Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 26

Operation School Projects

I am a strong believer in the usage of simpleWP for school projects, however, I have often found them to be confusing at times. For instance, last night (this morning) I was reviewing Recent changes when I noticed a school project (User:Keroobean) start their editing session. Fine, no problems so far, but I then noticed an anon editor making what I considered an unrelated change to one of the teacher's sub-pages, so I rolled it back. I did this because all changes within the school project had so far used logged in accounts and because the change seemed unrelated to the topic of the sub-page. I later TW reverted (AGF) my own edit and thought, nah, I'll AGF here and let it go. This, however, got me to thinking that school projects should register as such on a WP page somewhere and they should give us guidelines as to what we can expect and what we should accept as normal behaviour. We are not here to pander to the whims of a teacher as our main goal, but are here to grow a Simple English version of an encyclopedia for all users of Simple English to use and edit. So, I think we need a page (and updated instructions) where school projects would register with us so editors don't make (possible) mistakes like the one I may have made today. Comments? fr33kman ^talk 06:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have raised this problem before, and it is worthy of further investigation. Keroobean contacted me several times to set up his project, especially after several early versions were deleted. This showed our guidelines, which he had mostly followed were not working. Barras suggested moving all the pages his class were creating into user sub pages which was done. I have created links so that the students can find the pages, and have been keeping an eye on them since the project started. It is great to see them moving from stubs to detailed articles, still needing lots of work, but nearly ready to go out into the main space. So by helping with this project will gain about 20 new articles this year, and hopefully more as Keroobean continues to work teaching English to Japanese students. As admimistrators we should be helping and assisting everyone who has something positive to contribute to the SEWP, and not making it harder for them. These projects take time.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't take it amiss, but I corrected the spelling error in my username in your comment, Peter. I think all school projects should first ask one of our regular editors for help and introductions (before the class project starts). I am regulary online and would help. I have no problems to do this with my mail address and would also post it on an official page to help. That would be something like personal care. Barras (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Empty threats?

Team: I have been wondering a couple of things. We often block users who are vandals, create attack pages etc., but they sometimes return and we just block them again, and again, and again, and again.... My question is, when do we take it further; i.e.: report them to an ISP, to their school, to the police? Some people actually break laws when they edit here, such as the new criminal laws on cyber-bullying. Do we ever take it a step further, or do we only ever offer "empty threats"? For instance, take this edit (admins only!). This may be fake or it may be about an actual human being who is being attacked in a vicious manner. Do we always ignore these things? When do we report? Whom should we escalate it to, WMF, the ISP, the college? Just curious. fr33kman ^talk 01:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As an individual editor, you can report it yourself. However, I would stop short of telling anyone they *must* report. I don't know what personal position an editor is in, and I encourage each individual to their own conscience to if they report. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in talking to someone who works at en:WP:ABUSE. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually write mails to the provider of IPs, when IP show very bad behaviour, eg harasment against someone (especially me as a nazi). Feel free to write mails to the provider. Barras (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuff of the sort in the link should be oversighted imo. Majorly talk 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is much more, what needs to be oversighted, but most things will only be reverted or deleted. If we ask everytime for these kinds of edits a stewards... Barras (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution would be that we create an Abuse project (or subpage of AN/VIP) and start keeping track of attack pages / repeat vandals. If we find that we're getting a large number of them, we can batch report a bunch to a Steward or have ample reason to get local Oversighters. Plus, if an admin feels up to it (which most of us probably don't, but I'm sure some do), then they can send reports. It's too time consuming to send an ISP report or steward request at the time of the vandalism/attack page deletion, but it would only take a few seconds to log it and then come back to it later. EhJJ^TALK 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this idea makes sense. fr33kman ^talk 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Two oversight action were performed on simple by the steward DerHexer after a request by Fr33kman and me. Barras (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Another 6 oversight actions performed by DerHexer. Barras (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  These were requested by EhJJ fr33kman ^talk 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we just oversighted more edits in a couple hours than have been oversighted in a couple years... -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm going to be requesting a couple of others as soon as I can find the deleted edits. fr33kman ^talk 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side thought, with the increase of oversight, we may desire to local elect. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We first need to dicuss if yes or no. That needs a clearly vote. After this we could search for some volunteers and elect at least 2 people. Election would have to be like the CU elections, means a least 25 voters. Barras (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest two seperate discussions, I'll put sections below to make it easier. fr33kman ^talk 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about a local en:WP:ABUSE type project

This discussion is about what to do with persistent vandals and serious vandalism and personal attack editors. WP:ABUSE is a project at enWP that works to investigate serious abuse and inform the correct people about it; ie: informing an editors ISP, school, or other authority about abuse coming from anonymous editors via their systems. We should not be holding a vote yet, but simply discussing it.

Comments

I can't think of a compelling reason not to have this team, and there have been a few cases where it would make sense. It doesn't need to be used often (I hope it's a relatively inactive project), but there are some repeat vandals here (like one who makes edits about movies made by a certain famous company...) that could be addressed in a joint way by knowledgeable admins and checkusers. Also, both in the UK and in the US (as well as many other countries), there are laws about what is acceptable on the internet. I think it's time our Wikipedia made sure that we are not allowing illegal activities on our project to continue unopposed. As I said before, I hope that we will rarely need to have investigations, but it would be nice (as an admin who notices a pattern of vandalism) to know that something more than year-long anon blocks can be done. EhJJ^TALK 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree EhJJ. In fact I think we should just be bold and go for it and make the page. People will either use it or not. If not, we can always shelve the page. Thoughts? fr33kman ^talk 06:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about electing local oversighters

NB: This discussion has moved to WP:ST#Local oversight. Please continue the discussion there.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is about whether or not we should elect some local oversighters. These are trusted and identified (to WMF only) who can permanently delete edits of an attacking nature where the edits include personal information, libel or other serious acts that need to be removed even from administrator viewing. We should not be holding a vote yet, but simply discussing it.

Comments

• Before we do anything to solve the problem, can we get an idea on how big the problem actually is? - How many times did a steward need to perform an oversight action on this Wikipedia in the last six months? - What I am getting at: If we do not see at least ten such actions per six months, picking people to become oversighters is probably a waste of our resources.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Most admins delete the pages and don't go to stewards and request an oversight. I'm sure there is enough work. I requested only this one OS action, because Fr33kman requested it. Otherwise I had not asked. Barras (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the last count was less than that... but I'll ask birdy if s/he won't come and check our logs. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the oversight log over the past 6 months, while helpful, isn't a true reflection of how many oversight requests may be made over the next 6 months, if we were more proactive about it. The problem is that most of us haven't bothered to have edits oversighted (or, for that matter, even know what kind of edits need oversight and which don't). A good quick summary is available here: en:Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. I think it makes sense to have local oversight (admins and editors will feel more comfortable making requests), but that the people elected for that position must be very trusted. EhJJ^TALK 12:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I will admit I rarely go put in an oversight request because of the hassle involved with having to go to meta to make the request. I am sure our numbers would be way higher than the logs actually show. -Djsasso (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience from the German Wikipedia: Before getting the oversight tool on dewp, there were only one or two request each months, because most admins and users didn't want to asked on meta for an oversight action. After getting this tools localy, the number of actions increased. See the German pseudolog here. Barras (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the case. I went to the stewards for an action because I've had enough of letting such edits slip by with only a delete. There are more admins here than there are active non-admins. That means most of the community is able to view edits that should not be accessible to anyone. Whilst, of course, the admins are trustworthy individuals, the fact remains that an edit that qualifies for oversight, should receive it. I, for one, will be requesting steward action a lot more often; indeed every time I think an edit qualifies and we get qualifying edits on a regular basis. fr33kman ^talk 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on WP:ST

I think that support seems to be expressed above for there to be a proposal for local oversighters to exist. As such, I've made one on WP:ST. Please express your opinions there from now on. Thanks! fr33kman ^talk 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Flooding/Flood Flag debacles

We need to clarify the above following various recent debacles. Firstly, we need to go tell all admins about it, as some still don't know that it exists and are flooding. Either tell them, or block them for disruption.

Secondly, I have been told that non-admins cannot be blocked for flooding without a flag... but admins can. Unfair, much?

We need one rule for all, not different rules for different users, as is clearly the case at the moment. Certainly for point #2 it seems it is "better" to not be an admin...

Goblin 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Anyone who floods indiscriminately will be blocked, admin or not. Hope this clears up one doubt. Chenzw  Talk  13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? What damage are they causing? Majorly talk 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely Majorly. Goblin 13:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

That would be an highly inappropriate use of blocks. Blocks are for people who are damaging the wiki, not helping it. It is always better for an admin to use flood if they are making many small changes but blocking if they don't is plainly wrong. An editor could always request a 'crat to turn on the flood flag for that admin. Also, since non-admins can not grant themselves the flood flag, I see no reason for them to be blocked for making helpful changes, regardless of if it floods RC or not. fr33kman ^talk 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jimbo has expressed agreement (read first two posts) that blocks are generally for infractions of editorial policies not misuse of admin tools. Misuse of admin tools should result in desysoping, not blocks. Additionally. use of the flood flag is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline states that admins should use the flag to avoid flooding, it does not say that they must use it. fr33kman ^talk 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to bring this line up: "Unacceptable uses include attempting to circumvent legitimate oversight of any controversial action, regardless of whether it is an administrator task or not.". That kind of proves my block was inappropriate, and I am re-opening a RfdA for Scream (not directly related to this topic, but as the rest all keep on being archived...) Goblin 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

(clarification to my above point) I remember once that it was decided that excessive flooding contributed to disruption of other users. In fact, I think one user was blocked as a result of this. Chenzw  Talk  15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that discussion? It still remains clear that admin tool abuse should result in desysoping, not blocks; except, perhaps, in emergency situations. Blocks are a last recourse, they should only be used when no other options (such as going to a 'crat to turn flood on) are possible. fr33kman ^talk 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to expand on that a bit. Not using the flood flag is not abuse since it is a guideline; it might be poor form, but it's not abuse of the flag. Misuse of the flood flag (using it when it shouldn't be used) probably is abuse. I will say that mistakes, however, happen and they should be brought up and discussed, not punished. fr33kman ^talk 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As an everyday Wiki editor I find this complete nonsense. If I need to make many edits to an article to improve it I could care less if I flood RC or not, as long as the article is fixed. I am not going to wait for a crat or admin to give my account the flag before I edit. For admins there is a different story. You can easily give it to yourself so I see no reason not to use it. I don't think a ban is warranted for normal editor or admin. At most a reminder.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Admins can only grant the flag to themselves Gordon. fr33kman ^talk 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression at the time was that the block was not due to flooding, per se, but due to Bluegoblin7's refusal to listen to the advice (and warning) of three admins (diff) who insisted that he stop flooding. Essentially, be redoing the same edit (deleting articles without flood flag), despite being asked to stop doing so, and refusing the engage in discussion was, in a sense, an extension of the 3RR. The block was a temporary measure to force discussion, but resulted in a lot of headache. Obviously, the block is controversial, and you'll need to ask NonvocalScream for his reasoning. I probably would not have made the block, but I believe it was made in good faith. EhJJ^TALK 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Which policy requires an admin to use the flood flag? I, also, would not have blocked and think that the block was very wrong to have been made. fr33kman ^talk 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, knowingly flooding the RC when its known so many people follow the RC here could be considered disruptive editing. Especially when the user refused to stop flooding for a second to discuss. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

D, theory is not fact. I agree that BG7 should have used flood, I agree that it was rude to not stop and discuss it. However, people watching RC can extend the number of edits it shows and can hide logged in users and further can make use of the Regex filter. To not use the flood flag was not abuse nor was it disruptive to the project. It was merely impolite. The block should not have been placed. There is no policy that says that an editor can not flood RC nor is there one that states that an editor or admin must make use of flood or bot flags. Since no policy was broken, no block should have been placed. The block was rash and uncalled for! A cup of tea is needed by both users and apologies should actually be exchanged. fr33kman ^talk 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is of course only your opinion that it didn't disrupt the project. Others of course believe it did disrupt the project (ie causing editors to not be able to catch vandalism or the like). And disrupting the project is violation of policy. Especially based on his comments that the reason he wasn't using it was because he was making a WP:POINT which is another guideline he was breaking. -Djsasso (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also note RC only holds so many edits, once BG hit a certain number he completely wiped out RC. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I never made a WP:POINT, nor do I intend to. My reasons for not using the flood flag were that my editing was being questioned on this noticeboard, and therefore hiding my edits would have been inappropriate behaviour - or rather, inappropriate use of the flood flag. It is other users who have decided that I have violated WP:POINT, though the can goes both ways, as other users have said that the block was POINTy. Anyway, this is going OT now... Goblin 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chennywoos!

Furthermore, in the 30 seconds or so for which I flooded there were no other edits, nor were there any edits other than flagged edits in the 10 minutes before or after the flood, with the exception of edits that had already been seen or were not important/could be seen on Watchlists. Goblin 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chennywoos!

@ IP, RC can be expanded. People depend on RC too much here, go use your Watchlists. Goblin 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chennywoos!

It can only be expanded so far... -Djsasso (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So far = more than 50,000 - I got bored at that amount of edits. Goblin 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Actually for me it tops out at 500, not sure how you are seeing 50,000. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Click 500, then change the address bar by adding two more zeros. It's pretty much infinite (but takes for ever to load). Goblin 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers!

And that is hacking the system. The average user is not going to know that or use that. -Djsasso (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most people won't know this, nor should they ideally need to do it. fr33kman ^talk 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

reset It's hardly hacking the system. Nor does it take much doing. It was one of the first things I did on a wiki as an average user. This is getting OT now. Goblin 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers!

Anything done using loopholes in coding is essentially hacking/manipulating the system. Hell I didn't know RC could go back like that and I have been editing wmf wikis for 5 years so I doubt that average user would think of it. lol you are probably just above average. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't see anyone scrutinizing your edits prior to this situation, but meh whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not block based on flooding the RC since I think this wiki is too obsessed with the RC. That being said I don't believe the block being referred to was actually for flooding but for refusing to discuss which is a valid block. That being said that is just my assumption, NVS would have to give his reasons since he did it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There is no policy that says an editor can't make lots of small and rapid changes to this wiki (ie: flood RC). It is only wiki etiquette, it's not a policy nor is it a guideline. It is a matter of opinion only as to whether or not it can be seen as disruptive. What if a interwiki anon or named editor (one who can't add the flood flag) came along and made 300 really useful edits (interwikis, or hotcats) in a space of 30 minutes and an admin blocked that user. Would that be a right or a wrong block? fr33kman ^talk 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I said I don't agree with blocking based on the flooding thus I would not block the user in your example. It's the non-responsiveness by a user who should know better that I believe could warrant a block. -Djsasso (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if my reasoning has a bearing on this discussion, I've only been following it loosely. If anyone needs/wants an explanation of my actions, I'm willing to write one up. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing RFDs

Administrators, please remember to remove closed RFDs from the RFD page. Exert 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to leave them on the RFD page for about 12-24 hours time so to allow the community to easily see the decision. This supports transparency. Is this ok? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove them with a note in the edit summary, something like closed as deleted/keep and all is ok. Barras (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We could close them, leave them there for 12 or 24 hours so the community could see the outcome, then a bot could archive them? Exert 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this... if this is ok? Not all watchlist AFD's they have commented... I sometimes don't. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have a ==Closed discussions== where they are left for 24 hours would be a good idea I've always thought. That way people who partake in the discussions or people who have done major work on the pages can easily find the discussion and see the rationale of the closing admin. It's important to remember that people are not always on and that we have a 24 hours site with editors all over the world. I've often wanted to see a recently closed discussion and had to go hunting for it. fr33kman ^talk 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added in rev 1636146. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest I prefer that they not be removed right away after closing, cause I then I have to go to the old history to link to the page to see what the result was and why. It used to be standard that we left them a few days after closing them. -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that one day should be adequate for a closed RfD to stay. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a bot, which remove the closed RfDs after 24 hours? And it would be great if a bot could chack, if an discussion is closed and move them automatically to the other section. WOuld this be possible? Barras (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible. Though kinda unneeded. The onus should be on the closing admin to move it to the correct spot and then remove it later. But if it doesnt happen and they're in the wrong place or stay there for ages, it's not the end of the wiki. Stop worrying about how Wikipedia space pages of probably-deleted articles are archived and go build some articles. Goblin 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Board Election 2009 Translation

I have started translating the pages for the Board Elections on wikimedia into simple English. I'd appreciate the help of an administrator. Would anyone be willing to help? --Terry ^{Talk - Changes} 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a Simple English translation won't be there as noted in your tp. Thanks, Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 07:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Oversights

Two oversight actions were performed by meta:User:DerHexer at the request of User:Exert who made the request through myself. fr33kman ^talk 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK --PirateSmackK (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Two oversight actions were performed by meta:User:Laaknor at my request. fr33kman ^talk 23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm now convinced that we should have local oversights. Exert 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am too, but let's not rush things like last time. Majorly talk 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I've put forth a proposal on WP:ST about having local oversighters (since support on this page seems to exist), but I just think we should accept or reject the proposal for now and not rush into who should stand or whom should be elected just yet. Let's see if the community is behind the idea firstly. fr33kman ^talk 06:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Courtesy note: There is discussion about this now taking place at WP:Simple talk#Local oversight. hmwithτ 03:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just for information: One oversight was done now by the steward User:Mardetanha after my request. Barras (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what are these OS actions fixing? Not looking for exact details, but are they hiding email addresses, personal info, PAs what? Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't see the content of the page, or the edit summary or username. Depends on which action was done. Only oversighters can view this, admins can't. Barras (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes I realise this. Thus why I said I was not looking for exact details, only basically why the OS was requested. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't want to say the exat content, but after reading the title of the deleted article. The content was the same and there is no need that anyone can see this. Barras (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Think I know which one he is referring too (the one I flagged up over at ST), and if that's the case then it was an email address. We also got a username locked and hidden earlier, though granted the Stews did that and not the oversighters. Ta, Goblin 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

• No BG, I looked in all deleted articles of this day and unfortunally I couldn't find this. The article I refer to is my latest deletion or probaly the one before. Barras (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Meh, maybe someone already did it. Hey-ho, there was def an email addy in there today. Goblin 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

• Ok, if you say so, I'll check the deletions of this day again. Barras (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here we go: 16:47, 14 July 2009 Chenzw (talk | changes) deleted "Deon jamal98@google.com" ‎ (QD G2: Test page. Please use the sandbox.) 9 deletes down Special:Log/delete. It's a minor one, but a candidate all the same imo. Goblin 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chennywoos!

• No need for an oversight. Barras (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd disagree, getting much more "trivial" things than that oversighted at EN, but hey-ho. Goblin 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

• This no need was my first thought and also "confirmed" by User:Mardetanha - no need for an os. Barras (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I fear you've (pl.) caught the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't questioning the need for the OS, I just wanted to know what we were OSing so that it would help me make up my mind if I think a local OS is required. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • m:OS#Use --Barras (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway, the next action performed by m:User:Laaknor --Barras (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Sigh. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer for Kennedy

Kennedy, sorry that no one has answered your question yet. These actions were generally to hide page creations where the title was libelous and obscene; usernames have been hidden, edits within pages that were libelous have also been oversighted as haves edit summaries for those edits or other edits where they have also been libelous, contained personally identifiable information or of a particularly vicious attack nature. One edit, for instance, was an attack against a person that explained where they would be on a daily basis. Another was of a vicious attack nature of a known WMF editor. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me and I can answer them for you. Over a dozen have been made. Cheers! fr33kman ^talk 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fr33k, but thats not quite what I meant. I actually wanted to know what these individual OS actions were. I already knew what an OS was, I just wanted to know if there was a pattern of abuse, or if it were addresses or personal info in these specific cases. Never mind though. Kennedy (talk • changes). 14:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've proposed a section removal at Wikipedia_talk:RecentChanges#Most_wanted. Please comment there! Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing RFD discussion

Administrators, please remember these changes to the way we do things per the RFD talk...

• Closed discussions now get archive templates.

• The outcome goes at the top of the discussion, instead of the bottom. (Bottom line, up front)

• The discussion is moved to the "recently closed" portion of the RFD page for a short time to permit easy review of decisions.

Thank you for all your good work! :) Cheers, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet

This user is a sockpuppet of the recently indefinitely blocked user 20thCenturyFoxStructure21‎. Could someone block this account? Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Griffin, thanks for alerting this to us. Perhaps next time, you could place reports on the Vandalism in progress page. Thanks!-- Tdxiang 01:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The user wasn't vandalizing Wikipedia. That's why I brought it here. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware of that, but next time, for vandalism-related sockpuppetry requests, you could use the VIP. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly.-- Tdxiang 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I see. Thanks for telling me, Griffinofwales (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RevisionDelete

Hi all!

The feature RevisionDelete is now stable. I want to ask you, if the community (especially the admins) want to enable this tool for admins. It would be easy to delete revisions, which are copyvios. If we want to delete a version of an article, we have to delete the article and later restore it. The tools was only enabled for oversighters, but is now stable and could be used, if the community want this. Barras (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to since I already do this the manual way. -Djsasso (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw only this idea on dewp, I thought it would be helpful here, too. And it is easier. Barras (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it's really necessary right now, but I wouldn't mind trying it out. Support this notion.-- Tdxiang 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really needed. But it won't hurt anything and I know that selective deletion is hard and / or time consuming without this tool. I'll support its addition to simple. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really needed, but I'll support having it added. Exert 16:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this extension is necessary on this wiki, however, if you came with some recent examples, where it could have been used, I'd maybe change my mind. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Last night a request for oversight was made (and carried out by Mike.lifeguard) to hide edits and log entries relating to a vicious and disgusting attack against a well known editor of various WMF projects. While it technically may not have fit the exact criteria of oversight, the steward agree that it was needed to be removed from the logs given the nature and target of the attack and exercised his discretion to perform oversight. RevisionDelete would have allowed admins to deal with this attack in a much more efficient manner and with out needing to include a steward for oversight and without possibly going outside of the exact framework of the criteria of oversight. There have been quite a few such cases recently; this is due to admins choosing to actually deal with such events rather than letting them remain within the logs. Please feel free to contact me for further examples should you need them. Cheers! :) fr33kman ^talk 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know admins can already do this, all you do is delete the page and then restore all edits except the one with the problem. So having this won't actually do anything more than can currently be done. It just allows you to not have to delete and restore. -Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can hide information in the edit summaries or information in the log entries. Please correct me if I'm wrong. fr33kman ^talk 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins will still see it, but it is hidden from the general public, when you restore a deleted article you can pick and choose the edits that will be restored. Thus any with bad edit summaries/user names can remain deleted and will no longer show up in the edit history/log. This new feature does the same thing with less work. Admins will still be able to see it but the public won't. If you were an admin on en I could show you an example on Calgary Flames where I did this just the other day in fact. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably a decent idea to try out. It does seem to be like a mini-oversight and could help us to better address the issue of copyvios, libel and attack pages that don't qualify for oversight. Oversight has more stringent rules when it is designed to be used and so RevisionDelete would help use to remove edits on the sysops or crats own initiative with out it needing to fit the criteria of Oversight. Since there would still be a large number of people (42) who have access to revised deletions, it would still be a good idea to have local oversighters. I don't think that this feature would alter our need for oversight; there are times when edits should be hidden from sysops also. fr33kman ^talk 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• This RevisionDelete is only an easier way to delete versions, no more. All admins can see this edits. RevisionsDelete is not the same like oversight. It makes only our work easier. Barras (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@DJSasso and Barras: Thanks for clearing that up. I've never actually needed to restore revisions yet, so was unaware of the exact details of what would occur. Given this, I'm neutral. fr33kman ^talk 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll request the extra tool, when bugzilla:19697 is decided. If they decline the tools for dewiki, so we don't need to request it for us. If dewiki can get the tool, I'll ask for them on simplewiki. Barras (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Requested on bugzilla:19819. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and oversight? —MC8 (b · t) 21:37, Wednesday July 22 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy)

The old oversight extension moved the oversighted data into a different table in the database, this required a developer to undo. RevDelete works differently and deletions can be undone easily without developer intervention (it also allows for hiding edit summaries and log entries). --Chris 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All admins can see the deleted content. It is not oversight, it is just deleting in an esier way, no more. Oversight is that the content can not be seen by admins. Barras (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of it does include an oversight option. There are two parts to it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick Deletion

Why are we deleting articles mere seconds after they are created... we give the article starter no time to finish starting an article. Why? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the articles we delete are definitifly not notable, complete nonsense, not in English, test pages or have no content. There is mostly no reason to wait. --Barras (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely we can give the A4 deletions time to address the concerns. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Now, I check whether there is an article on enWP. However, users should build the article at Special:MyPage and then transfer to article space. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia may not have articles that we do have. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, users should build articles in the mainspace. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  No articles like this one (admins only) are clearly not notable and are advertising. Click the weblink in it. There is no reason to delete it. User can create article in their own name space, but not such an "article" in main space. And enwiki has this article not, so it is surely not notable. Barras (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why does Special:MyPage exist? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the English Wikipedia is a "end all be all" test of notability. See this current deletion discussion, which is not in the English Wikipedia, that discussion currently is generating no consensus for deletion. And this article which was correctly tagged for deletion, however, rapidly expanded because it was given time. Also, this is a wiki... article can be created in userspace, but should be created in mainspace to give all editors a chance to notice and edit. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To create not finished article in own name space is the normal case on dewiki, otherwise articles will be speedy deleted. There is no reason, why other can't create new articles, like the one linked above, in own name space. Barras (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the German Wikipedia either. There is a reason for article creation in mainspace... for all to edit. If Dig Dug were created in userspace, I might not have expanded it. It is a wiki. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is ready to show notablity, it can easily be moved in the main name space. Otherwise it is not notable and this is a reason for wuick deletion. Barras (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not saying anyone was wrong. Everyone is doing the right action! :) I just want to propose we wait some time (an hour) before we delete A4's. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is ready to show notablity, it can easily be moved in the main name space. Otherwise it is not notable and this is a reason for quick deletion. Barras (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Agree with Barras. Yes it is a wiki but you're forgetting the other part, pedia. This is an encyclopedia first and a wiki second, and the article should be prepared to show notability once it enters article space. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for claryfying this NonvocalScream, you know what I thought. But, anyway, if we wait with the deletion, we could forgot this. If the article is tagged with the QD#reason, admins can decide on their own, if they want to wait or not. If the article is clearly not notable, I'll go ahead and delete it speedy. There is a page called WP:RFU, where users can request the undeletion. Quick deletion is, that the page will be speedy deleted and is not for wait x hours. And if there is no article on enwiki or any other wiki, the article is surely not notable. And then, we don't need to wait with the deletion. Barras (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't true at all...articles that are notable could be here before other wikis. In fact I know this has been the case in the past. Please don't use other wikis as assumptions of non-notability. Do actual checks for notability before tagging. A subject that is notable is also still notable no matter how bad the article is, so an article that is being created is also not valid for speedy deletion as is implied by some above. If there is even a small claim to notability in the article you can not delete it with a speedy. A afd is required. -Djsasso (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Decision: Ryulong (talk · contribs) will not be blocked. As former admin on the enwiki (where he is mostly active), he is not a single purpose account. Even if he isn't really active on this project is that not a blocking reason. Further more, users objected a block. No block for Ryulong. Barras (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[[User:J<removed>]]

Block requested because of bad username. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Already done locally and globally. Thank you.

--M7 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

I've mirrored the Title blacklist, from the Enwiki, theirs is actually a bit more up to date. This should preclude the latest username issues we have been seeing. Regex guru's please also add the new aspie vandal naming scheme at your pleasure. Please revert me at your discretion as well. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one is able to edit this clutter? I'm not. It is much easier to add ourself users/names to this list, rather then copy it from en. Several admins have add their own name to this list (e.g. Eptalon, Djsasso, me, etc) I can't find them. Please revert this. Thanks Barras (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

All WMF wikis also uphold the regexes added on Meta at m:Title blacklist. In my opinion, the bunch of regexes imported from EN is unnecessary as they were meant to stop long-term abuse over there (not over here). Chenzw  Talk  09:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good god, someone please revert that. The enwiki title blacklist is terrible, copying that over here will not stop any vandals and increase false positives. There are so many regexes there that are totally irrelevant to this project and will only succeed in blocking legitimate users. -Chris 10:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• And done. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Barras (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account - Ryulong

I've been reviewing the contributions and I have determined this to be a disruptive single purpose account. This is disruptive because this editor is here for just one purpose. The deletion of a single article. Also, the editor has been disrupting the article by removing interwiki links, even when the bots are reinserting them. This editor has one target, the user who created the article, and the article itself. If there are no objections, I'll be blocking the account shortly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. fr33kman ^talk 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The bots are incorrect, the interwiki links are dead, go check. Exert 19:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the bots are incorrect. The facts still remains... the editor has only one target, the editor who started the article and the article itself. The editor has not the project in mind. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, don't block a long-standing user (former sysop) from enwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes no matter to me, if the editor is disruptive, the editor is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How is he being disruptive? By removing dead interwiki links? Seems pretty productive to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor is disruptive because they have a POV... that the articles does not belong due to it's creator. The editor is not interested in our mainspace outside of that. The editor is here for one purpose. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Agreed, the most recent edits have all involved the article. Before that time, the edits had nothing to do with it though. I remain neutral. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a rethink. I don't think a block is warranted at this point. fr33kman ^talk 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will not be blocking the account. There are two substantial objections. Any ideas on how else to handle this SPA, is anything needed?NonvocalScream (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• But Ryulong isn't a SPA. He may very well have a POV, but his edits are not exclusively limited to one article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  @JC, off topic, but is there a way to view a user's rights across all the projects? I use luxo's contributions tool on stable toolserver but that doesn't list rights. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] Exert 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) JC, the editor has less than 50 changes, and more than 1/2 of those are directed to this area. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? I'm a single purpose account on this project because of my edits to make sure that the Disney Anon's articles are deleted? I don't edit here very often, but I've amassed over 90,000 edits over at en.wp, where I was a sysop for two and a half years. NonvocalScream should know that because I see his/her name every so often at en.wp. So what if I've been pruning the article for The Seventh Brother and I requested its deletion? It is because I feel the film is not notable and it should be deleted for that reason and that it was the creations of a banned user. This is the most ridiculous request I've seen on any language project I've ever been involved in. And I frequent the Japanese Wikipedia where they routinely RFD articles because someone added copyrighted text to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Redux

• This is really what I'm talking about. There were edits made to the article which was actually an improvement, and included sources. Ryulong removed them because of who he thinks made them. This simply makes no sense to me. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what is not understandandable on the archive template, above? Can't you acceppt, that he will not be blocked? Users obejected to block. The user will not be blocked. If you want to discuss with the user, go to his or your talk page. Thanks Barras (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe you missed this edit from yesterday. Just because you placed the archive templates... does not shut down the discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No I read before I set archive templates. And I didn't say, that you want to block. If you want to discuss about his edits, you can go to his talk page. This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. - For this you don't need an admin. Barras (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I want to wait for other comments. I believe this is an issue of disruption. I want it reviewed. If there is a consensus that there is no disruption, I'll leave it be. But, I'd like this discussed. Respectfully, `NonvocalScream (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)This type of edit is disruptive and not neutral. Is does not improve the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree, Ryulong is acting like a single purpose account with an agenda, and it most certainly is disruptive. If he had no history on enwiki, he would have been blocked by now as an SPA pushing an agenda. We do not take the backward view of enwiki that banned users are suddenly "unpeople" either. If their content is ok, we tend to keep it, and nor do we delete articles just because of who created them. I don't particularly agree with a block, but accounts that come here with a set agenda are not particularly welcome on this project. Ryulong needs to reconsider his actions and purpose here, and leave the article he is trying to get deleted alone for the duration of the RFD, and after. Majorly talk 16:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting even more ridiculous. NonvocalScream, I don't know the policies here. I know that there are rules at en.wiki that state that edits by users who have been banned are to be removed. That is what I plainly said in my edit summary. I am not disrupting this project. I can see you've completely ignored my message to you on your en.wp user talk. Your actions are total BS. I will say it here and I will say it at en.wp. I don't know how you managed to get sysop here, but comments like these, when you know I have an extensive history on other language projects, are really out of line. So I am trying to get as many language versions of The Seventh Brother that were spammed across multiple language Wikipedia projects deleted. That makes me a SPA? If this is how you are treating me simply because I do not contribute to this project as much as I do others, I am appalled. Drop it. I'm not getting blocked, I'm going to edit pages that I wish, and I will improve this project by doing as much as I can in the way I want to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• IF we have no local policy or guidline here, we use the policies from en. Just as note. Barras (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I I agree with Majorly here, I don't know where the discussion was but in at least one case we decided that we do not hold with the EN view that removes useful edits from banned editors. I'd just ask Ryulong to stop if he's reverting useful edits by banned editors and move on. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:الثلجي

Should this user be allowed? He has too much complex username (( --Deoxyribonucleic (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Our username policy doesn't how complex a name should be or shouldn't. Barras (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of SUL, we're going to have to accept usernames such as this. We could ask that he provide an English "translation" in his signature, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the standard procedure for such usernames on enwiki. A reasonable compromise. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• According to Google Translate it means "snow".  GARDEN  20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

bad username?

 Done I think that this username is against policy. Usernamehardblock requested. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In the future could you make requests at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? Thanks. Exert 02:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought VIP was for vandalism, not bad usernames. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The account was blocked with in a minute of creation. Your post here was three minutes late. Accounts with problematic names do not need insta-blocking, and there's normally an admin watching RC. So please only post if there is clearly a delay. This whole thread served no purpose. Majorly talk 02:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, so I should wait about 10 minutes before posting here? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just don't post three minutes after... Majorly talk 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2 issues (bad usernames, rights)

1. I need the flooder right temporarily, and 2. I think that this user's name is against username policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The user's been blocked, why do you need the bot flag? Exert 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See my talk. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have waited 36 hours for this flag! How long does it take to get a 'crat?! Griffinofwales (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, You don't get a 'crat for granting bot flag. I think it is only useful to welcome new users who edited and when the edits aren't over one day old. Otherwise, it'S imo pretty useless to grant this flag. Barras (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a crat. Admins can only flag themselves. Shappy ^talk 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

@Barras, that is what I am doing. I only welcome users that have edited and are old (right now I am welcoming users from late June and early July). Griffinofwales (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make a separate account only for welcoming users, and get a bot flag for it? Exert 15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

...or not mass-welcome editors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot will be created (GriffinBot1). I'm not mass-welcoming, I screen the edits of all the users I welcome. Again, only users that have edited are welcomed, which is what we would do anyways, so I'm just helping. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a standard of not mass welcoming users, this is actually something we actively discourage, and using a bot to do it would actually be worse. And welcoming users a month later seems to me to be a bit late if they are actively editing, and if they aren't actively edting, we prefer not to create wasteful pages for a user that will never be back. -Djsasso (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Compromise: I welcome all users who have edited and less than a day old. I welcome all users who have created their accounts here. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If those are the restrictions of who you're going to welcome, you don't need the bot flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I will need it, but only temporarily. I will be going back in the user creation log and welcoming all the users that created accounts at this wiki (not the blocked ones). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what several people are saying shouldn't be done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If they created it automatically, then I understand. But if a user created their account here, that must mean that they have an intention of staying. So, it doesn't matter whether they have contribs or not. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly does. I'd say a good 80% of people who create accounts will never log in again. Please only welcome a user if they've edited in good-faith. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I will tell you what happened. I went through the user creation log, 500 users at a time, and opened the contributions page for all the users that had contribs. I then scanned the edits and if any were vandalism, I reverted them and did not welcome the user. If the username seemed to be against username policy, I checked the block log. If they met the criteria, I welcomed them. After 40 or more of these welcomes, NVS told me to get the flood flag. NVS went on IRC but couldn't find a 'crat, so I was stuck with 90 tabs open (I have closed them). After 24 hours I posted here, and after 36, I left another note, which led to this huge discussion. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several solutions. 1. I could close my bot request and pretend this never happened. 2. I could return to what I was doing with the flood flag 3. I could use the bot or 4. I will only welcome users that have edited and are less than a day old (which I have always done). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Number 4 is what several of us are telling you to do, so I'd say that's the option to go with. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is and was my default, but since NVS didn't object (the only sysop online at the time) to the mass-welcoming, I thought I could go ahead. I will wait for a 'crat to close the bot request if they think they should. I would like the bot to receive the bot right anyways for some future purpose. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

bad username?

I think that this user's name is against policy, but I'm not sure. It mentions the word bot and the names of YotCmdr, BG7, Shappy and perhaps others. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And is created by one of the mentioned users (or at least the userpage). Therefore, I think the both users know about this. No need for a block. Barras (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice that. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm though if this is meant to be a combined account that is against policy... -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Bluegoblin7 what the purpose of the account is at User_talk:Bluegoblin7#User:YotBotGobShaptiebypyty. Exert 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember right, it was just for fun. Also known as joke... The thing about what many peoples can laugh. And the account has never edited. Where is the problem? --Barras (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Griffinofwales, the last three sections here, begun by you, were identical... do you consider this constructive, honestly? I think there's *something* better to do than hunting down usernames... -- Mentifisto 09:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Djsasso's RFB

Since my closure of this RFB was objected to on my talk page and the bit was requested to be removed and has been, I request an uninvolved bureaucrat to review the RFB and reclose it as they see fit taking into account all that has been said by all parties. fr33kman ^talk 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only uninvolved crat left is Vector if someone wants to contact him, otherwise a steward may be best. As all other 'crats have either displayed a wish to not have me as a crat or to not have another crat period due to numbers. -Djsasso (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing... - Apparently DerHexer has commented which not most of us managed to see. Chenzw  Talk  13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but I definitely stand by Fr33kman's closure 100%. I think 1 vote away from 75% is crat discretion, and he did use his discretion wisely. Shappy ^talk 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this shows that promotions can happen when they don't reach the proposed minimum. As far as I know, FSM hasn't broken the wiki yet. Shappy ^talk 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes things are not always easy; That decision was 11:8 (for admin, 58% support). It turned out to be less questioned; Looking back, FSM was active for perhaps 2 weeks, then lost interest. Before we ask a steward though, please take the time to read what I wrote on simple talk. Let's think before we act, for once. :) --Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki interface

The message "create a book" should be changed to "make a book"/. Rich Farmbrough (talk)

Well, it's an idea, even if I think create sounds better. Anyway both is simple, and so far it doesn't matter to me. Barras (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Make is probably the simpler word. I just don't know which mediawiki page this is on. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You made the change as I was posting that I couldn't find how to do it, and was very confused at it being done... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's because I'm better than youerr...I mean, I have my ways. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, My monitor shows "create a book"... Barras (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's working for me. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arg, I always forget about that page, and totally missed it when I checked out Special:SpecialPages (which was the first place I looked). Fail. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

another pineapple man account

This user is another sock of PINEAPPLEMAN. Could someone block it? Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Exert. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

bad username

This user name is in violation of policy. Could someone block it? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done please use VIP for these. Thanks. Exert 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the vandalism? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"This page is to report vandals, spammers and usernames, in violation of the username policy, to administrators for blocking. " It's not just for vandalism. Exert 03:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops...I was wrong. I had always compared to AIV at enWP. Thanks for letting me know. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Exert 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this username in violation of policy? fr33kman ^talk 04:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Promotional/spam –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! :) (just saw their contribs) fr33kman ^talk 04:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request semi protection

Hello. It appears the editors are inserting patently false information (with flimsy sourcing) while removing information (with good, reliable sourcing). I request semi protection for two weeks on Cannabis. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're an admin aren't you? So why are you requesting, be Bold! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He is involved, so I think he thinks that it is a COI. Pmlineditor 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)r

I do not understand why your asking my to do an administrative action where I clearly have a conflict of interest, on an article that I am involved in. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - two weeks semi. Barras || talk 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More Disney Vandal

I believe this user might be the Disney vandal (similar edits.) --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T ♥s you! 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Majorly talk 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me reverting all of their edits? From what I can tell this is standard on en.WP, so, if no one objects, I'll go do it. Also, none of their edits appear to cite WP:RS, or any source at all, for that matter. →javért ^stargaze 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please check every edit before blanket reverting. If the edit improves the article, please leave it alone. Majorly talk 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the changes they made to List of 20th Century Fox movies and List of Disney movies. While what they added may or may not be true, they cited no sources. Unsourced material is the greated harm, IMO, to an encyclopedia. Every fact should be verifiable. Feel free to revert my changes if you disagree, though. Best, →javért ^stargaze 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) User appears to be back in the form of GameShowFan94 (talk · contribs). →javért ^stargaze 23:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Exert 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jew

I know that there are a bit of *jew disruptive account creations. I'm interested in regexing to prevent those creations. I know a recent addition to the black list was removed due to the chance of false positive... can we formulate a regex that would work best? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about:

(?i:.*\bjew(ish)+\b.*)

This way, the blacklist will catch both "jewish" and "jew" in usernames but not if the blacklisted entries are part of another (possibly legitimate) word (eg. jewel, jewellery). Chenzw  Talk  01:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. I'll just wait a few hours for other comments, then I'll commit the edit to the black list. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If we add this, please make sure, that we don't get too much false positives. Otherwise I have no problems, because it is mostly not appreciate. Barras || talk 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and the way that it is written now should cut down on the false positives. →javért ^stargaze 09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

vandal from enWP

Could an admin look at this discussion and take the appropriate actions? Are they blocked or welcomed? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a static IP, otherwise it wouldn't be usefull to block it for two weeks. and the actions are over 12h old. Barras || talk 22:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did'nt block.  :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And I don't know how to check if static or not... But ok :) Barras || talk 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should have checked the log. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• The IP is on a cable network. Currently in the US, it is likely that this will remain the IP that this user will have until his cable modem resets. This could be a long time. However, it is fed via Redback server... so it is dynamic. What is called a long term dynamic. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just for interst: how did you check this? Where have I to click? My pc don't like me and I don't like it either... So far, my computer/IT skills are not the best ones. Barras || talk 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bottom of the IP changes... there are some tools. RBL, WHOIS, and some others. This way we can see if it belongs to a cable or ADSL (xDSL) network. Also the traceroute... sometimes we can see if the route is thru a redback server or other DHCP device. This is not common, but it happens. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've used these tools sometimes, but never understood what they tell me. Anyway, thank you Barras || talk 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving...

I invite a thoughtful reading of this. For those who have not seen. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You should post this at WP:ST. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101

Per this and WP:DUCK, 63.3.5.2 (talk · contribs) is most likely a sock of BF101 and should be blocked. Best, →javért ^stargaze 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Shappy ^talk 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

user name black list

Could an admin please add the word 'penis' and all of its variations to the black list? I can't think of a legitimate use of the word in a user name. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• .*penis.* <newaccountonly> - is already done. Barras || talk 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Now:.*[Pp][Ee3][NnMm][IilL1!:;][Ss5].* <newaccountonly> I hope this will work now. --Barras || talk 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Fail..Barras. Here are some more: É, é, Ń, ń, È, è, Ì, í, Í, ĺ, ì, Ê, ê, Î, î, Ś, ś, Ŝ, ŝ, Ş, ş, Ē, ē, Ī, ī, Ĕ, ĕ, Ĭ, ǐ, š, Š, Ñ, ñ, Ẽ, ẽ, Ę, ę, į, Į. More coming later...Griffinofwales (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    •  Doing... --Barras || talk 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done --Barras || talk 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    More! Ά, ά, Έ, έ, ή, Ṇ, ṇ, Ṣ, ṣ, Ё, ё, є, Є, ɘ, Э, ə, Ə, э, ɚ, ɝ, ɳ, ɲ, ŋ, ɴ, Ї, ї, Й, й, ⁿ, Л, л. I tried to get all the ones that looked like e and n. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Barras || talk 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• You finished too fast. Now I have to add more (M and L). Ṃ, ṃ, м, ɱ, ľ, ι, ŀ, ł, ḹ, ḷ, ɪ, ɨ, ɭ, ˡ, ʍ. That's enough :). Sorry, Barras, Griffinofwales (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --Barras || talk 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New word: Vandal, with all the variations listed above. The list of letters is located at the bottom of the editing page, you will need them. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Barras || talk 11:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actions review

In deference to accountability, if the administrators and editors would review them here, I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place, go here. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Griffinofwales

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed: Editor is going to be more aware. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Griffinofwales (talk · contribs)

This editor does well in mainspace. However, Griffen's constant questioning of administrative actions are quite becoming a bit of a distraction on the project. I see that is has been addressed once, twice. There was a time where I had to stop three [2] [3] [4] times in one day to explain myself. Explanation takes time, and I don't mind explanation, but this is to the point where I am spending less time where I want to be. And I can't understand why he is pursuing a ban against an administrator, who has done nothing. I intend to warn and if it continues, block the editor for disruption. I post here for review and accountability. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse the block. His recent edits to my talk have been ridiculous, to say the least. Shappy ^talk 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's chat it over with Griffinofwales in a wide open forum, like here, before we head to blockland. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why I wanted my intentions to be known. I've not done anything yet. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

-

ST is better. In most (not all) cases where I have questioned an admin's actions, other admins have agreed with me. Why is that? Is it because I watch RC so much? or is it because the admins know they shouldn't question other admins? or is it something else? I have agreed and disagreed with every (or almost every) admin here. Sometimes, admins like me, sometimes they don't. I don't think I am doing anything blockable, although some could say I am disrupting the project (naturally I don't think I am), but I will let the admins decide. While I believe that I am not a negative to the project (Majorly thinks so), there are disadvantages of having me here. Most admins here probably don't like me, but I can't be blocked for that. Please don't judge this case on what you think, but on what policy says you should do. If 65% of Brits think Brown should be killed, is it right to kill him? No. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

• I like you fine... and I would rather resolve this without resorting to any technical measures. Discussion is always good. So I want to ask... do you really understand where the concerns are? And... Would you care for a mentor... maybe that could help. You could direct your questions to one person, instead of everyone. What you your thoughts Grif? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, 1. A mentor would not be online 24/7 and it's better to speak with the blocking/protecting/deleting admin who knows why he/she did something instead of someone who has no clue, and would have to find out. 2. Yes, I do understand the concerns, admins do not want to be repeatedly questioned over actions that they make. 3. Idea: Let's move this to my talk, just in case I get blocked by a admin making a bold move, and leave links here. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    • We've tried mentorship in the past, and it hasn't exactly worked. Personally, I think Griffin needs to relax, work on articles and not bug admins over every move. Shappy ^talk 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

      I think that's a fair point. One thing we're really suffering from here right now is a MASSIVE overdose of bureaucracy. We have half a dozen RFx's running which are generating more edits than all of the mainspace edits. Poor show. Where are the article writers? If we (including Grif) could spend some time writing articles then perhaps we'll all remember what this project is supposed to represent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

      Really, TRM, I just imported a rather large article yesterday, and it hurt my eyes. Look at the edit history, I spent some time. I'm getting really bored, with being told "get thee to mainspace" every day.  :) Please permit me to edit project space also. I'm writing article I promise. I even posted it up to GA for review (could you review?) Very best, and with a good heart! NonvocalScream (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

      I saw it NVS! I'll go review. And no, mainspace edits only from now on otherwise all we'll have to talk about is us talking about each other. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

-

• • •  (change conflict) I am one of the most active editors here (not trying to brag). I don't create articles (I maintain them) because what's the point of creating new articles when we can't keep the ones we have in good condition. Every day, I see IPs removing vandalism off our pages! Let's stop focusing on article creation and focus on article improving or article maintaining. Less than .1% of our articles are GA/VGA class. If we stopped chasing editors away, we might start seeing an improvement. The two editors with the most edits here are no longer active (Razor & Creol). Exert left a few days ago, Kennedy is threatening to leave, and you are about to ban an editor who has more edits than a possible future oversighter. Comment to TRM: Am I allowed to edit this page and appeal any bans? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Grif, you can edit any page you like, of course, and of course you can appeal any decision the community makes. I'm not necessarily suggesting we should go and create articles but I do think, and anyone can check "New changes" if they don't believe me, we, as a community, do not spend enough time in the mainspace. Creating, maintaining, referencing, illustrating, whatever, we're NOT DOING ENOUGH OF IT... everyone hear that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

From my work at RC, the community (defined as admins) does very little work in article space. Non-admins, visitors etc. do a lot of work in article space. The only reason most admins seem to stop by is to vote on things, block people, etc. and then they leave again. Where do they all go? IRC, enWP? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Community is not defined as admins, although it's heading that way. But a number of us do actually push GAs and VGAs through. Personally, I'm active on enWP but never IRC. I think what the community would like to see is a concerted effort to improve the encyclopedic content of this Wikipedia rather than just critiques of particular editor's behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We are getting a bit off topic. Griffen, can you promise us you will consider what was said and I'll close this up if no objections? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that far off-topic. I'm suggesting that we all make an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of the Wikipedia and then get worked up about admin activity... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider the community as admins because not many editors are active. Let me think of one: me. That's it. You can close the thread, and next time (if there is a next time), ST not AN Griffinofwales (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.