Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 32

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

Japan chronology projects

Is this a good or appropriate place to post these kinds of issues?

A. The List of Emperors of Japan is a chronology. I plan to create 100+ articles with links to this list. This historical record uses the unique Japanese calendar and the Western Gregorian calendar. I have created one sample article — Emperor Ankō?

B. The list of Japanese era names in the Japanese calendar is also a chronology. I plan to create 200+ articles in the context of this list. I have created two sample articles — Shōō (Kamakura period) and Einin?

C. As you can see, the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist is supplemented with more difficult words. I provided links to relevant simple:Wikipedia articles and simple:Wiktionary definitions.

D. I have used Japanese language kanji and a diacritic (en:macron). This writing is consistent with en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Manual of Style.

Is this good for simple:Wikipedia? Do you have comments? questions? suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers: Is this the right place for these kind of discussions? The best place would be the talk page of the relevant article, or perhaps on Simple Talk where everyone can read it. But as this follows on from the discussions above, it will be OK to answer the questions here. Japan is not a subject that has many articles, and so your contribution is welcomed by the whole community. Lists are a difficult thing to simplify, but I think so far you have done a good job. The combined word list with links is usually the best way to go when simplifying, and if it is not simple enough, another editor will probably fix it. Kanji and diacritics used correctly are fine to use on this Wikipedia. As we do not have them in our Manual of Style, it would be suitable to default to the English Wikipedia for correct use. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

import.

Resolved. Template imported by User:Lauryn Ashby Bluegoblin7 ∞ 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Can someone please import Template:Intervals from enWP? SS✞^(Kay) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds like fun. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jew--protection request

Resolved. Protected for two weeks Bluegoblin7 ∞ 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Jew (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Has much IP vandalism (compared with only one edit in six months that wasn't vand, rv or bot); also possibility of hate vandalism. Request three months semi-protection. Purple backpack89 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by User:Bluegoblin7 for two weeks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict x2) Three months is excessive, i've done it for two weeks and it can be re-protected after that if needed. Bluegoblin7 ∞ 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

Resolved. Seems to have been sorted. Gob lin 13:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

As I detailed on Talk:Zoosk, there have been some edits to Zoosk that resemble an advertisement that I have reason to think may have been introduced by somebody with a conflict of interest. Kansan (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits by AKBrooks and left a note at her talk page. Let us see where it goes from here. Either way (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import request

Resolved. Done by me Gob lin 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

Can somebody please import Consumerism from the English Wikipedia for me? Kansan (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Gob lin 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Thanks. Kansan (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gob lin 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Arbitrary section name

I have made 1 or 2 minor edits on wikipedia before. I also contributed to the Fund appeal last year. Yet now I find, when i tried to log in, that you no longer have an account with my name. Further more the edits I made - even the whole webpage - has gone. If this is related to my short complaint about allowing the BBC and other institutions to send bots round to re-write history, then i demand a refund as this is NOT the site i donated to, and this cavalier attitude shown by some self important 'admins' is not what i would subscribe to either. If this message is posted in the wrong place, its because trying to actually communicate with "The editors" is a nightmare maze of menus and sub-menus that casual visitors have NO WAY of understanding. In fact, there is a useful project right there, displaying the site in TREE form, so users can navigate to the correct destination I am right royally peed off if someone has arbitrarily erased my account, and will dedicate myself to being a nightmare and a nuisance if this is the case. 86.160.216.176 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, first off when you submit something to the wiki it gives a warning at the bottom of the page to not submit if you do not consent to have your content edited in any way. Deletion is a form of editing. Secondly, this is simple.wikipedia. Are you sure your article wasn't at english.wikipedia. If this is the case that is probably why you cannot access your account. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, we also actually have no way to erase an account. Do you remember the approximate account name and I can look for it on here and en for you? James (T C) 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound annoying or anything, but please remember, caps off (don't use capitals)! :) Even though wikipedia isn't censored, 86.160.216.176., it's best to keep on the safe side and try to keep your temper. Caps won't help anything. Thanks, ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Jamesofur said, users on Wikimedia cannot delete/erase a username. Unless you are very sure that you can't log in, your username may have been merged to another temporary name if someone has stated on WP:CHU that they wanted to rename to your username (usurping). Either way, please tell us what you believe is your username; this may help us find it for you. Nifky^{^} 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Resolved. Imported by me. Nifky^{^} 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please be so kind as to import Reception history of Jane Austen from the English Wikipedia? I'd also prefer to have it in mainspace. I'll certainly do my best to simplify it to my satisfaction tomorrow before I do anything else on Wikipedia. :) Thank you very much in advance, and God bless, --Classicalina|^talk_tea 12:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nifky^{^} 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That was pretty fast. I'm working on simplifying it right now (I've simplified the introduction and the first section already). :) I just have one question: do you have to put an {{enwp based}} template on the talk page for imported pages, too? Thanks, —Classical Esther 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, at Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution it says that when you import it in the history of the page 'imported x revisions from en.wikipedia'. :) Nifky^{^} 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. :) Thank you very much for all your help. —Classical Esther 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also brings all the edits with it, unless you only bring over the most recent one. Either way is acceptable. I prefer to bring them all over, some only the last. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block review: Flayof

Resolved. Reviewed & denied Gob lin 11:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

I blocked User:Flayof yesterday indefinitely. About 18 hours ago, Flayof put up an unblock request. It has not been tended to yet. Could someone take a look? Much appreciated, Either way (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gob lin 11:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Template:Infobox military conflict

Resolved. Imported. Nifky^{^} 06:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please inmport en:Template:Infobox military conflict for me? It's indefinitely protected at the moment through high risk of vandalism at the English Wikipedia, so I can't bring it over. It would be highly useful for many historical articles we currently have. Thanks, —Classical Esther 06:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nifky^{^} 06:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the quick import. :) —Classical Esther 06:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Adorno rocks

Resolved. Blocked by Jamesofur. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adorno rocks is moving many pages. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another PBP89 Protection Request that you may not like

George Washington (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In the last week, has been vandalized several times by several different IPs, and one confirmed user. I propose silver-lock for a minimum of three months, and throw in an indef move protection. I know I'm tough on silver-lock proposals, but that's just the way I am. Purple backpack89 03:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is too long; I have semi'd it for two weeks and if vandalism continues after the two week period is up, we can revisit the issue. — laurynashby 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is too short. Way too short. By Cinco de Mayo, we'll have had more vandalism on a very important article Purple backpack89 03:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is plenty. "If vandalism continues after the two week period is up, we can revisit the issue" — laurynashby 03:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is plenty. It is the first time it has been protected and the current rate of vandalism is not beyond workable. Protection should be kept to the minimum amount possible if the two weeks doesn't work (especially it gets worse) then perhaps but 3 months off the bat is meh. James (T C) 04:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to the time frame, but PBP 2 weeks is way better than what you would have got from me. You probably would have gotten a week at most from me. Protection is only meant to occur in the very worst of situations. Think 25+ vandalism edits from like 5 different editors in a single day. Protection is a last resort in a situation where blocks haven't worked. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Djsasso's assessment. I see 4 vandals in the last month. To lock it for three months over this would be inappropriate. Two weeks seems a bit much too, in my opinion but is much more liveable than months of protection. Either way (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing from IP 195.195.131.166 again

Resolved.

IP 195.195.131.166, who has been blocked previously for edits that constitute a POV and block evasion, has been creating articles on Pakistani tehsils again. This would be fine, except if you look closely, these edits define it as in "occupied Kashmir". The term "occupied" implies, depending on who's using it, that either India or Pakistan illegitimately controls an area. It is not Wikipedia's job to take a side in an international land dispute, and I think that action is needed (so many articles have been created that I wanted to get an administrator's advice before diving into it). Kansan (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that there have been complaints from readers that some of our coverage on this issue is biased, and in looking at them, I have found that some articles do, bluntly, take a side on the issue. I came across one today on Abbottabad District that did so very subtly. I think that this is partly due to a lack of familiarity of most editors from English speaking countries about Pakistani/Indian geography, but I think that it's worth us keeping a close eye on in the future, if not systematically going through all edits dealing with Kashmir, Pakistan, or even containing the word "occupied". Kansan (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and articles nuked by Petersymonds. This user has been community banned for this very problem and an inability to engage in conversation about it. James (T C) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user appears to be back as 195.195.131.162, which is part of the same IP range. This specific IP has also been blocked previously for block evasion. Today, they haven't yet made any NPOV edits, but it's worth keeping an eye on if you as administrators choose not to block it. Kansan (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. The block is to prevent that user from making vandal changes. If they make even one vandal or POV edit from that IP, I think we ought to consider a range-block (perhaps 195.195.131.166/28) for the 3 months. EhJJ^TALK 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Resolved. Import is used to improve the encyclopaedia, not import userboxes. Additionally, imports cannot be done from the Catalan Wikipedia. Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you do some imports for me from the Catalan Wikipedia? They are the following:

Thanks in advance. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these userboxes exist on the English Wikipedia. Why do you want them in Catalan? EhJJ^TALK 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because many of them I already have on my Catalan userpage, and I really like them. I'll translate them as well. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly we do not currently have any wiki other then en (and other simple projects) set up for import. With community consensus we can of course ask for more to be set up but for now the only option is en. James (T C) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think it's a waste to be importing userboxes with import tools. It should be used to improve the encyclopedia/project, not decorate our user pages. Either way (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so, but for sure it is done just once ;-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Either way. Just copy them over, simplify them (probably not necessary with userboxes) and then put the attribution template on the talk page. Forgive me for being frank, but I, and by extension the other administrators, have better things to do with our limited free time than import userboxes. — laurynashby 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry. Please forgive me. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubinstein

Resolved. Restored and userfied by Pmlineditor Lauryn^{Dirty little secrets} 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the reinstatement of the above named article, which was deleted by User:Lauryn_Ashby. I had just begun working on this article and feel did not have time to bring it up to specs before it was deleted.THD3 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith here. I have restored and moved the said article to userspace so that you can simplify it. I hope Lauryn doesn't have any problems with this. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

There's been a lot of edit warring about this article, some of its edits being quite recent (its protection has expired now), and the discussion on the talk page is beginning to turn into a dispute over his death. It's been disputed on en as well, and it seems that the same problem is occurring here as well. Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this and decide what to do about this and cool things down somewhat? Thank you, —Classical Esther^talk 08:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done protect for 1 month --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

I'm sorry, my internet access is as such that it is difficult to edit. I don't expect to be out of this situation anytime until around early next year. Is it possible to take leave and retain my access levels, or how is this type of situation handled? Many thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 09:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well our current policy is a year? of inactivity I believe and knowing you you will be back far before that :) To be honest I also have less of a problem with inactivity when someone is making an effort to tell us that they will be basically inactive for some reason or another as you are so. 09:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

you are a Bureaucrat, you can remove your right by yourself :( --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, only sysop rights you can remove :| --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you informed us about this. I think in this case you can just hold your rights and come back when you have a normal Internet access. Maybe you should just move yourself to inactive on the adminlist and leave a comment on your userpage. Barras ^talk 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can ask to have them removed and then ask for them back when you come back since you would not be doing so under a cloud. Or you can do nothing and have them removed after a year of inactivity. Personally I prefer you to remove them yourself, but its totally up to you. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Resolved.

done James (T C) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import en:Template:Bible_translation_infobox. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jamesofur already did it! PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done James (T C) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:EnglishTranslations PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — laurynashby 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:General relativity and en:Template:Three Kingdoms infobox PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — laurynashby 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:Str index PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please be sure you are simplifying these templates. Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work w/o en:Template:Str ≥ len. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work w/o en:Template:Str_index/logic. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and

Done. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bug you, but the only other import I need is en:Template:Str len. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done You're not bugging me. :) Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work w/o en:Template:Str len/core. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:Math-stub. PiRSquared 1 7 17:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't import it. It's too complex and links to redlink templates. PiRSquared1 7 18:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Лъчезар

User:Лъчезар was banned on regular Wikipedia for pushing Moon hoax conspiracy theories. I suggest banning him here too as that's his major motivation. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a ban on his account on the English Wikipedia (which is what I assume you mean by "regular" Wikipedia). According to his block long, he's never had a block there. Am I missing something? Either way (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, blocks do not automatically transfer across wikis, so each case must be judged on its own merit. Kansan (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in the past, this wiki has given users blocked on other wikis "one strike". EhJJ^TALK 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked, banned. There is a difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned wiki-wide? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "blocked", I meant indef-blocked. While there is a difference between blocked and banned, it's not all that important. If a user is blocked/banned on another wiki, they are usually looked at very closely here. If they edit constructively, they can be allowed to edit here. If they begin to vandalize here, they don't get the usual four-warnings; they can be blocked by any admin as a cross-wiki vandal. EhJJ^TALK 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I am a ware that this user only seems to have edited the article currently at Moon landing conspiracy theory, its talk page, and a few user talk pages, but at the moment I do not see a reason for a community ban. Can anyone cite negative side-effects we have had from this user? --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

62.167.144.196 (talk · contribs)

Hey. Apparently 62.167.144.196 (talk · contribs) has imported a lot of articles from the English Wikipedia. The problem is that:

They are not simple
It's not attributing

Should they be nuked or something? --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the IP's talk page. If the pages do not get simplified they can be deleted, and if the page creation continues a block may be in order.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NonvocalScream deleted the pages as the IP was showing no signs of simplifying them. We gave him enough time to at least attempt to simplify. He removed my warning, Scream has issued a new one.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this account?

Resolved. done by Barras ^talk

Because until I get renamed on meta and other projects, I may from time to time accidentally login as this one without noticing. Singlish speaker (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Barras ^talk 09:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation by User:LM

Resolved.

User:LM has violated the three revert rule at Josip Broz Tito. He reverted five times in the last day. It's also likely that he's the IP user that's been reverting there too, which would bring it to six. He was warned but reverted after the warning. I started discussion on the talk page of the article, but he did not join in. Josip Broz Tito and related articles are a subject of edit warring and sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, so I'm worrying that LM represents that coming here now. Could an admin please take action here? Thank you, Either way (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I did give him permission to fix the article. He reduced the size of his criticism section in half and added to the other sections. If he reverts again, I think he can be blocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week; concerns by Either way are justified by CU fr33k man 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the temporary flood permission

I will be doing a bunch of maintenance on the NHL templates for the next couple of hours. Thanks.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I renew my request, for I will be making a large number of changes to the NHL templates.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 03:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am finished my mass changes for the time being.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page

Resolved. Done by User:Lauryn Ashby

I've noticed that my little friend has been bored lately once again. If it is annoying for you to keep oversighting his vandalism, you can just semi-protect my talk page indefinitely. If not, it makes little difference to me whether he is able to continue or not. J.delanoy ^talk_changes 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSonicSpeed

Resolved. User blocked by User:Griffinofwales

He is a sockpuppeteer on enWP. Maybe you should block / ban him here too? PiRSquared1 7 20:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point ot any evidence here of puppetry? --Eptalon (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his account on English, eptalon. It's GEORGIEGIBBONS. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This SUL is blocked on EN for sockpuppety, but he hasn't done anything terrible yet here. I say we leave him be, and only block when we have to.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no absolute evidence. He had adopted Rin tin tin on enWP. He decided to comment on RTT's talk page after RTT told him to "stop monitoring [him]." He also dumped a long complex article from enWP. PiRSquared1 7 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked through what he's done with his alternate accounts over there? Also, I think he saw something I put on my talk page at English WP, saying I would be spending more time here (which I have removed), so that would mean he's been following me around on WP. Rin tin tin (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Again, has he done anything wrong here? I do not see any evidence of him doing anything wrong here. If there is, please point to it. Either way (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I was too harsh. The only thing is, he seems to be Wikistalking me, as I said above. Rin tin tin (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, I said mentored, not monitered. Rin tin tin (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only said Hello to Rin tin tin and this is my first account on Simple English WP. SuperSonicSpeed (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: SuperSonicSpeed mentioned an expletive in his edit summary/personal attack of an editor while saying 'hi' to Rin tin tin. He's on his last warning. Nifky^{^} 10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is resolved, as Griffinofwales blocked him for disruptive comments. We should look out for socks, though. Rin tin tin (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Resolved. Fixed by User:Bsadowski1

Whenever I see the new changes, it says that the Requests for permission is 1. I thought Kansan's RFA was finished. Could somebody please update it? Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I, and I'm not not not the only one, am sick of the RC header not being up-to-date. I reviewed Belle's request but did not know where to make the change. Please, let's stop messing with the RC header!! It's all fine & dandy to make changes to things like this header, BUT only if other people know how to update it. fr33k man 06:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because someone put an "automatic" RfD counter (category based) in Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Community. For some reason Category:Current requests for permissions is still showing Kansan's RfA. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. I see Bsadowski1 was quicker. You can check Wikipedia:RecentChanges for the other numerous things that need to be updated. I tried to change it but could only view source. I think admins are able to, though.... Please update the DYK, too, if you can. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the RfA had the Rfp in progress Template in it. And that has a noinclude for the Category:Current requests for permissions in it itself. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bsadowski! It looks much better now. Administrators are always so sensible :)! Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone forgot to remove a line in the RfA when they closed it. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought one of EhJJ's bots does the update on the RC pages? At least I remember that I flagged the bot with the sysop bit that it can edit this pages. That's actually the reason why I haven't changed the RC page yesterday when I closed the RfA. Barras ^talk 07:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Chenzw made an automatic one using categories and templates. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 07:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it uses MediaWiki's magic words, but the bottom part (article improvement) still needs to be updated by bot. Chenzw Talk 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is normal for the RC page to be outdated during periods of high load, as the database has not reflected the new changes in the category yet (for example, a page might still belong in the category for some time even after the template is removed). Something to do with MediaWiki's internals, I guess. Chenzw Talk 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its the job queue. It can build up and take quite awhile to change sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Well, what's to do now when we close an RfA, RfD, (V)GA and so on? Shall we manually update the page or just leave it until the bot catches the change? Barras ^talk 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait, the number being wrong for an hour or two won't hurt anyone. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) When closing RfAs (or any RfP except rollback, for that matter) or RfDs, just remove the in progress template. For all others (PGA, PVGA etc.), just let the bot detect the change. Chenzw Talk 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you please excuse my impatience, but the PGAs are still 7 when there are only 4 right now. Can an admin go to Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Article Improvement and fix it please? I can't because it's protected. :) Thank you and Happy Changing, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Is there something wrong with the bot? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xqt

User:Xqbot recently added Cheeto to an unrelated article here. [1] What should be done about this? Rin tin tin (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did not add it. The "Cheeto" was added by an IP two years ago. Kind of sad that it sat there like that for 2 years. The bot did nothing but change the interwiki link. Either way (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the community needs to expand, because this shouldn't be allowed. If more people saw this, less of this stuff would be happening. Rin tin tin (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! Got any ideas as to how to draft more users? :) fr33k man 12:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like we aren't trying. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not enough. We need to find a way to get more users. Simon^KSK 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

import

Resolved. by Barras ^talk

Can somebody transwiki en:Template:Nutritionalvalue? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Barras ^talk 09:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: The Toast-Eating Ghost

Is this user a sockpuppet of AtlanticDeep or SensePanic? Rin tin tin (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A CU has blocked the account and another put the {{sockpuppet}} template in their userpage, so I'd assume that it is indeed a sock. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what he means is that the user talk page has SensePanic as the master, but the user page has AtlanticDeep as the master. So, whose sock is it is the question. Either way (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I would think it's quite duck-ish though, seeing the edits by the accounts. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AtlanticDeep has never edited here, I think that it is SensePanic. I looked at the contributions. Rin tin tin (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, afaik, they are the same. AD was the master account in enwiki and is considered to be the master here too. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, we ended up switching to AD as the master to keep it the same between here and en (makes it much easier sharing information). I've adjusted the talk page tag. James (T C) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imports

Could someone import en:Template:Cosmology? PiRSquared1 7 03:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 07:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and en:Template:Earth's location... PiRSquared1 7 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Please import en:Template:Nature_nav. PiRSquared1 7 02:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two last imports: en:Template:HSW and en:Template:Portal box. PiRSquared1 7 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do portals here, why do you want a template that links to a portal? -DJSasso (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:Chess diagram, en:Template:Chess diagram/row, en:Template:Chess diagram/letters PiRSquared1 7 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pmlineditor ∞ 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

o.o

We have RevisionDelete? Wow. Did we get it yesterday like enWP did, or has it been around? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have new buttons. Must have just got it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, RevDelete was enabled for all WMF wikis yesterday. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. It'll be a great help. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage is that it has retains the history of the page instead of deleting the actual page and only restoring certain revisions. Nifky^{^} 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've been mucking around with it on flaggedrevs, but I didn't know the rollout was so close. It seems more transparent and easy than the old way of doing it. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 10:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect Wikipedia:Huggle/Config and Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist

Can someone semi-protect these pages? An anonymous vandal could whitelist themselves on Huggle or disable Huggle entirely by changing the configuration. Message from XENU^{send a message!} 12:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bot flag, please.

Can a 'crat give me the bot flag for AWB stub-sorting, please? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And could someone also replace Singlish speaker with Sonia on the AWB checkpage? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the AWB checkpage part. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 06:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag in place - please let someone know when you have finished. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She meant the bot flag, not flood. AutoWikiBrowser will still cause a flood of edits even with flood on. The bot flag won't (in RC). --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 07:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Download the latest AWB snapshot from TS. It identifies flood flag as bot. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 08:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use AutoWikiBrowser that much so I wouldn't of known that. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 08:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I download it? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) No problem; I saw that mentioned in the wikinews IRC channel once, and thus came to know about it. :) @Sonia, this is the link for the snapshot. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works! Thanks, Pmlineditor; that will save a lot of trouble in the future. :) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Done, please remove, thanks. :) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Broz Tito: Protection please

Would an uninvolved admin take a look at Josip Broz Tito? The same IP user, on a different IP, but the same range, has been adding POV edits to the article over the last day. This article has had issues in the past for POV pushing and it seems that this IP is picking up where others let off. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, Either way (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked for now. Is protection still required? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's monitor in that case. Thanks, Either way (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind: protection needed. Either way (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tucking fypo

Resolved.

I believe his user name goes against Wikipedia:Username policy. If you swich the first letter of each word you should see what I mean. Thanks, I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 12:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so too. I have been trying to find a template to warn a user about this, but could only find a template in blocking. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 12:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the account a note about the username. Hopefully the user requests a change without a need for a block here, Either way (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has had his name changed. Either way (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.166.128.49

Resolved. blocked

67.166.128.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please block this IP for any considerable period. Constant vandalism of pages on the same topic since January. --Microcell (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And done, thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please report on WP:VIP next time. Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

209.172.109.170

Can all of this IP's edits be reverted? PiRSquared1 7 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Either way (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits are silly. PiRSquared1 7 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then revert some of the edits. We should not revert all of the edits. I see plenty of valid edits in there. Have you talked to the editor at all about your concerns with his/her edits? Either way (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:David J Wilson

Resolved.

As an uninvolved checkuser, I have reviewed this case and currently see no evidence of sockpuppetry. We will keep an eye open for future issues however. fr33k man 02:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm making an unblock request by proxy for the above user as he doesn't seem able to do so himself. The relevant information is here. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and

Done. Weird block. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the prompt and unexpected response. I did have other options I could (and eventually would) have used to make the unblock request. I had planned on emailing an administrator if I hadn't received a response from Majorly within a day or so. Thanks to Nev1's intervention this won't now be necessary.

David J Wilson (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So David, are you now saying that you're "Snow fun"? I'm referring to User:Dave_"Snow_Funn"_Wilson. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 08:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More thought needs to be shone on this username. Majorly came onto IRC today saying that checkuser blocks should not be undone without any checkuser consultations or evidence. Since Majorly did the original block, he would know better. Other checkusers could check his IPs that were used then to show he was snow funn still. I don't think it's possible to be blocked as a sockpuppet then unblocked as innocent if a checkuser did the block. This shows how hastily done with little consideration a person can agree to unblock a user and claiming he has no edits that would make him innocent. There's data only checkusers could see that's even deeper than what only an admin can see to why the block was in place. Nifky^{^} 12:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that block was based on checkuser evidence I would be extremely concerned about the competence of the procedure. A summary of the history of my activities on wikimedia projects is as follows:

On Sept 20, 2006, I registered the account David J Wilson on en wikipedia;
On April 21, 2007, I registered the account David J Wilson on en wikisource;
On July 27, 2007, I registered the account David Wilson on it wikisource, which I later (March 3, 2009) had transferred to the username David J Wilson as part of the process of unifying all my Wikimedia accounts into one global account;
On October 6, 2008, I registered the account David J Wilson on commons;
On March 14, 2009, I registered the account David J Wilson on it wikipedia.

Those are the only 5 wikimedia accounts I have ever directly registered myself. However, sometime in March 2009 I unified all my wikimedia accounts into one global account, and the wikimedia software has subsequently automatically established accounts for me in 26 other wikimedia projects, including simple wikipedia. I had never used any of those other accounts until I became aware that my simple wikipedia account had been blocked, which occurred when I recently ran the SUL toolserver.

Judging from what Majorly wrote to me in an email, the block may have been based on nothing more than that the IP associated with the registration of my account lay within a range used by a disruptive editor. Since I access the internet via a dialup line with an ISP who probably has customers numbered in the tens of thousands, I vehemently disagree with Majorly's claim (in the same email) that "[t]he fact the IPs matched was reasonable grounds for a block". I am, in fact, extremely angry about Majorly's handling of the matter and his attempt in his email to me to justify what appears to me to be an utterly unjustifiable block.

David J Wilson (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who User:Dave_"Snow_Funn"_Wilson is then. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I don't care. As I have already pointed out in my reply to your similar insinuation on Majorly's wikipedia talk page, the name David Wilson is so commmon that the coincidence is effectively meaningless.

David J Wilson (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason its relevant is that your IP matched a sock puppet who just happened to also have an account named David Wilson. That is a pretty remarkable set of coincidences to both have occurred. The fact you both used the same IP and both had accounts named David Wilson. The odds on that are pretty ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As DJ said it is indeed relevant and the data is not inconsistent with that. However I am willing to give you a chance and the benefit of the doubt. For now you are unblocked and will remain so unless there is a further problem (in which case exceptions will be much harder to get). James (T C) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that reasoning. Its invalidity should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of probability and statistics and of the way that dynamic IPs are assigned to dialup users, and I find it very disturbing that blatantly false conclusions based on such flimsy grounds can be used as the basis for taking action against any editor. This whole episode has now shattered my previous confidence in the integrity of the checkuser process, but since the matter now appears to have been resolved I have no interest indulging in further arguments over it.

David J Wilson (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should perhaps, however, clarify that the block itself is not what I found objectionable, or the reason why I am angry about it. I can accept that it might have been reasonable to impose a precautionary block on my account until its bona fides could be established. But in that case, the appropriate notice would not have been a blatantly false and groundless accusation of "confirmed" sockpuppetry posted to the user page, but a simple, non-accusatory, explanation of the reason for the block on the talk page, with instructions on how to go about getting it lifted. If that had been done I would have had no objections.

David J Wilson (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coincidence that David "Snow Funn" Wilson registers just when you were unblocked and also that User:Mrs Delvene Delaney comes here and starts talking in a possible third person. However, I agree with Jamesofur and will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just pointing out some weird things going on. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 05:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the activities of Mrs_Delvene_Delaney would seem to indicate fairly clearly that the establishment of that account was not coincidental. In fact, they would appear to indicate that its purpose was to exploit this business as a way of causing disruption. Given the information (which I had previously been unaware of) that the account Dave_"Snow_Funn"_Wilson was registered just after I was unblocked, it's also quite likely that its name was also not a coincidence, and I retract my previous implication that it was. But I still fail to see how the activities of either of those accounts can provide any justification whatever for questioning the integrity of my account. Such users would appear to get their jollies from the amount of disruption they cause, and nothing they say or do should ever be considered a cause for impugning the integrity of any other user (unless, of course, there is genuinely incontrovertible evidence to demonstrate that the disruptive accounts belong to that other user). The only proper way of dealing with them is to revert, block and ignore them.

David J Wilson (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that unblocking without directly asking a CU was wrong. However, in this case, I assumed two things incorrectly, 1. that the block was done using no CU evidence, and instead was done using DUCK because of the username (because there weren't any edits), and that 2. when Nev1 reported this to AN, I handled the situation by unblocking. For over 2.5 hours after that point, the 2 CUs in the admin channel (James and Bsadowski) never said anything about the unblock. My only hint that something might be wrong was when Majorly came into a channel requesting a CU to talk to. Shortly after, I logged out. When I came back in the morning, I found this. Since James and Bsadowski never said anything, I didn't think anything was wrong (since if I was, I would have expected to have my head chopped off). If the CUs want to undo my unblock, that's fine with me. They are the only ones with all the details in this matter, and can be trusted to make the correct decision. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this as resolved for now. If anyone else would like to undo that I'm fine with it. My view at the moment, as I said before, is that Assuming Good Faith and leaving unblocked is unlikely to greatly harm this or other projects. Assuming you are not a sock I am sorry for the confusion David. As always (and this is honestly always the case) CU evidence is not perfect and can only be used as one of the tools at a CU or admins disposal. In this case it is always possible that a combination of bad coincidences led to this. While I was not able to see the exact evidence that was used for your block because it had expired by the time you requested unblock I can confirm that it was not just based on your IpRange matching the sock-masters since we ended up being able to verify a large portion of the information from new evidence. As always if you have questions, concerns or perhaps want help starting to do some edits "over here", ask away. James (T C) 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found my regular account locked. Surely I should be given at least Talk Page access unless abuse of that avenue can be demonstrated. I am really disappointed in this matter. David J Wilson

You're not currently blocked locally and I didn't see a global block at Meta, though I skimmed the block list fairly quickly. When you say "locked" do you mean that you are unable to log in or that once logged in you are unable to edit? Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment was not made by me but by by user DJW (DJW (talk · contribs)) whose account was created only 6 hours ago. I shouldn't be surprised if the person behind the account is the same as the one behind those of Mrs_Delvene_Delany and Dave_"Snow Funn"_Wilson.

David J Wilson (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should add that there is nothing at all wrong with my account. I am in fact logged into it at the moment.

David J Wilson (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Aaqib Azeez and socks

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Aaqib_Azeez PiRSquared1 7 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Either way (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two users are socks. PiRSquared1 7 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this doesn't belong here. If you wish to report a sock, please report it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Second, the account has now been blocked. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirkmoksuckscock

Resolved.

Does it violate our username policy? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by Kansan. Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kansan (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sourcetext

Resolved. Done. Nifky^{^} 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone import it? :) Normally I'd do it myself manually, but this template seems to employ some intricate features of template syntax, and I'm not sure if I'd do it properly. Thank you very much! Sincerely, —Classical Esther^talk 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, :) Nifky^{^} 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again! —Classical Esther^talk 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody kill this

Resolved. Looks like Mercy already got it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This I tried QDing it after a twinkle attempt failed, and it wouldn't take a QD template. Thanks, Purple backpack89 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Resolved. Done by Gordonrox24. EhJJ^TALK 12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, import en:ELIZA. Thank you, πr² (talk • changes) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget

Just a note that I've created a userrights gadget here that I ~~stole~~copied over from testwiki:. Adds a useful "rights" tab when viewing user pages to quickly change userrights. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my flood flag

Resolved. Flood flag denied. Chenzw Talk 13:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remove my flood flag. πr² (talk • changes) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have it back? πr² (talk • changes) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting πr² (talk • changes) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't your bot do it? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block of PiRSquared17

I recently blocked PiRSquared17 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing (see his talk page). Over his time here, he has been persistently annoying (see WT:SSP and User talk:PiRSquared17 (see archive) for examples), and has continued his disruptive editing after many warnings from admins (linkys if wanted). IMO, he seemed to think that we were not being serious with him. He has also flooded RC (with stub sorting) even though we gave him a bot (which he has consistently mis-used) to do it with. Because of this (I was just rattling a few things off) and more, I have given him a 24 hour block. The purpose of this block is to 1. Make clear in no uncertain terms that we are being serious with him, and 2. giving a mandatory break to focus on other things besides Wikipedia. Because of concerns raised, I'm bringing it here for community discussion. If the community decides to overturn the block, by all means do so (and unblock his bot and remove the autoblock). --Griffinofwales (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said this on IRC after I saw the block as well. To be honest pir2 is not even the most annoying person on his talk page when I read it. I also do not see blocks being good for the reason given which basically boiled down to "annoying". They are not horrible reasoning behind a community decision but I do not see them as reasons for an admin to block on their own. I have to agree with what DJ said recently, people get way to overworked about the "flooding RC" thing. Is it better to have the person flagged? Yes I would usually prefer it especially when they know we usually like that. That said is it that big of a deal? No I don't think it is and I wouldn't block for something like that and I don't think people should be harassing other users about it. Polite notes and an admin flagging them? Yes. James (T C) 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that he wanted the flood flag for something his bot was already doing. I admit that flooding RC is not a blockable offense, but any one thing PiR did wasn't blockable. It was everything combined that made it what it is. I would have gone to the community, but spending a week deciding to block a user for 24 hours seemed to me as a waste of time. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is but if it is to teach him that we are serous then the wait isn't a waste and if the wait is a waste I would generally argue then the block wasn't necessary. James (T C) 01:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢: I think 24 hours was a little bit excessive (especially given that he did ask for a flood flag, just above). He's a little impatient and tends to see things in black and white, but those in themselves are not anywhere near block-worthy. What PiR does need to learn is that no editor is an island unto themselves, and- well, not "don't be annoying" as much as "listen to the community". Blocking him for a couple of hours would have been a blow with a clue-by-four since messages on his talk page don't seem to work- "As much as you are a good contributor, you didn't listen and that's not acceptable." But 24h for what was not really a climax to his "annoyingness" (and sans final warning of any kind) is a little bit harsh. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering he is on IRC right now (I know, I know, don't bring IRC as justification to AN) explaining that he was making these bot-like edits just so he can bump his edit count up and get his article space total to over 50%, I think this is fully justified. He was asked several times to keep these edits confined to his bot, but did not. Either way (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) Another foreign-ish thought. PiRSquared has obviously abused the patience and trust of the community; trying to "get more editions using a bot on his main account", even when he has a bot account to do that. He is immature, yes. But, that doesn't means we can't get any good back from him. I'm sure he will think twice before annoying or 'retiring' again. He just does needs to learn what is right and what is wrong; if not, he's lost. PiRSquared is impatient; you know, you will eventually get the 50% of mainspace edits if you work on it. In my opinion, bot and rollback edits do not really count; better, edit counts do not really mean anything; if someone has 100 edits; but full of quality, they mean much more than 30000. I'm sorry if I write this with "weasel words", because of my "spanish-to-english-words-that-may-not-mean-the-same-in-english" fails. Everything isn't lost, just be kind, think about your actions, and how they will have repercussions on other people, and ask when you doubt. I'll be always there if you want to know anything. People, including me, learns from mistakes, especially when they are waay too idiotic, like a block for annoying ppl. If I were you, I should not run the bot at least for a month, or more if possible. Or take a wikibreak if you want, I'm actually taking one, to calm down because of my anger after Agustín Ross Balcony deletion. That is the best for you and for us. If you wanna help, again, let me know. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with Sonia. 24 hours are a little bit harsh, even though he did act very slightly immature and did not listen to the other warnings. I'm sure PiR is very regretful of his actions already. He was saying on IRC, "I should never have flooded the RC" and repenting very much. I suggest we unblock him or shorten the block time a little bit and give him another chance. :) Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 04:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring the following articles to the community's attention: Kahror Pacca Tehsil, Kot Momin Tehsil, Kamalia Tehsil (and many more here). Also note the very first revision of these articles. The impression he gives me is that he just wishes to raise his own edit count (and "create" new articles) as that will raise his supposed "standing" within the community. The discussion on his talk page doesn't look very good either. Chenzw Talk 05:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person trying to improve their mainspace edit count and/or their "standing" within the community is neither a bad thing or blockable. However, making bot-like edits when the user has a bot to do is not a good thing, and doing so just to up their edit count of the main account is not a good idea. Blocking for being annoying is also not a good idea, but it has happened before, ironically ;). Quite a few people probably would describe various members of the community as annoying. fr33k man 05:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just amused that 24 hours is considered harsh....its only a day. If a day is harsh then you need to start stepping away from the wiki for awhile because the world outside is far more important. Personally I think he long passed the mark for needing a wake up call. But I am trying to not get involved in such matters any more because it stresses me out too much :p -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the block length, one day is enough time for one to sleep on it, and wake up refreshed and with a clear mind, and think about the block reasons. I didn't think anything shorter would accomplish the job. And DJSasso is right, this type of thing does stress one out. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PiR is a great contributor here, I hope this block doesn't take away his will to help out. I do however think he needed a little trout slap, and I think this short block will do the trick. Flooding of RC is going to happen. As the wiki gets bigger, more contributions will pass through the new changes page. I don't have a real problem with new changes having lots of changes from an editor, that means they are helping out. What I don't like is seeing these changes from a person who has a bot that can do it. Next time, please just use the bot.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not clear here, and I'm not attempting to be dense. I don't see a preventative block here. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete please

Resolved. Done by Bsadowski1. EhJJ^TALK 12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All these (including user and talk page): Special:PrefixIndex/User:Singlish speaker. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted. Also no problem. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 09:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flood/bot flag

I am going to be tagging many articles as stubs. π r ² 03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me get this straight. Your bot sorts stubs, it doesn't tag them so you cannot use it for this purpose, correct? If that is the case, will you be tagging them manually, or using AWB or something like it. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)What exactly are you looking to do? It sounds like you are going to tag short articles as stubs. So, not stub sorting but adding templates to the article for the first time, right? Where are these articles coming from? Either way (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Shortpages and pages in various categories π r ²

Don't bother now. I might need it tomorrow. π r ² 04:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm..and what definition will you be using to mark articles as stubs? I think this is a better job for a bot (of which you have 2). Griffinofwales (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if a page has less than 1.5KB wikitext (or prose) π r ² 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just stop doing tasks like this personally...sometimes articles are not marked as stubs for a reason. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by several IPs

I've had some trouble with a user who has used one account (blocked) and several IPs (almost certainly proxies/tor). Normally I'd block and ignore, but this guy had my password reset and e-mailed to me, which means he may have been trying to break into my account (even though that is not a particularly good way to do so). His behaviour shows that he has no interest in participating in our group project, aside from introducing his bias and "YELLING"/insulting our users as much as possible. If you see more of him, please revert and block at will. Here are some diffs:

//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlemagne&diff=prev&oldid=2259968
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlemagne&diff=2260092&oldid=2260068
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title%3DTalk:Charlemagne&diff=2261762&oldid=2260108
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlemagne&action=historysubmit&diff=2261858&oldid=2261762
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Problems_of_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=2261769
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EhJJ&diff=prev&oldid=2263633
//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EhJJ&diff=prev&oldid=2263621

I'd like to point out that his one account was blocked based on Check User data as an old vandal (I don't have details, as I'm not a CU). Your assistance is kindly appreciated. Best, EhJJ^TALK 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the passowrd resets. Just ignore the emails and keep youring your current password. Many of us get them daily, sometimes more often. It's one of our persistant vandals, we know who btw. I'll look into the edits and take action. fr33k man 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too worried about the e-mails, I've just never had someone reset my password of even try breaking into my account (to my knowledge... who know, maybe someone has tried in the past!) Ok, just wanted to make sure that the other admins were aware of what was going on. I'd let people know on the IRC Cabal channel but for some reason my client has died and won't allow me to re-install; I'll have to try a new one later. Thanks fr33kman and others, EhJJ^TALK 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone broke into EhJJ's account? Did they change your email or reset your password? π r ² 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody broke into his account. When you login, you may notice a button that says "email new password". A known vandal put in EhJJ's user name into the user name field and pressed that button. It sent a new password to EhJJ (the vandal did not see the new password or get a copy of the email). EhJJ does not need to use this new password and simply should continue using his current one and the old password expires. Many of us, myself included, get loads of these emails every day (I've lost count) from all over WMF sites. This was the first one EhJJ got. Vandals do it because they think it's funny and think it annoys us. It isn't and it doesn't. At no point was his account compromised! fr33k man 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 79.91.227.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 95.131.64.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) π r ² 19:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers fr33k man 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101

User:Asgott is a Bambifan101 sock. π r ² 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell from the username. User:Getsagotta had a similar username. π r ² 19:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you say of others. You have no proof of this, the account has no contributions as of this writing. We must assume the best of others and be careful not to attack others. Warmly, Jon@talk:~$ 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Really, those usernames are hardly similar.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem similar to each other, but aren't similar to Bambi's...usually his have something to do with animated fictional characters Purple backpack89 02:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Usually Disney-related articles. Nifky^{^} 03:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]