Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 35

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Still here...

Checking in, been busy lately. Jon@talk:~$ 09:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filters now active

Hello fellow admins, our abuse filters are now active; at the time of this writing, we do have two filters: One triggers on blacking pages (by new users) and the other triggers if a new user /ip removes large sections of an article. See the configuration page and the respective log. The current idea would be to import the most useful ones from EnWP, and see how we fare, in about a week's time. --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we also need to import/create a way to report false positives, and a simplified description on what an automated filter is. --Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has the time, filters for the following would be useful
  1. Warn, throttle (and perhaps block) an (unconfirmed/IP) user that is "undoing" one or more edits (of bots/other (confirmed?) users). (User:199.216... in the edit history of Sexual reproduction is an example.
  2. Same scenario, but involving more than one IP editor (and the IP's undoing one another)
Before I forget this page has more info on the rules. --Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On en's filter, I am able to view the change that was blocked by the filter. I'm unable to here. Are user rights needed here to view those changes or is that something that was not included in the implementation? wiooiw (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible here. You get to it by clicking on the "... hits" next to the filter. --Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wiooiw, did you mean this sort of page? sonia♫ 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On en's, I see "(details | examine)" but not here. wiooiw (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created WP:Change filter and WP:Change filter/Mistakes; both are very rough drafts and could probably be improved. sonia♫ 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful admins...

  Resolved.

...could maybe move Satyrs to just Satyr, which presently redirects to Greek mythology, please? Thanks, C628 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That took an unacceptably long time *glares at Bsadowski* - but it is now done. Thanks for letting us know. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start on Simple for a blocked en.wikipedia editor?

FYI:

There is a discussion on en.wikipedia about an editor, w:en:User:Pumpie, who has been indefinitely blocked there for persistent editing (45,000 edits on en.wikipedia + 25,000 elsewhere) with inadequate English skills in spite of numerous requests to slow down or modify his behaviour:

That's a very long thread so you can just skip down to a comment made by Ryūlóng at 05:45, 3 November, where you'll see the topic shifts to whether Pumpie would be best served by coming to Simple to edit until his English skills improve.

To date, nobody has determined just what Pumpie's native language is or if he has one; there have also been some complaints on other projects:

While some en.wikipedia editors have alluded obliquely to the possibility that Pumpie may just been pulling everyone's leg, he has always been very good-natured so people have been inclined to ascribe good faith to his efforts. --A. B. (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been bitten by several people. I would definitely let him come over here. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are always allowed here, but are subject to a one strike rule. They screw up one time and we ban them here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented over there. I'm more concerned about the fact, in general, that some people still think Simple is a rehabilitation center for banned users than about what's happening in this particular circumstance. Kansan (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support his fresh start. This is a learning area for ESL people. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. But with the understanding that any disruptive behaviour will result in a lengthy/indef block. Suggest a regular provides mentorship too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) This wiki definitely needs more editors, so if the contributions are helpful, I would definitely agree that the editor gets a chance here. To me, it is clear that at the start, they will need some introduction; we are different from EnWP in many ways other than the simpler language --Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invited him on his talk page, although I know that he cannot respond. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI:
--A. B. (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Is it considered an abuse of email privileges to send an editor a unique one-time chatty email? The email was not spam or sent repeatedly. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More context is needed here for anyone to answer 'yes' or 'no'. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example: I sent you an e-mail that said, "Do you like chemistry?" Is that considered an abuse of email privileges? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, no, that's just fine. The recipient is not under any obligation to reply; if they have a problem with the e-mails, they can talk to an admin, and we can discreetly ask them to refrain. They can do it themselves if they wish. The guidelines for e-mailing are always a bit grey because it is an off-wiki medium, but the way I look at it, anything that is acceptable for a talk page should be okay in an e-mail. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 and the PVGA and PGA processes

  Resolved.

No admin action needed as of now. —Clementina talk 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dear community,

I come to you on this glorious Sunday evening (Where I am at least!) to propose that we instigate a ban from the P(V)GA process for the above user. He has had numerous 'run-ins' and arguments with numerous users over this process during his time here, and for myself and other users his latest run-in with The Rambling Man is the last straw - it is clear that he expects to be able to simply suggest an article and have it fixed by other people, instead of fixing the issues brought up by other people himself - the whole point of the process. He also challenges every little niggle that comes with one of his articles (diff) before accusing people of whining (Above).

This is not the first time that this has occurred either: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F (more to follow)

In short, PBP89 has a history of being abusive (Above), impatient and 'lazy' when it comes to articles being at P(V)GA, and despite many members of the community giving him lots of help to get his articles to an accredited status he clearly does not appreciate it and often goes on to personally attack them. (Diffs above, also more on individual TPs that I've not covered here.)

There are lots more diffs than I have listed above - I am sure someone else could dig the same amount out at least another 5 or 6 times.

Thoughts?

Goblin 21:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

Note: this is not a project wide ban or block, it is simply a proposal to ban the user in question from pages relating to these processes. Just want to make that clear! Goblin 21:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Strong oppose/Waste of community time: see Purplebackpack89's response Purplebackpack89 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, you don't really get a !vote... Goblin 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
It is clear to me that once an article is nominated for GA/VGA (whatever), reviews are done, and based on the reviews, changes occur. Different instances of the article have been up for several months now, which is clearly not how the process was meant to work in the first place:
  1. Fulfill most of the criteria
  2. Nominate, to get reviews
  3. Do "a few" small fixes
  4. Put on the mark if successfully fixed
What we are seeing here is not the failure of a few editors, but that over time the process has come to work differently. Also note that at the moment, we see basically one editor fixing and perhaps five editors reviewing; this is also not how the thing is supposed to work. As to the current rules, the article in question has been nominated for GA, so there is a time period of two weeks, I think. Let's just try as a community, and help where we can. For the time being, I have started our archival bot on the article's talk page (so old discussions get archived)--Eptalon (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eptalon. However, I do feel PBP has shown signs of impatience, and he should try and keep cool if he doesn't want to get into trouble. Yottie =talk= 21:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this is a waste of community time. This is a rift that is forming between the nominators and reviewers of the article.
I see that PBP89 has done a very lot of work on History of the United States. This went on for about 2 months, during which many minor changes were suggested. Sometimes, the minor changes seemed simpler to complete right away rather than to place them on the article's talk page or on the nomination page. After a while, this makes people think that the promotion of their article is hopeless, especially with comments like "excruciatingly weak", "many errors", and "nowhere near VGA or GA". Review of article can be very slow and sometimes comments are placed to try to get a review of the article. I have done so myself. Nominators and reviewers have not worked together as much as they should.
PBP's comments, though, are inflammatory. This is evidenced in the formation of this thread. He should have tried to work out the concerns and welcome other editors that try to help out in the nomination. Nominators should be appreciative of the efforts of the reviewers and realize that the reviewers have done a moderately large amount of work, too. Nominators should appreciate the effort made by the reviewers.
In conclusion: Reviewers should have a more optimistic viewpoint of the article, and nominators should appreciate the effort made by the reviewers. Get what you can out of this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure topic-ban is the best action, as we really need editors interested in this process. However, I would caution PBP89 to value the work of the reviewers more. Honestly, take it or leave it. If you are going to be snappy at reviewers, they just won't review your articles.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89's response

Excuse me? Lazy? Looking at the diffs for the article in question, I see that almost all of the work done on the article since its nomination has been done by me or my alt acct. Virtually all the work done to get it even nominatable was done by me as well! Lazy? I think not! And heaven forbid, after making all those edit, I expect other covering minutia they themselves picked up, rather than starting a talk page thread asking me to do it. There's a policy for that...it's called So fix it. And of your diffs, most of them are me stating my opinion of another person's comment...perfectly acceptable . This AN thread is pointless and a waste of community time. Purplebackpack89 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there's many more diffs. I'm searching for the incident with you and Juliancolton at the moment as that's probably the greatest example I have. {{sofixit}} isn't a policy - it's not even a guideline. If you nominate something for accredited status you should be the one putting the work and the effort in after other users have spent hours reviewing it at your request - it's not their job to fix it or for you to be abusive towards them if they don't and ask you to do it, or make the same point until you fix it. Goblin 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
The incident was over a year and a half ago; and was dealt with then...I received a two-week block for that Purplebackpack89 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree with Ep's view of the GA process...the GA requirements clearly state it needs to be the work of multiple editors in the articlespace, not one guy doing all the article editing while make requests on the talk page. I think we also have to remember that this is a much different article than the usual PGA and PVGA fare...it's a lot longer, draws from a lot more places, and is about a much more well-known subject. Purplebackpack89 22:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For all those reasons, I wouldn't have nominated it when you did and would have gone through a peer review first. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is how it is supposed to work. You nominate an article and it is up to you to fix it all. Perhaps you have misunderstood how the process works. This is why you are supposed to try and have it to "finished" status before you nominate it. Its generally considered bad form to edit in someone else's nomination. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is very slow, by the way. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have two problems. The first is unrealistic and improper proposals for GA and VGA. (Improper because they do not meet basic requirements). The second is extreme ownership problems and aggressive reactions by proposers. Both are seen in recent cases. A solution to the first would be to have a filter, say, no-one could put up a proposal without 'crat approval. A solution to the second would be discipline, imposed if necessary.
It is quite wrong for a proposer to respond negatively to every critique, and doubly so to respond with oft-repeated denial and abuse. It's almost unbelievable to see a proposer say things like "It's well worth it, promote it now" or words to that effect, when every single response has shown the extent to which the article is not ready. If we don't take action, this will go on happening. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes, peer review is slow. People trying to make a VGA should know it often takes a couple months to get an article to where it should be even before you nominate it. Unless you work non-stop on a single article which can speed it up somewhat. The VGA process is supposed to be slow to ensure only the best get through. This expectation that it will happen quickly is incorrect and needs to be more realistic. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never accused PBP of being lazy in this process, but I have found him rude and ungrateful. I provided an initial line-by-line review of the entire article, something which I've never seen done before on this Wikipedia to such an extent. A few things were fixed, then a few shouts of "sofixit", then just plain denying anything was still wrong. I'm not sure a topic ban is appropriate, but PBP needs to look at how to treat those who spend hours of their own time reviewing something that they may not be interested in, but are interested in ensuring a good/very good article for the sake of the community and the Wikipedia. Funnily enough I was asked to review other articles like this, nominators were courteous, grateful and it encouraged me to work together with them where I could. PBP is close to burning his bridges when he acts indignantly. My favourite moment was, instead of even a passing "thanks", all I got was "I acknowledge your review". Brilliant. And despite all this, I'm still trying to help. But I won't be doing so in future PBP nominations. What I will do is advise the community of any general shortcomings in anything he nominates, because I see that as essential in maintaining the quality of our GA and VGA material. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy discussion is always a good way to begin rethinking things. However, as an uninvolved editor reading through the discussion for the last few days, there seems to be little or no support for a topic ban for Purplebackpack at present. Therefore, as a community...

  • Purplebackpack, please remember to be kind and polite when you are fixing articles. Though there has been little support for a topic ban, most editors disapprove of your angry attitude. The VGA process is a very difficult and often frustrating task, I know, and fixing requirements can be hard. However, the reviewers are simply doing the same thing as I believe you are—trying to make this encyclopedia better. Sofixit is not a policy, and reviewing is often just as hard and annoying as trying to satisfy the reviews (yes, it really can be! It's surprising how hard it is to find a typo or a wrong punctuation mark in a long article). So please, let's try to appreciate each other's efforts and remain calm and kind to one another - and grateful. Okay? :)
  • Eptalon and a few other users bring up an interesting point about the flaws of PGA/PVGA. Perhaps we could begin a fresh discussion in broader terms at the talk page of PGA/PVGA. However, I feel that this particular discussion has come to a conclusion without a consensus. Therefore, I think we can call this resolved now. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Flood flag

Can I have the flood flag? I want to mass add categories. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Let us know when you're done. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You were fast. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you don't add duplicate categories. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding categories for chemical compounds. All silver compounds go into Category:Silver compounds, for example. Anyway, I'm done for now. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have it again? See User:Chemicalinterest/Chemical element for the progress of the categories. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted. -Barras (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And removed. -Barras (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected template: Infobox Country

  Resolved.

Administrators, could you help add a new parameter into the template: Template:Infobox Country? Add the rule of the road into the template please like the English Wikipedia. Thanks! Hydriz (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you mean. So, I've temporarily unprotected it so you can make the necessary changes. Exert 02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protection has been reinstated. Exert 03:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag again

I didn't finish adding all the chlorine compounds to Category:Chlorine compounds. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- Mentifisto 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss as many as I thought I missed. You can remove it now. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's removed, by the way. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add existing lead compounds to Category:Lead compounds. Flood flag please? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Make sure to not add duplicate cats. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also did tin compounds and did a change to the header of WP:ST and a qd nomination and a warn of the creator without realizing that my changes would be hidden. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks for telling us. Please be careful next time. Are you done with the flag for now?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

  Resolved.

Hi, I am here to request for IP block exemption. I don't see any place to put this request in Requests for permissions. Could you give me IP block exemption? My IP address is being blocked. Thanks. Hydriz (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks! Hydriz (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import

I need to import one template from the English Wikipedia. Hydriz (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Name of template? If it's only one, there is no need for the flag. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Template:Contains_Chinese_text. It would be helpful to import the others too.Hydriz (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Category:Foreign character warning boxes <- All templates in this category. Hydriz (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you'd realized that RfI goes on its own subpage just like a RfA? Also this is surely the wrong place to request imports of some single articles/templates. Such requests go to AN. -Barras (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support giving this flag out since it can cause a mess when not used correctly. However I am sure one of us admin can bring those over. Are you sure you need all of them? Do we actually have many pages that require this sort of warning? -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... Anyway I am rather *new* here. Besides, there is no documentation for requests for imports. So can someone just import it? Hydriz (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was looking through the site, I found quite a lot... Hydriz (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Also, moved thread to AN from RFI. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of request

Hello. I'd like to ask people's opinions about whether this request could be extended; Chenzw has indicated that I could seek a review (and as such I also emailed User:The_Rambling_Man as an uninvolved bureaucrat, but any other is welcome here too). In my opinion it would be reasonable if it was extended, especially as it only needed two more votes, and as has been done in the past with other requests. Thanks for your comments. -- Mentifisto 05:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the request, for another week (please do not extend again). Candidate is two support votes short of succeeding, and extensionms have been given in other cases too, which were farther away. --Eptalon (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your anti vandal bot

Your bot thought I was vandalizing when I added co tent to the HTML article, why is this? --Access Denied

The bot picked up your additions of "'''bold text'''" on line 76 as a test edit, and reverted accordingly. It was a false positive (clearly), and nothing to worry about - once you are autoconfirmed it will ignore any future similar edits you make. Goblin 10:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

Guidelines for admin decisions..

Hello fellow admins,

I think we need to agree on a set of guidelines, when an RFA/RFCU can be extended, and for what time. I suggest the following:

  • Candidate of RFCU /Oversight is less than three support votes short of the required 25, but meets the other (70-80% total support) criterion
  • RFAs/RFBs don't need extension, since they do not rely on the policies of other wikis
  • Extension to be done, by a non-cui crat, before the request expires (ideally two days before, when it becomes apparent the number of votes will not be reached
  • Ideally we should rely on the votes of the people who are active at this wikipedia, and not on "externals" who judge how the candidate behaves on another Wikipedia

If we want to be successful in the long run, we need to get away from on the spot decision, and moved towards a decision that is justifiable by a guideline, or similar. Just a note though. --Eptalon (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about just increasing the durations of our RfCUs permanently, to a duration of 12-14 days? If there are editors who cannot even check out this site every two weeks or so, then I don't think that they are active enough, as mentioned in the last point. Chenzw  Talk  12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They already are 14 days. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Berty

Hi all,

Here to propose a block/ban for the above user as it seems to me that he is seeing and treating Simple as a full on joke, and is only here so that he can get back onto en.wiki. See userpage.

We've been through this many times before, and every time we've come to the conclusion that we're not here to harbour users from other wikis for them to 'reform', which this seems to be another case of.

While face value says nothing has been done per se (I'm still diff hunting), I'm just not sure that this is giving off the right impression, as ever. There's a limit, after all...

Thoughts...?

Goblin 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]

I am not treating this site as a joke, where else could I possibly edit? If I felt like it, I could hang onto here forever. This could be my main wiki 'till I get bored of this stuff. In fact, there is a nicer feel in the air on this wiki compared to the main one. I hope I can stay here. Many thanks, Mr. Berty talk/stalk 14:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I completely agree with your statements about him, there's just nothing solid to block/ban him for yet. Exert 16:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow expected that would be the response. Tied up with 'other projects' tonight but am hunting diffs still :P. Goblin 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
We do, of course, have a "one strike rule" for users banned on other Wikis, but I do agree with Exert that, as of yet, he hasn't really done anything blockable. I do think that, in general, it is wise to try to take the wiki seriously, especially if you are in a one-strike situation - take that as you will. Kansan (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked a little through his contribs and didn't see anything blockable. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this interesting page... --Bsadowski1 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of Mr. Berty's sockpuppets on en was blocked here about 14 hours ago, see Hole in my sock (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). Exert 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────┘
 After consulting with Bsadowski, Mr. Berty is restricted to one account. Any other accounts linked to him that are on this wiki will be blocked indefinitely. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note:User has been blocked for a period of two weeks due to their enwiki block (see:this) and subsequent comments and actions here. fr33kman 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point in that? Either indef him or leave him alone. That seems an excessively punitive action since he technically hasn't done anything wrong here. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with the block. This block appears to be a punishment block which is clearly not allowed. What Peter says is correct. Either block him indefinitely or just leave him unblocked. -Barras (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The reason I blocked the user was preventative and not punitive! I object to the thought that I'd punish someone, I would have hoped people would know me better than that by now; guess not! First and foremost, the blocking rules state that a person blocked on another WMF project can be blocked here also without any warning. We sometimes give the user a chance (what we call the so-called "one-strike rule"). This "rule" is a courtesy only and not automatic. I have reviewed this users history both here and on enwiki and frankly came close to a pure indef block. However, due to some of the discussion above I chose to block for two weeks instead. This is preventative because the user has only been here a tiny amount of time and is already causing disruption of the project. The two week period allows the project to not be disrupted by this person who has already caused disruption and allows the user time to think about how they wish to proceed on simplewiki. Mr. Berty has stated multiple times here that he's "doing time" and here as a form of parole. I don't think we should be used like that, we already have a reputation as a site for "losers from elsewhere" (not my words, direct quote) and as being soft on troublesome users. People need to wise up and be harder on those who disrupt the project after getting blocked elsewhere. fr33kman 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saying this for two years. I looked oer his contributions and saw nothing particularly blockable; he was pretty much exactly the same on enwiki and only blocked because he was a sock. There was no socking here. So, it comes down to whether the community blocks him indefinitely or leaves him alone. In this case, I don't think consensus supports the two-week block, no matter how good the intentions. Personally I'm on the fence at this time about whether he should be indeffed, so I didn't comment on it; but clearly now it is under discussion, some sort of decision needs to occur fairly quickly. I wouldn't be altogether opposed to an unblock, since his problem was sockpuppetry and we have people who watch for that sort of thing regularly. But the two-week thing needs to be reversed with something. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us have been saying it for two years Peter; unfortunately whenever someone exercises a harder line with these blocked elsewhere users we end up with others saying that we're acting punitively or too harshly. Sigh! You say I shouldn't have blocked them, but you think an indef is better than two weeks, but you're still fine with an unblock altogether. So block for indef, not for two-weeks (to give them a chance) but let's just unblock them period. How many fences is that you're sitting on? You say they have not done anything here to justify a block. Well, just being blocked elsewhere is a block-able offence here. Fine, let's just block for indef, and call it over. BTW: If the CUs have to check and check again this user's activities is that not disruption of the project also? We're not here to babysit. fr33kman 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to an unblock purely because of the way he was blocked in the first place. He didn't do anything wrong. I called it a punitive action because there was 1) no blockable disruption here and 2) you justified the two-week block by linking to the enwiki SPI case. This "hard-line" approach you have needs rethinking if you're going to block users in this manner. Two weeks is an utterly pointless block which I believe serves no purpose whatsoever. If you want to give them a chance, leave them alone (!) until they do something that's actually worth blocking them for. If we're kicking users out for the sake of them being banned elsewhere, that's different, and needs further discussion. But for now, I fully support this block being overturned with an apology for the way it was handled. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong in the manner in which this has been handled. You're not making sense dude. The one-strike rule is discretionary. In this case I felt that an indef block was not warranted due to the comments of others above and not due to the user themselves, however due to their known sockpuppetry and due to the manner in which they have approached joining this project; ie: to serve time until their unblock on enwiki. A period of two weeks makes sense to show that we are not pushovers, to prevent further disruption, to prevent us being used for an agenda on enwiki, user indicating (even if in jest) about socking again but yet also to allow the user time to think about their intentions statements here so far[1], which I've clearly shown are disruptive and not holding the project in mind, but just getting back to enwiki. You feel free to do as you wish, Peter. If you want an unblock, then you do it, I acted in good faith and with the best interests of the wiki in mind. I'll never apologize for doing so because I know I did the right thing. fr33kman 17:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
For once, I agree with Peter on this issue. The two week block was unneeded. No block or indef. If he needs a block, the one-strike rule says we go indef. There was no blockable offense, and IMO, no block should have occurred while this discussion was going on, unless he was clearly disruptive. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note: I've unblocked Mr. Berty as there seems to be consensus that there was no reason for the block. That said, I personally think that he should receive an indef. Exert 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the block I made (preventing disruption, yet allowing a return). Most of us feel he should be indef blocked, but we've unblocked. Right, ok... interesting :) fr33kman 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we can at least agree that any future blocks of his account should be indefinite. Kansan (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the simple way. Always do the wishy washy action. That being said, I agree with Kansan. If he keeps up how he has been I will block him indef. He is clearly disrupting the project. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried this is gonna start a wheel war (it kinda already has happened)... but I declare that I am not retuning to en because it is 1, buaracratic, 2, it is too prone to vandals and 3 it is so overgrown they can't handle the amount of wrong facts. I would leave this wiki if it came to 1 million pages because it would be a mess. I am dedicated to this project now; 'til I get bored. Mr. Berty talk/stalk 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
I'm curious. I'm not an expert on this matter, far from it, but we have a user who is banned (?) from the English Wikipedia? He comes here and we instead just block all his sock accounts and basically try to "force" him into not socking by limiting his options. I'm for a harder line on banned users coming from the English wikipedia over here expecting us to be a haven where they can show off to en that they're still around. Also, loving this unindent template! Normandie Talk! 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did try to do some work on digital object-identifier but it was a duplicate of digital object identifier. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

Urgent: block needed for User talk:62.171.194.24, who has been constantly disrupting page Aristotle, so much so that it is hard to make a rollback stick for more then a few minutes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, user blocked for 72h (last block: 3 days ago, for 31hrs). --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the report. Remember that WP:VIP really is the place for reports and will usually get a response quicker than AN, as people watch VIP for reports and may not watch AN for them. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 12:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, didn't know the page existed!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Translation of the Week

Hi,

Can someone please update the ToW on Special:RecentChanges?

Thanks, Ted (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot was supposed to do it...? sonia♫ 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the bot is on vacation? Anyway, not a big issue. Ted (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... so it is. Strange. I've updated it for now, but it might bork the bot when it gets back. sonia♫ 06:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Ted (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restart GoblinBot1 which always used to do it... Goblin 12:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
Seems the bot may be enjoying a rest again. Or, am I just on the early side of the date line? New ToW is up: Chemical_similarity and 1707_Hōei_earthquake, but need to be on Special:RecentChanges. Thanks, Ted (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing those, Kansan. I know I sound like a broken record, but the ToW keeps on coming. Two more have been up for a while: en:Siberian Intervention/ja:シベリア出兵 and en:Aga Khan II. ToW seems especially worthwhile because if there is a decent entry on Simple it can help other translators. The bot has taken an extended leave of absence by the looks of things. Instead of posting requests here, is there someone I should ask about the bot? Thanks as always! Gotanda (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Nevermind that last part. I see where to send a request to the bot. Gotanda (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has already moved along to:
The winners this week are en:Fredric Wertham and en:Solingen arson attack of 1993.
I know it's a pain and should be done by a bot, but if this could be updated, please... Thanks Gotanda (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done... sonia♫ 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sonia! Sorry to have bothered you again. I'd update it if I could. Gotanda (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter identifying copy/pastes..

Hello there,

one of our edit filtes (number 14) identifies possible copy/pastes. These will contain "[edit]", "[change]", or a number in brackets, in the added_lines. The problem is that it will also match "[[1234]]" (which we commonly have as link to year numbers. Another problem is that if I add another condition (& added_lines rlike..) filtering for the two bracket case, I cannot be sure that we are talking about the same match. The other option would be to match "alphanumerical or space, but not opening bracket" (or similar). Ideas welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a filter to watch for this personally....I thought the only reason we wanted filters here was to catch vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Djsasso; and I might add that, as a RC patroller, it's pretty obvious when somebody does a copy-paste that includes these, and to be honest, catching English Wikipedia copy pastes is probably not the most urgent of things that we have to catch. (Yes, they should be deleted, but they're not like attack pages where real harm can be done if they remain up there for a few minutes.) Kansan (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at filter 12 ("Article containing only uppercase letters or only lowercase letters and spacing/one-case only article"). Has been up for slightly over a week, and is the number two filter (as to hits). Look at it differently: An edit filter can help us identify problems; it is clear that an article with an email address in it (number 3) needs more immediate action than a possible copy-paste from another wikipedia. I more saw my question from the "technical" side ("how can we fix the filter") than a social one ("Do we really need the filter"). --Eptalon (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and look at how much time you have wasted trying to get this to work that could have been spent on articles (you've been dealing with it for a week or two)? My personal opinion is for what little work the filters could save, we would spend more time trying to make them work. Thus they don't help the wiki, but hurt it from a lost time perspective. I know your question was a technical one, but thats my point. We don't need this. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are useless. The one-case article filter and the large unwikified new article filter both work fine. Its the copypaste one that should be disabled. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of them we don't need at the moment. We could use the personal attacks one from English, but it's private so I don't know if I can actually import that one to here (since it's, well, private). --Bsadowski1 06:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asfarer

I've blocked Asfarer (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as it appears to be an unauthorized crosswiki bot, its only edits are to add ca interwiki. I did find an actual account at the Català Wikipedia though. Just thought I might give you a heads up, because I get the feeling the interwikis might be being added manually. Exert 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a bot; and even if it is, it's covered by the global bot policy. This block wasn't valid. In future, please check their cross-wiki edits and engage in discussion if necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request

The page "Shrek" is being constantly vandalized this month by different IP. The last edits made this month were all reverted. Maybe a semi-protection would be good to preserve the history. Thanks.” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any long term vandalism (and a lot of it is from the same IP), and what is getting vandalized is being quickly reverted, I think we should wait and give it some more time, since we always want to keep things unprotected as much as possible in keeping of the spirit of the wiki. Kansan (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will watch the page then. Thank you.” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag for User:Manubot

Should User:Manubot get the bot flag? Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet no. Let it be, crats take care of this when its time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people forget. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but its still not something that needs to be brought up here. This noticeboard is for things that are needed to be handled immediately. The bot owner will handle it when its time, its up to them to request it either from us or in the case of an interwiki bot a steward, we don't just hand it out when we see a bot doing bot changes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page VGA

As mentioned on Simple Talk, I have updated Wikipedia:Very good articles/Evolution with material from the present Evolution article. What shows on the front page is two years out of date. Could someone put the new material up on the front page? Thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just needed a purge... done. -Barras (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody convinced?

  Resolved. Nothing to see here. sonia♫ 08:30, 23 December 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 edits should be made to this discussion.

Evenin' all, Toboar says here that he is not the vandal. Somebody check this out please. Thanks, Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather clear he is, the fact that he keeps pestering people (And, I add, a user without the knowledge that our CUs and administrators have - no offence) kind've shows that he is a trouble user, going on history of previous users. That said, I'm not an admin/CU, but just leave it to them and they'll sort it out. It is obviously a CU issue, though. (Still.) Goblin 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
To be honest your constant pushing for him to be unblocked puts you in a bad light as its clear her is a trouble editor, and your championing of him makes me suspicious of you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want him unblocked or not. I am not pushing for him, he's the one pushing me for him to be unblocked. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not Mr.Berty's fault. I just think that this evidence might hel me and let me be renstated. 174.28.92.67 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing logged out as an IP is only going to make matters worse for you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How else was I suposed to get a hold of someone? Even the e-mail was blocked 174.28.92.67 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've allowed e-mail for Toboar's block. E-mail the administrators and stop editing from an IP. Exert 19:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the administrators email list with your normal email account? Not sure that unblocking email was a good idea considering that's available. Goblin 19:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Toboar's been saying that ever since he got blocked: nothing new. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our checkusers are elected by the community based on trust, including the trust that they will make good decisions based on checkuser evidence only they have access to. When multiple checkusers with access to this data have come to the same conclusion, I feel confident knowing they are acting in good faith and making good decisions. Kansan (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the evidence for the block, and have seen nothing that would convince me to change it. Peterdownunder (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be closed now. I was the first checkuser making this decision to block, then I asked Brian and Mentifisto to review the block and the results. Now also Peter reviewed this. I think this is a pretty clear case. Please go on. -Barras (talk) 08:22, 23 December 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.

Checking in

Just checking in. I will return as scheduled in late March. Keep up the good work. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 11:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:84.193.193.10

  Resolved.

Hi, there was a block against User:84.193.193.10. But it is a shared IP address for a Belgium ISP. Could you just unblock it to allow the user: User:A Thousand Nightmares Coming Your Way to login and give him/her the IP block exempt flag. Hydriz (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User account "A Thousand Nightmares Coming Your Way" is not registered. -Barras (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The account is not registered because it cannot be registered. The "account creation blocked" setting prevents me from doing so. --84.193.193.10 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added from IP's talk page. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not unblocked. See my comment on the IP's talk page. -Barras (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP was used by a few users in the past, and as a result of their edits, account creation was blocked from the IP. --Eptalon (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hydriz, it was blocked as a checkuserblock for a reason. You knowingly almost helped a blocked user to come back here. --Bsadowski1 08:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmcw37/fondue

This page, which includes categories, is just a copy of our Fondue page. Seems a bit peculiar; should he have copied the un-formatted text instead? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you should just deactivate categories in user space by putting a : at the beginning of the link. Which I have done. :) -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, en:User:GenOrl has been found to have been pasting in copies of copyrighted text, please see the thread on the admin noticeboard. You may want to check his edits here to see if the same problem applies. Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this, thank you. sonia♫ 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, none of them are hugely simple; what I've looked through thus far appears to be a copyright violation only in the sense of nonattribution to the English Wikipedia original source. Still working. sonia♫ 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Is this bot malfunctioning? Jon@talk:~$ 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it happens now and then, bot operators who aren't super careful when editing non-mainspace. We don't use standard subpages for some things so sometimes things like this happen. I just revert when I see it and let the operator know. I am waiting to see if he does it again before I talk to him. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing cross-wiki abuse of the Philippine TV vandal

  Resolved.

Hi admins. I just want to report that a cross wiki vandal (which I will refer from here on as the "Philippine TV vandal") that was blocked from en.wiki, transferred here after I seek assistance in rangeblocking his/her IP addresses there. The vandal is posting hoax information regarding Philippine television and has an editing pattern that is easy to trace. The said vandal currently uses the IP ranges 121.54.xxx.xxx and 180.194.xxx.xxx in this wiki (sample hoax contributions are the Us Girls (Philippine TV program) and the Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation articles). I would like to seek the same assistance from the admins here to finally stop his destructive edits, since bots are keep on posting wikilinks in en.wiki pointing here with an article that was created by that vandal. Please see my summary report regarding this vandal and its editing patterns. Hoping for your swift action regarding this issue. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted most of the articles they had created and will block them if they continue. Pmlineditor ∞ 20:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, 13 January, pattern still continues. Blocked one of them for a month, considering doing the same for others in the same IP range if pattern continues.-- Tdxiang 02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

promotional username

  Resolved. Blocked by Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Exxelonline, created userpage spamming for company Exxelnet Solutions Pte Ltd. Not sure what we do about such things over here but the username policy says not create or use promotional usernames. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have handled it. --Bsadowski1 05:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would make a bot for this if I knew how: Translation of the Week

  Resolved.

Hi, back again with another request to update the ToTW. This week is: en:Anna Louise Strong and Third World Academy of Sciences, zh:第三世界科學院. If an admin has time, could they please update the New Changes page? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Not an admin, but it's a semi-protected template, {{Totw}}. May see if I have time to tweak my bot for the slightly different layout to what it used to have and get that running, we'll see. Goblin 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
Yeah, get on it slacker :P fr33kman 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You forget I am the laziest person on the wiki. More lazy than even this pair! Goblin 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
I'm giving all a run for your money at the moment. fr33kman 22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy? Me? PeterSymonds for sure, but me? I can't believe it! :o -Barras (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Ooh, look, a shiny thing. See ya. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez! I had no idea what a buncha lazybones everybody was around here! Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created a Lee Perry article. Now that will be the last article I will make for at least a week or two. Other than that, I'll be chasing vandals of fr and de, or making sadistic news story's here. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 08:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydriz

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

I wish to start a discussion about Hydriz (talk · contribs). My main issue is with this, his monitoring of a user which I believe to be me. At the time of that diff I had made the same amount of edits as the user he claims to be monitoring. After another user requested him to remove it he did so, but with a edit summary "Removing, but hiding somewhere nice..." insinuating that he is still monitoring me(/the user).

This all follows on from a discussion where I had asked him to remove the notice on his talk page stating that people were "offensive" and "degrading" to him. As part of his edit summary he said he was doing it "Making Normandy to calm down".

I have offered the oppertunity to give an explanation, however he has decided not to reply to the message, and he has edited here since I left the message. As such I'm requesting an administrator to take some action, and have a community discussion on the user and his ability to edit here. Regards, Normandie Talk! 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:
Firstly, I strongly believe you are new to the MediaWiki software. All edits are placed in the history of that page, which means "Hiding somewhere nice" is the page's history. Unless it is oversighted (which will result in a loss of privileges of that user, since this is not in the scope of them), or else that edit will always be found in the history.
Secondly, what I have monitored of you on my user page, was something I was testing out to monitor someone over at Knowino(another type of Wikipedia). I can't deny that you thought it was refering to you, but this is coincidental, who knows?
This discussion might run for a long time, but I don't think I would be able to comment on any more questions, as I would be preparing for my examinations soon. HydrizTalkBot 14:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into an argument here, as i was looking for other editors comments, but will say the following: I am very experienced with wiki software. More than you would expect. Secondly your attempt to make me seem paranoid has failed. Why would you monitor an editors contributions on an entirely different wiki here? Why didn't you mention that to Goblin when he asked? You are attempting to find excuses now that your conduct has been questioned. You had the opportunity to explain yourself when I first asked and you did not. Normandie Talk! 14:42, 27 January 2011 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Before coming here you need to try and settle your differences at one of your talk pages. Try that first then come back. Oh and please don't revert me like you did the last two admins because then you will be treading on edit warring issues. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Did you not look at his talk page? Or where I said he has decided not to respond to my request. I would really have appreciated a considered response instead of sweeping my complaint under the carpet. Normandie Talk! 15:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I don't see you trying to resolve the issue, I see you arguing about the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that closing this is actually trying to sweep the issues underneath the carpet and ignore them. This isn't an issue with a single user, it's several. I am fairly busy at the moment but will be posting my own diffs later today, however Normandie has already summed up the main issues pretty well. Attempts to resolve this have failed with the user just ignoring comments or aggressively hiding and archiving anything negative about him. All you need to do is read through the current talk page to get a feeling for a number of the issues that are present with this user on the wiki. Indeed, the user's responses above show his lack of understanding and are skirting the issues; it's very hard to believe what is being said from where I am standing. Furthermore, there's yet more potential PAs, wikihounding and more being thrown around by the user. Anyone who cannot see the issues here is quite obviously blind. Goblin 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Can see the issue quite fine, I don't see people trying to discuss in a calm manner. I see both sides using hostility. The AN board is for people to come to after all other avenues have failed. Such as bringing in a 3rd party who is neutral to help with the situation. This has not been done yet. etc. Bringing issues here without trying all other measures just amps up the drama and makes things worse. You of all people should know that BG. Nothing will be gained here from trying to settle a personal squable on this page other than to tie up even more editors time with this rediculous mess which can easily be avoided by the two of them agreeing to not talk to or interact with each other. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Normandy has been indefinitely blocked, I'm closing this discussion. Kansan (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2011 (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.

Unbanning of Samlaptop85213

There is an ongoing discussion about the unbanning of Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs). The community's comments are welcome. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

  Resolved.

I plan on doing a lot of typo fixing. Can I get the necessary flag please? --LilHelpa (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "a lot". Griffinofwales (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have   Done this; user was flooding RC. Please ask an admin when you are done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to know the definition of "a lot" as well. Anyhow, I'm done for now. Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Removed -Griffinofwales (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine TV hoax vandal

Hi everyone, just to let you know, the Philippine TV hoax vandal has been back, creating hoax articles about Philippine TV and radio programmes. If you are ever in doubt, do let me know. All hoax pages created should be deleted. Refer any cases to me right here. Thank you.-- Tdxiang 14:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

  Resolved.

Please move Mary Tudor of England to Mary Tudor, Queen of France and redirect the page Mary Tudor of England to Mary Tudor. There are two Mary Tudors of England and the current one is not the primary usage. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Yep that makes sense.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:I'm From England

  Resolved. blocked and locked fr33kman 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that User:I'm From England and User:Nit Wit Woo are sockpuppets of User:LouisPhilippeCharles (e.g. [2]) who is blocked indefinitely across all wikis.[3] DrKiernan (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Thx, found additional stuff fr33kman

Protection request

Can someone semi-protect Valentine's Day because IP-hoppers are spamming it with commercial links? 78.174.22.115 (talk · contribs), 78.166.216.48 (talk · contribs), 95.7.164.170 (talk · contribs), and 78.160.232.48 (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done fr33kman 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but apparently, they're targeting other pages. See 78.160.187.52 (talk · contribs). Is the range narrow enough for a range block? Goodvac (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy change?

  Resolved. "Talk on talk page unrelated to main page" criteria removed from deletion reason dropdown page as it has been removed from the QD criteria

Hello all, some time back we used to have a stanza in the deletion policy which read "Talk on talk page unrelated to main page", or similar. Since I had this case recently, I added a respective line to the deletion reason dropdown. The problem is now, what entry of the deletion policy would best fit there? - The deletion policy no longer has such an entry. Admins feel free to adapt the list entry I added, but I think we need something which goes in that direction, unrelated talk on talkpage occurs fairly often (also with articles that are vandalised). Any thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The option was removed about six months ago as it was never a part of our deletion criteria yet was present on the deletion drop down. It can be adequately covered by several of the other QD reasons (G1-3, G6, G8) without needing it's own one, and, as it isn't a criteria, shouldn't be on the drop-down menu. If we want to add it as a criteria, that would need the consensus of the community... Goblin 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
All I say is that it has occurred fairly often, and would be nice to have it on the drop-down; adapted the dropdown. Currently covered by "general maintenance"...--Eptalon (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to readding it. Transparency is generally a good thing, and when we can be more specific than just saying "General maintenance", we should. Kansan (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered where it had gone...if it is not a part of Deletion Criteria then it should be. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it probably should be a criteria, but - particularly due to the nature of the wiki - we shouldn't be offering it as an option if it's not a criteria. G8 having two descriptions will only serve to confuse people seeing their page deleted for a completely different reason, especially as G8 specifically says that it doesn't relate to talk pages. Can I make the suggestion that we remove it (Again) from the drop-down menu, begin a discussion to make it a criteria and the re-add it? I appreciate it's hassle but it's in the in best interest of the wiki, imo, and prevents confusion and provides transparency - it was re-added pretty much because someone felt like it should be there, rather than through consensus! (Similar could be said of the removal, but two wrongs don't make a right! ;)) Goblin 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]
Personally I think you should just blank the page in these cases....no point deleting them...just remove the off topic chatter. -DJSasso (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Removing/reverting is an option if there was something on a talk page before; if however someone starts the talk page by this (off-topic) addition, there is little use having an empty talk page, is there?--Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No a blank page makes no sense to me, a redlink let's a person know there has been no discussion of a page. I do agree that other QD criteria would apply but also liked having the drop down. Either way, I'm not fussed as I can always just type in a reason. fr33kman 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well personally I don't see the problem with off topic chatter unless there is alot of it or its actual vandalism which then falls under the obvious speedy. So to me I don't see a point deleting or blanking. Frankly I don't really see the issue here. Either blank it or delete it. But don't waste time arguing over whether the drop down should have a reason or not. You can type in your own. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^That makes the most sense, to be honest. Talk pages are cheap, there's no issue with blank ones to be totally honest. Someone go (re-)remove it from the drop down at the very least until there's a firm decision on this, which should really be community-wide rather than just admins (Yes, I see the irony.). Goblin 14:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
I don't like the blanking idea, per Fr33kman, but most of the time, off-topic chatter can be removed and (possibly) replaced with {{talkheader}} or something. Vandalism, nonsense addition, tests can be removed or deleted per G3, G1 and G2 respectively. I don't have any problem with the removal of the criteria. Anyways, let's improve the encyclopedia rather than discussing about this, as one QD criteria doesn't really matter much... Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move

  Resolved. Done by Sonia (talk · contribs). Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone move Vinegarroon to Thelyphonida over redirect? reason is 'as enWP'. I've taken the original redirect off, but it still doesn't work. Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sonia♫ 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shustov (talk · contribs)

  Resolved.
I agree that this constitutes a serious conflict of interest. However, he contributes beyond just inserting these links so I do not support an immediate block, but rather a final warning. Kansan (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Diego Grez let's talk 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not see any violation in my User-page: I simply provided there a brief information about myself, namely: who I am, what languages I can deal with, where is the area of my professional expertise and what I had accomplished before starting editing Simple English WikipediA and after. By the way, it's just you, Diego Grez, who, yet some 6-7 hours ago, had in your Wikinews User-page this spam: "4 people like Blog Diego Crez" statement and 4 photos of those individuals (all this disappeared only after my posting a critical notice on the Wikinews Talk page). Shustov (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that's not spam. There's nothing wrong having a link to your personal webpage, as far as you are not "spamming" software, etc, which I haven't. Does it hurt to have a video of the Beatles in your webpage? Diego Grez let's talk 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Diego's removal of some of Shustov's userboxes; it's perfectly acceptable for us to link to our off-wiki projects in passing on our userpages. Linkspamming in articlespace, on the other hand, is disallowed; on the merit of Shustov's other contributions I believe that he should not be blocked if he desists from adding such links to further articles. An editor with expertise and a COI, as long as he abides by our rules, is better than having no editors versed in a particular field. sonia♫ 07:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Kansan (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Sorry, but I fail to see the point here; like any editor, Shustov contributes in the area he chooses. So far I don't see an editor spamming links, I see an editor contributing a lot, and perhaps adding a link. Unless you can point out clear cases of bad behaviour in the context of a COI, I do currently not see a need to ban/block this editor. --Eptalon (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the issue of blocks and bans aside here, it does appear that Shustov is adding links to websites, the content for which he is personally responsible. This does represent a COI and should not be allowed. Kansan (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is considered spamming links and is a clear COI. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a warning. Kansan (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_35&oldid=8898599"