User talk:Wrp103/Admin

This page contains archived conversations about my RfA and other admin related issues.

Admin

Bill, forgive me for taking so long; I actually thought I had responded immediately, but I must have been dreaming.

First, I am not an admin. I have had different people talk to me about it in the past, but it has never been something I felt like pursuing. I enjoy being an editor and I completely enjoy the vast majority of the editors on Wikipedia. However, I focus more on interaction, wordsmithing, and correcting blantant errors than anything. These are activities that I can perform well without being an admin.

I would encourage you to talk to User:Visorstuff. He has been an admin for a long time, though his activity has been curtailed the last few months because of other demands. Another would be Cogden, though I am not positive he is an admin. There are a number of others that I would refer you to, just let me know. I strongly encourage you to use a sponsor if at all possible. Many editors become admins by nominating themselves and I have supported their nominations, but with being sponsored you gain mentoring which can be invaluable when it gets "sticky".

In closing, I would support your nomination and would do so without reservation. However, put some more thought into why you desire this position. Simply seeking to gain the ability to block another editor falls short of proper motivation, IMHO. Review the responsibilities of being an admin to confirm that you want to fulfil those duties. Balance your monitoring of vandalism with welcoming newbies; welcoming others has been something that I have enjoyed doing. It would also be helpful to review editors that have failed in their nomination as well as those who have succeeded. You will see a definite distinction between the two groups. If you can't get to Visorstuff email me and I will make sure you get in contact. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination

If you are interested, I'll sponsor your nomination for adminship. I've started a nomination page for youhere. I think your chances are pretty good, because you've been around since 2004, and you have over 4,500 edits, and you've done great work, including lots of admin-type work. There is a good miniguide regarding adminship here. A more detailed guide is here. If you are interested in starting the process, you can go to the nomination page, accept the nomination, fill it out by answering the questions, and let me know, and I'll add it to the RfA page. You can take however long you want to answer the questions, since the nomination doesn't become effective until a link is added to the WP:RfA page. COGDEN 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your name to the list. You need to add your acceptance, though. COGDEN 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA question

I have posted an optional question to your RfA. —dgies^t_c 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy (series)

On a small note, i've put Final Fantasy (series) up for WP:RM to Final Fantasy. Simply south 11:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In a mo i think i will ask a more thought-provoking Q. (You're not related to a crisp brand are you?) Simply south 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like potato chips in general, and can't stand Pringles! Why anyone would want to eat pre-digested potato chips is beyond me. ;^) When I was younger I worked in at electrical engineering company. One of the premier switches was Pringles. I wouldn't mind being related to them. At least it was a product that I recommended to others. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, that was not the question :p. I have left a couple on your RFA. Simply south 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them and gave a brief response. I will try to add more later tonight. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i wasn't trying [something somethng] a bad impression. I wasn't quite sure how to word the second question. Simply south 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It never occurred to me that you were doing anything wrong. For those who don't know me, I must sound very evasive. Basically, what is happening is that I just poked my head in the door and asked "need any help?" and somebody said "what do you want to do?" and I replied "what do you need?" I am assuming that if my nomination is accepted, somebody will make some suggestions on things I can do, at which point I will try my best to do them, being careful not to break anything in the process. After a while, I will come to my own conclusions of what I can do to best help out, but will always be willing to entertain suggestions. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 1

Good response. If the RfA is unsuccessful, please do drop me a line WHEN you stand again. If successful, good luck with your mop. --Dweller 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Of course, if it is unsuccessful and I try again, it would be against policy to let you know, right? (That was a trick question, wasn't it? :^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, because I've asked you to notify me, that cannot be considered canvassing. And anyway, there's no guarantee I won't oppose again, <evil grin> --Dweller 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, we'll never know. Right? ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2

I have posted a question for you to answer at your RfA. (Iuio 04:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And I have answered them. I hope I don't sound too vague. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Warning Messages

I added a paragraph. I didn't remove any text. If I did by accident, my apologies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.132.95 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2007.

Wrp103 (Bill)

I didn't vandelise that page, I cannot get this computer to log out and stay out, when other people go on they go in on my profile. I'm on a strict time limit so I can't remember to log out every time.

Sincerly,

Triple-CC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.166.55.186 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Block request

Okay then; thanks anyways. · AndonicO ^Talk 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your advice...

Thanks for the advice Wrp103. Even though the vandals were warned previously and after test4, I will make sure the vandal will get the message after the last warning (Probably around 30 seconds). Thanks for the advice Wrp103 and happy editing!--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Vandalism

Lots of his edits are vandalism or personal attacks. WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV comment on my talk page

In case you're not watching, I replied on my talk page that I had given him a final warning on April 26, for vandalizing the same article. You can find it on his talk page, before some more recent warnings from bots and others. Dicklyon 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; Kinu blocked him. Dicklyon 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thank you, Wrp103, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO ^Talk

Re: Comment from wrp103

Thank you for making a report about Monkeymany (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. – Gurch 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Vandalism

In the case of an IP address I reported, you said that he had not received a warning. However, he had received a final warning (although a different edit to his page was later)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greatal386 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 May 2007.

Re:

I reported them because the name is a product, and per WP:NOT#DIR and on WP:U it states:

Match the name of a well-known company or group (especially if the user promotes it), unless the name is generic and could reasonably refer to something else.

Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyuiooplkjhg

If you look at their talkpage the message is {{Username block}}. Its just a block for having a username in violation of your username policy (see WP:U), in this case a name made up of an apparently random string of letters. I disabled the autoblock and enabled account creation so they can just create a new account... WjBscribe 03:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks without "ACB"

Hey I'm glad to see your RfA went through. I've noticed you blocking some vandal IPs with the message "Please create an account and login for constructive edits" and more importantly, the account creation blocked box is not checked. While it's nice to think these anons will reconsider their actions, make an account, and use it to contribute constructively, there is a downside. People who have ignored multiple warnings and continued to vandalize now get a second chance to make a brand new account and continue vandalizing. The block is supposed to be a "time out" period, so generally account creation is blocked unless there is a legitimate reason why this person should be making a new account, such as if they were blocked for a prohibited username. —dgies^t_c 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

I saw that. I reported him, simply because he seemed to have a trend with using racist terms in a number of articles, including one he created which was deleted via CSD. Wildthing61476 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding block

Hi, I thought Wikipedia does not indefinitely block IP addresses especially those that are shared by many people. So is this indefinite block simply a mistake? [1] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Block

Thanks for the information. The template page wasn't clear about it. -- jwadeo 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.230.200.146

there page is clean because something has stuffed up. This is what comes up with the auto warn on TW:

You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same IP address or shared proxy server was blocked. This is known as an "autoblock".

The other user was blocked by Ryulong for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Sdffsdf". The reason given for Sdffsdf's block is: "".

This block has been set to expire: 21:53, 18 May 2007.

Note that you are not blocked directly. If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address. IP blocked?

Due to the nature of some ISPs, autoblocks may inadvertently affect people other than the person whose account was blocked. If you are unjustly affected by this block, please copy-paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page:

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.230.200.146 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are auto blocked till the 18th why are they editing? - Ctbolt 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is going on. There isn't a block on, and the talk page was only changed once, for a low-level uw message. If it is a shared IP, then you will see a mix of legit & vandal edits. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep, I realise they'll be a mix. Anyway it seems to be blocked now - all a bit strange. Ctbolt 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on my user page; well I don't like templtes but when you seem to completely ignore the final warning I posted on someone's talk page and then tell me not to report people without issuing a final warning, it just doesn't seem just. Please review. Whiskey in the Jar 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) And just to clarify, my block is still there and the user is still vandalising. Whiskey in the Jar 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a little sharp, I think this guy is another of those shizophrenic IP vandals (66.234.200s) that seem to originate from the Wikimedia foundation. It is all rather curious but its bugging me out. Whiskey in the Jar 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.206.222.177

Hi. I noticed you reverted an edit by 65.206.222.177, but I could check the info s/he added to Cabinet of Hugo Chávez is correct. Please reconsider the vandalism warning you put in the user's talk page. Thanks. JRSP 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice you made the warning for another article, please ignore my previous request. See you. JRSP 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:AIV Request

Thanks for the heads up. — Zerida 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Totally disregarded last warning and reverted again [2]. Is it justifiable to block his IP? I suspect all the accounts are coming from it. I will also get started on SSP. — Zerida 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm stepping out because I left a message on the article's talk page which generated no discussion, and like you said, with cases of multiple account creation, it just leads nowhere. Will see what a sockpuppet report turns up. Cheers — Zerida 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

as a mere foot soldier in the plodding against light speed vndls - I was relieved to see your work - thanks Satu Suro 04:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to see bruce cockburn up there - I bought my first LP of his (with the horse running toward the train) in Sydney in 1975 i think it was - cheers Satu Suro 04:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV Request

Thanks for your help on the anonymous IP vandal. I'll follow up on the sockpuppetry as you suggested. Derek Balsam^(talk) 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusmurphy

This is something more than routine vandalism. There are several IPs and accunts vandalizing with the phrase "librarians are hiding something." This is one. There is something fishy going on...—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the phrase into the Lupin antivandal filter tool. I don't know how to make a bot...—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

Hi there. Regarding this note on my talk page, I thought I'd explain: generally, when dealing with random IP vandals, I work through the warnings before reporting, but the IP in question, Special:Contributions/202.79.30.2, is a returning problem vandal who spends most of his or her time trying to interject rude comments regarding Cheri DiNovo, a Canadian politician. The editor apparently has a dynamic IP. In my report, I mentioned the two articles that are regularly tagged by this editor; right now, they seem to have slowed down, as it's only been once a day for the past few days. Marks of this vandal, who also attacks User:Natalie Erin regularly, are the DiNovo-related edits, and the changing of editors' names in edit summaries. A look at Special:Contributions/122.252.176.34, whose talk page 202.79.30.2 has edited removing a collection of warnings, gives an indication of the kind of attacks dealt by this vandal. Generally, warnings only provide a source of amusement for the vandal, and short blocks have been issued to prevent further attacks. Thus, in this case, I immediately reported to save time for everyone involved in cleaning up after this person. I've done this previously with no issues that I know of.

One small request: could you please consider a personalized note when it comes to leaving this kind of comment on established editors' talk pages, instead of the impersonal template? I've been vandal fighting for quite some time, have reported things to AIV regularly, and do know the process; that template was kind of disconcerting. Much appreciated. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I replied to your comment at WP:AIV. Could we move the discussion to RfC to avoid spamming up AIV? --Whs itc hy 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arenaball

Alright, thanks for informing me. --Whs itc hy 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Fuentes

Hello, I noticed article Monique Fuentes that was created recently. I suppose it is notable, however please check out the external links. I'm not sure if this is acceptable. Thanks, Postoak 05:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JB196

...has created just a few sockpuppets who make similar edits to wrestling-related articles. He's evading his ban and his edits are reverted per revert, block, ignore. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that he's signing "Smiles" with JB196, and is revelling in getting away with it (see his posts to User talk:One Night In Hackney). This is definitely not a legit editor. --YFB ¿ 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this sockpuppet. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this self admitted JB196 sockpuppet, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at my talk page. --YFB ¿ 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Sorry if I seemed a bit terse last night, no hard feelings. --YFB ¿ 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from 216.108.4.71

Regarding your warning to this IP (diff), as noted on the page this is an ISP's caching proxy (actually they have .71 thru .74), so a hard block is not appropriate. If there is a flurry of vandalism you can always softblock for awhile. - David Oberst 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My User Talk- Templates

It's a personal style choice if i want to add the title of page or not. It actually incoruages the vandals to have the page titles. -Samnuva 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randomperson2121

Hi... He continued vandalizing after I gave him an L4 only-warning for blanking -- after previous warnings for vandalism. --Rrburke^(talk) 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see an admin say this

"I've been pretty busy the last few days and haven't been able to keep up to date with the changes, but maybe it is finally time to request arbitration. I agree that there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what NPOV actually means, and perhaps arbitration is the way to go. In the mean time, try simply reverting the reverts. I've done that a few times, and if enough people participate, then none of us will be in danger of 3rr. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)"

This appears to be advice on how to conduct an edit war. Suppose that editor gets 10 others to do the same thing you are proposing; would that be okay too? Aren't there official routes to follow instead? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

like who do you think you are

who the fuck are you to decide what is factual or not?

go fuck yourself. i subscribe to a proxy service that offers 10,000 different ips not in the same block. go for it scooter. next time you vandalize my entries Ill have you banned. who the fuck do you think you are to control history?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samdonaldson1 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 June 2007.