionas's block to one year for evading being blocked. If it continues I see no other choice but to ban him entirely. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Checkusers, I remember there was a discussion a few months ago, that can be seen here. At the time, no conclusion was achieved, but there was much concern regarding our ability to muster the needed 25 votes to promote two users to CU. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider this and get the process going, considering the time to get these votes is not the same of a standard RfA but much longer. Phaedriel</b> - 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about this, dear Phaedrial. I think it is unlikely for us to reach the 25 minumum of voters, from our active editors. However, I also see how our need for a local CU has increased. I'm going to ask the stewards if they will accept a voting with, say, 20 support votes, if those 20 people are the majority (if not all) of the active editors of a community of our size. - Huji reply 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am ionas, from (another) proxy. Notice I have <b>Never</b> lied about any of my sockpuppets. If you can name one time when I have lied about a sock. Infact, I don't think I have ever NOT at some time revealed what was my sock. I did not create blissyu2. If you want, checkuser it and you can find that it is not my IP. I also am not Encyclopedist, who I have communicated with on different occasions. First, blissyu2 is probably the en:User:Zordrac from english wikipedia, which I also have talked to, mostly on Wikipedia Review. He is from Tasmania, and I am from Nevada. I am not lying.

About Encyclopedist: He is from South Florida, while I am in Nevada and have the (non-open proxy) IP address 68.224.239.145. Encyclopedist is not me. Unless you are seeing spirits and Encyclopedist is one of them, I am not him. proof This is my picture. It is not Encyclopedist when he was juvenile because it is dated February 27, 2006. It is not some random child. Ionas R. 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.192.106 (talkcontribs) Script error: No such module "Unsigned".

Ionas you have been extened every opportunity. One sockpuppet is enough to be banned. Just because you admitted to them means aboslutely nothing. Don't respond and don't make another edit or you ban will be permanent. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Local checkusers

As suggested in the section above, we could really use local checkusers. It looks like the foundation wants 2 checkusers. As to the number of votes required, I think it will be extremely hard to get 20 people (from amongst our regular editors) agree on two candidates. The proposition to the foundation, should therefore be as follows: 15 votes minimum, 85% agreement. What do you think? --Eptalon 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, m:Checkuser policy clearly says if the number of voters are not enough, then no local CUs are assigned. However, it also clearly says that number of supporting votes from the "local" community is needed, while Majorly has the experience of voting in a community he didn't contirbute in (English Wikiquote if I'm not wrong). I think there "may" be a chance for us to convince stewards about a lower vote number; there also is the option to ask from active editors of other projects to come and vote. - Huji reply 16:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no way they'll go lower than 25. But Wikiquote, which has a smaller community than us, managed to, so I don't see why we couldn't. I know lots of people from other communities who can comment here. Majorly (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Then, if everyone agrees with this idea, I think it is time to choose two or three people for the voting to start. - Huji reply 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want us recruiting people from other communities to come and vote over here. I'm a bureaucrat, I'm supposed to make sure all these votes are fair, and that's just not right. If we don't reach the number of votes, then we have no CheckUsers, simple as that. Yes, it means extra work nagging Stewards again and again, but it's not the end of the world. Archer7 - talk 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, no you aren't. You're a bureaucrat, you deal with RFAs and RFBs. This is not your area. Majorly (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Archer, I think you made a good point there. Although it is the "Stewards" who should assess the appropriateness of votes (and not the local Bureaucrats), I understand your concerns about aggregating votes by asking people from other projects. - Huji reply 16:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I realise that RfAs and RfBs are technically my area, but I also think I should be watching over this type of thing - I doubt the stewards would check every vote to see if it's from an established user, and would assume that the local community handled that. We can get however many votes we like by asking other people, but that's not the point. Archer7 - talk 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so it's not going to happen then. Majorly (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Now it is getting a "dialougue". Please let some time for others to add their views here. Thanks, - Huji reply 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally feel we should be asking people who aren't regular contributors here to participate just so that Simple Wikipedia can get local checkusers. It seems too much like canvassing, you know?
And yes, I know that I'm not a very regular contributor myself. --Kyoko 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see what is bad about canvassing?? This is to get some checkusers, something much needed for this project, but it seems if no one else is even allowed to know of any election it's not going to happen. Ah well, we can wait for the stewards (who are busy enough anyway, but who cares). Majorly (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I think it would be a good idea to give a try to Archer's idea too: May be the Stewards will be understanding enough, and accept less than 25 votes of support from a community of our size, when they clearly know why we need to have local checkusers. Maybe we can convince them, by refering to facts like one of our future checkusers can be M7 who is already an steward, etc. May be we should ask them, instead of satisfying a "written" standard of 25 votes, by means of what Kyoko called canvassing. - Huji reply 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the 25 vote minimum should not realy be an issue if we handled it correctly. While canvassing other wiki's does seem to not sit well with several people, I don't think anyone would argue against canvassing our own wiki. Looking at Huji's list of the 20 most active contributors by month, after removing all the vandal and KA/sock editors, there are about 60 different accounts who have made atleast 40 edits in a single month. We add to that a handfull of admins who did not make that list (both active and inactive ones) and 30 people isnt too hard to reach. The problem is getting many of these people to stop in and take the time to vote. There are many of our users who just pop in to write an article or 50 then pop back out without noticing the things that go on around the articles. Many never even see the recent changes page let alone Simple Talk. Rather than just posting a vote and hoping for people to take part, we need to make certain as many people as possible know that there is a need for Checkusers and that we need them to stop by and vote to help us get them. Talk page comments to fairly active editors, emails to less active or past active editors, hunt them down on other projects, what ever it take to get them to take a second or two to stop in and put there name on the list. -- <b>Creol</b>(talk) 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly we can't use KA's socks in this vote. With them, 40+ would be easy as pie. -- <b>Creol</b>(talk) 13:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
One idea, would be to use MediaWiki:Sitenotice for that reason. I strongly support this idea, personally. - Huji reply 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a site-wide notice as Huji suggests. I just don't feel comfortable with the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong) that people on other wikis who have no connection at all with Simple would be solicited to participate in the selection of local Checkusers. --Kyoko 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. I believe it's actually in the CheckUser policy that we have to ensure they're as well advertised to the local community as possible. Archer7 - talk 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're maybe a little over-sensitive regarding the participation of people that haven't been highly active at our project at this election. Let's not forget that the two users who will get elected will surely be highly trusted editors all of us regulars are very familiar with; this election is in fact more of a "confirmation" of that status. Who could possibly question if, say, Sarah, Alison, or Daniel, to name three out of hundreds of respected Wikimedians who have had minor participation here, came to express themselves at this process? I think such interest would only be for the best, as it's highly unlikely that known and established editors as them would disrupt the election. The process at Wikiquote, where I also took part, served to confirm this idea. I say, we're ready for this, and we will certainly benefit from having local CUs among us taht we highly trust and that can be asked directly and promptly for help. <b>Phaedriel</b> - 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I reread all the above comments. I think it is time for us to move a step forward; we are only "talking" about it now, but I think we have the potential to go to the "action" phase. I suggest we start with naming two or three most trusted and most active editors, for CU voting. Then, after some of us makes some suggestions, the users which are addressed more are actually nominated. We start by users active on our project. There is no time limit requirement for the CU votes, so I guess, we can wait a week so all active users vote, then, based on the number of votes we already have, we can use the Site Notice idea, mail other less active but fully trusted users of our wiki (like those Phaedrial named above) and if needed, we can also ask experienced users of other wikis, who have a knowledge about our users, to come and vote for us here.

I suggest these three people: User:M7, User:Eptalon and User:Creol. To my knowledge, they all have the required experience to become a CU, and they all are over 18 years of age. Feel free to add your options. - Huji reply 12:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also comfortable with the idea of getting the process started immediately. However, I feel we should just propose two people instead of three, to make the process less contentious and run smoothly. Also, perhaps it'd be best that one of them was also a bureaucrat. It's kinda hard to pick two names, because we have many excellent and experienced users, but I'd like to propose Creol and Archer7. Thoughts, please? <b>Phaedriel</b> - 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Archer7 is not yet 18 years old. I suggest Creol and Blockinbox. M7 seems to be already busy enough, so I'm excluding him (despite of his expertise) from my options. - Huji reply 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
+1 for M7 as CU --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, wait, the voting has not started yet, dear Vector :) Is Archer7 indeed that young? *big surprised face* :) I endorse those candidates with pleasure, should they wish to accept the task. <b>Phaedriel</b> - 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
of course, I only support M7 ;-) --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean, the other candidate is not going to have 25 supporting votes?! (kidding) - Huji reply 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's only by a few months that I'm underage... I support those users. Archer7 - talk 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I felt bold enough to nominate two users for CU, on WP:RFA. - Huji reply 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, do the checkusers have to be 18 years of age (or adult, in their jurisdiction) at the time they are proposed, or at the time they are promoted? - I am slightly over 18, so for me, it does not matter; Archer7 could perhaps be a candidate though. Also, should we look to spread them geographically?- ie. one from Burundi, and the other from Myanmar? - I also think we should nominate more than two. That leaves a choice to users, and we are not left with the situation that neither candidate had 25 votes; if that was the case, we could organise a second round of voting, with the most promising candidates that do not have the 25 votes. Besides, we should ask for this to be lowered to 20 votes (given the size of our active editors). These are of course just ideas, as always. --Eptalon 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I think they should be over 18 years of age at their promotion; however, as Archer7 said he has a few "months" to become 18, I don't think we can nominate him this time. Certainly, this is not the only time we hold elections for CUs. And regarding having a third candidate, I'm in agreement with the idea, and I think it is better that someone else (perhaps you) chooses the third person.
Second, I don't think we need to spread them now, as they are generally not supposed to provide "rapid" responses, so we can usually wait for them to appear online a few hours later or so.
Regarding the vote count, let's wait and see if we can naturally gather 25 votes (by waiting, using Sitenotice, etc) or not. - Huji reply 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Under 18s can only be given access to information like CheckUser, oversight, OTRS etc with approval from the Board. That's obviously not going to happen, so ignore all users under 18. Not really a big deal, though, I trust the users that have been nominated. Archer7 - talk 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at those nice stats made by you, Huji (Edits per month), among the first 5 admins, Tygrrr is a quite regular appearance. She has made the top 5 (of the admin accounts) every month so far. So have I. Next in line is Blockinblox (3). I do not expect that a fast (say hours) response is required on a CU, the order of a day is probably ok, for most requirements. Unless there is opposition, and provided Tygrr qualifies and agrees, I would nominate her, and myself for CU. That would give users 4 people to chose from; if more than 2 get the required vote, we can then see if we want 4 checkusers, or 3. That is of course just a thought. --Eptalon 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, so good

The voting has been open for just about a day and a half, and both M7 and Creol are only 9 votes away from fulfilling the minimum required. Eptalon is doing very well too, considering his request started later. At Wikiquote, it took way longer than this to achieve a comparable level of participation. This is excellent, and it proves we're a highly involved and active community. Thumbs up to everybody! <b>Phaedriel</b> - 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Phaedrial. It makes me think I felt correct when I said we should stop talking and start voting ;) and I think, it is possible that we don't even need to set up a SiteNotice! Phaedrial, we share the same nice feeling here. - Huji reply 08:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In a way, I see the first 15-16 votes as a given in that it really is just expending our pool of regular discussion page contributors. The first part of the vote was the easy one as we drew in the people we knew pay attention to matters such as these. The home stretch could be a little more difficult as it is harder to find users who have yet to sign. We are getting close though. Only needing 80% at 25 vote (70ish for 30), 20 support votes is the short end of the target (An oppose vote or two is actually not a bad thing as it counts to the total vote count needed). I took the shot tonight and went through some Rfd archives and the admin list and sent out an email to any user-name I recognised to inform them of the vote (and talk paged a couple of the more active editors who don't usually take part in discussions) in hopes that we do not skid to a screeching halt at 20 some votes. I even e-mailed at least one I believe might vote against myself (past personal issues) just because any vote is a step forward for the wiki at this point. Interesting side point.. We need 70-80% of 25-30+ votes. Bare minimum would be 70% of 25 votes (18-7 which shouldn't be a problem at this point) and it would be the granting stewards personal call if bare minimum is sufficient in a case.. Would M7 recuse himself as acting as the steward who could make that call? Would we get better results at bare minimum than other wiki's from other stewards given the vote includes one of their own? or are we to be held to a higher standard (max minimums - 80% of 30) so as they are not seen as showing favors due to these facts? -- <b>Creol</b>(talk) 08:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note, that we have said that administrators cannot vote in requests concerning them. This is probably different from other projects. It means that should the voting drain up, it should be considered. Just for completeness: 70% of 25 votes is 18 votes, 80% is 20 votes. For 30 votes the numbers are 21 and 24 votes respectively. --Eptalon 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh man! I can't help but saying "We're almost there"!! - Huji reply 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Creol's in, and it hasn't even been a week yet :) And M7 is close. Majorly (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Creol's in too (without any more oppose votes)... think it's 8 more votes for Eptalon. Archer7 - talk 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed by the votings. From where I see it, we'd probably have 3 cheackusers if all can get 25 votes before the deadline. Even without me supporting anyone, both M7 and Creol have still passed the 25 mark. Cheers to all simple wikipedians:)!!!! --§ Snake311 (T + C) 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New checkusers

We have our own checkusers! :D Congrats M7 and Creol... (and hopefully Eptalon soon) - see [1] Majorly (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Congrats to both of them. - Huji reply 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I created Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, so all requests can be placed and followed in one place. - Huji reply 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just made shortcuts to the checkuser page. The shortcuts I made are the same as with English Wikipedia, WP:RCU, WP:RFCU, and WP:CHECKUSER. It's the first time I've ever made shortcuts, so if I've made a mistake, please fix them. --Kyoko 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon's nomination

With the 22 votes Eptalon has (all in his support), I think we see obvious consensus is there for his becoming a CU. However, 22 is still less than 25 votes required by the Stewards. He needs three more votes (even if they are in oppose) and I think it deserves to try and ask people who voted for M7 and Creol, but not for Eptalon, to review his nomination again, and to vote if they wish. - Huji reply 21:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

minor complaint with logging out

Hello, this is something minor, but it bothers me every time I log out. When I log out, I get the following text:

You are now logged out. You can continue to use Wikipedia anonymously, or you can log in again as the same or as a different user. Note that some pages may continue to be displayed as if you were still logged in, until you clear your browser cache

Note that there is no period after the word "cache".

Is there any way to fix this? Like I said, this is a very minor complaint, but I'm reminded of it every time I log out. Thanks. --Kyoko 07:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

18px Done by fixing MediaWiki:Logouttext. - Huji reply 07:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalker1 → SmallTalker1

  • Current username:Template:User-multi
  • New username:Template:User-multi
  • Reason for change:I do not want my username to be misinterpreted as "Stalker" meaning "person who follows and harasses". It was meant to be an abbreviated version of "SmallTalker". Please change it. Stalker1 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

18px Done Blockinblox - talk 00:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ionas again

Hi. User:SmallTalker1 has the same behaviours as Ionas68224 for example, an essay on wikipedia an the lorem ipsum thingy... I am requesting a checkuser on him. Thank you!--HaloSilver 01:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What Lorem Ipsum thingy are you talking about? An essay is just an essay, and lots of people are anarchists. What if you are a sockpuppet of a user? Are you? How do you know about that user and you seem completely new here? A question for you, halosilver. smalltalker {C} 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The users style and demeanor are remarkably similar to Ionas as are his stated beleifs and opinions. I marked his user and talk page as suspected sockpuppet, but have not blocked as of this time awaiting checkuser results.-- <b>Creol</b>(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Whaddaya know. I saw waaaaaaayyyyy back in the revision history of ionas68224's user discussion article, to find that diff when ionas68224's essay was mentioned, and look what I've discovered: somebody called Archer 7 warned Ionas 68224 about the essay on August 16, 2007, which is exactly thirty-five days before the user HaloSilver showed up. Now, unless HaloSilver just took the time to look up the history of User_Talk:Ionas68224, how would a 3-day-old user know all of this about Ionas' essay? BTW, Creole, what about my "demeanor and style" are similar to ionas? Please specify, CREOLE. smalltalker {C} 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that we need a CheckUser in this case, unless it's to find out which proxy he's using. Archer7 - talk 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This account has only made positive contributions. Why is everyone agitated if this is that user named "Ionas68224" because I seem to see the block on the user named "Ionas68224" was for "disruption", I do not believe that I would require a block because I haven't disrupted, unlike ionas68224. And if you think I am Ionas68224, prove it. Show me diffs from me and diffs from ionas68224 and show the similarity. I would like that, because people have said "Seems like ionas, seems like ionas" where there has been no diffs provided by any who think I am Ionas68224. I would like proof. I did use a proxy to register, but to hide my ip address from stalkers (Not S. Talkers!) and privacy-invaders. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. smalltalker {C} 09:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We have brains you know, we're not robots. And we can spot much better sockpuppets than you. Are you actually trying to hide from us, or is this some kind of contest on how many times you can get blocked? Admins: I say we block the account now and block the IP that comes back from the CheckUser as an open proxy. Archer7 - talk 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
18px Done: Done (and waiting to do) -- <b>Creol</b>(talk) 13:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, it is possible that HaloSilver is an account created by a user who has previously contributed to this wiki; however, being a sockpuppet in itself is not disallowed. It is using it against the policies (like to get arround a block of the main account) which is not allowed. - Huji reply 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"Stalker", who's to say that I don't have any friends from en that pointed me out to here sometime back? Also, I'm smart and attentive, I've just been anon for a time. --HaloSilver 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Again for the record, it turned out that HaloSilver was a sockpuppet of Kimberly Ashton, a long-term well-known vandal. The account is indef blocked for the same reason. - Huji reply 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This explains the animosity between SmallTalker1 and HaloSilver, which seemed unusually personal for two newly-created accounts. Do these latest developments affect the current 1 year block on User:Ionas68224? --Kyoko 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Two blocked users

User:Ant-iantifa and User:Forhelvede are both indef blocked, because of writing F words about Wikipedia. It is possible that the vandal continue his/her attacks. Admins can review the deleted edits, and in case of conitnues attacks, we can request for CU and block the IP address too. - Huji reply 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)