Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 40

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Large scale vandalism from dynamic UK-IP-addies

Hi simple community, Just a quick report from me as a global sysop. I came to your aide upon request from your community via the steward chat-channel and was given temporary blocking access because of my knowledge of cross-wiki vandalism and ranges. A person vandalised in high speed many userpages and talk pages so immediate measures were needed. The ranges 86.176.0.0/16 to 86.183.0.0/16 as well as 86.128.0.0/16 to 86.135.0.0/16 as well as 109.148.0.0/16 to 109.151.0.0/16 have been blocked now for 24 hours to prevent him/her from continuing. Rest assured - logged in users can still edit of course. I understood now other helpful people from the community are creating blocking filters to prevent future disruption. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made an abuse filter which *should* be able to block the entire range in one go if needed. I'm not sure if the extension allows for blocks over /16 ranges, but if this guy is back after 24 hours it would be worth trying. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Thanks to everyone for their help. :) Orashmatash (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When this vandal returns the following clicks done by a local sysop for 24 hours again will deal with matters:
MoiraMoira (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things a litte more accurate, problem users were in 86.181.251.0/24, 86.181.5.0/24, I have removed the block on the 86.181/16 in favour of the/22's. I will do similar things when I go check through the other ranges, and list my results here.--Eptalon (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcor

  Resolved.

Continue from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 39#Hardcor :

It continues: Swagg Union Heroes, This Is Swag Team. Also Jude Enemy and socks are locked globally. πr2 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Cory Stunna, Crunk Music Enetrtainment. πr2 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may just want to start with Special:Contributions/Bigggggggg and delete everything there.. its all seems to be continuing unnotable self-promotion. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Littlemkifdjmdfsdffdfddf (talk · contribs) and 173.74.174.38 (talk · contribs) as well. One of them is actually even creating the pages with the QD tag already in place.. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swag Team Entertainment? Ally Rapper? πr2 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both from 166.147.64.75. Osiris (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I compiled a list of his articles here (I'm sure there are more...) at User:PiRSquared17/Sandbox2. πr2 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that Tidy Yung was just created by 166.147.64.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). πr2 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Swag Team by 166.147.64.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) looks copied almost directly from en:Take Care. πr2 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's Swagg Union from the same IP. πr2 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swag Team, Basic (entertainer), Basic discography (copied/modified from en:Drake discography), Swagg Union Heroes (group), Crown The King (copied from en:Take_Care I think), BeastMode (also from en:Take_Care, repeatedly recreated). All from Ghhfddfhdf (talk · contribs). πr2 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading on Special:SpecialPages

On Special:SpecialPages, I see you have a heading called "Recent changes and logs". Since you call Special:RecentChanges "New changes", shouldn't the header of that section be "New changes and logs"? Od Mishehu (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there is no way to change the text on pages in the Special: namespace. I looked through the MediaWiki: namespace and nothing came up there. Orashmatash (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here: MediaWiki:Specialpages-group-changes. Goodvac (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Since it seems fairly non-controversial, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo(film)

Hi because the article be in quik deletion? plis remove the template of the article ,thanks, all help with the article is welcome,hug Carliitaeliza (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at Hugo (film). Chenzw  Talk  15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now at Hugo (movie). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent edits from blocked user

I believe blocked user User:Carliitaeliza has been posting under IP addresses, asking for help about being blocked. See these diffs: [1], [2] (in that one, the poster states that she is Carliitaeliza), [3] (let me know if you'd like that one translated). I don't know what policy, if any, applies, but thought I'd report here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear block evasion. Goodvac (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One main issues with this is that the edits pointed out are almost valid. That is, the intent is acceptable (a user is certainly allowed to challenge being blocked as long as it is in a civil manner and we have have users here challenge their blocks or atleast deal with them civilly on en:wp by talk pages here (CM16 petitioning Alison for help dealing with matters on En:wp in a totally acceptable manner) but the target off the petition in this matter is an issue. It is one thing to hit the talk page of an admin/b'crat to make your case. And in this matter when part of it seems to be lack of language skills, there is a case to be made (yes or no on the outcome, it is an acceptable matter). The block reason is sound given the situation but the unblock deny validation is (no offence) a bit shifty. Block - being disruptive, Unblock? no - learn to speak the language. Better to point out that the user showed they could not comply to guidelines after being informed repeatedly and was being disruptive and non-helpful to the wiki. In all likelihood, the users inability to communicate in an manner that is understandable is an issue, but the actions that caused the block and the fact that nothing was done to correct those actions (on the users part) should be the key point. Should action be taken to deal with this now? Its annoying at best to deal with dynamic IPs making minor issues like this that are likely best just to ignore rather than requiring a CU to investigate what side-effects the needed actions to stop this might curtail. Ie. range blocking is needed to stop it and it is best to have a CU verify that would not have a negative affect on valid users but at the same time that can be seen as the CU peeking at issues that didn't warrant looking at and invade privacy of legitamate users for no reason and ... it gets complicated. And all that for a couple random unblock comments that are best just ignored at this point (if it continues, action may be needed but for 1-2 comments its probably best to just ignore) - Range blocking R serius bizness. --Creol(talk) 06:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same user appears to have been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia as well. Can someone proficient in the language take a look? Chenzw  Talk  09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Brock Flanders

Hello guys, I locked this user for (only) 24 hours because it was going on vandalising and there were no local sysops around, please review my block in accordance with local policies. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. I'm sure he'll be caught again if he vandalizes after the block.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of RFP

I unprotected RFP earlier because it had long term protection applied that was no longer needed. And, it appears to be causing issues with certain folk posting to the subpages. My collegue User:Djsasso objected here and requested that a consensus was needed for this action. My response prior to seeing his reversion of my action is here. Since he had to log off before he started the discussion, as we all should do when reverting, as a courtesy to my friend and collegue I went ahead and posted here. I'm not here to discuss reversion, I'm here to ask permission to unprotect the page. Thank you for considering my request. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should have it unprotected. We should investigate the problem with the rights cascading, not unprotecting it. An IP cannot run for admin, rollback etc so should not need to modify this page at any time. I'd say keep protected. Normandy 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted was simply that I had clearly already stated I was unsure that it should be removed in my comment on the Rfa...since I had objected basically that meant it was already controversial. Anyways the reason I hadn't removed it myself and thought it should be discussed is that the circumstances have not changed any. It is still a very highly viewed page that is still likely to be prone to vandalism. I am completely fine if the community decides to remove the protection. I just thought it shouldn't be done in a willy nilly manor. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible impersonation attempt

I just noticed Drmies (talk · contribs) in the new changes log as a "new user account," not "account created automatically," which seems to indicate this isn't the same Drmies on the English Wikipedia. All edits from the contributions link were imported from the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them to make a confirmation edit on the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given this and this, I think it's safe to say it's fine. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, in light of the above diff from Drmies, it looks like somebody should probably block/keep an eye on 122.178.112.184 (talk · contribs). Osiris (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention if there is no SUL on the account people are allowed to have the same name on this wiki as someone on another wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey folks, thanks for the oversight. I just clicked on a confirmation link, but I'd be happy to make a typical Drmies edit... Drmies (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, how's this? Sounds like the kind of thing this Drmies person would do, haha. Hey HurricaneFan, good to see you here. Osiris, "Did You Know...that Drmies once played keyboards (badly) in a metal band called Osiris?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, as far as that IP is concerned, there's a history there, which was indicated to me after their actions on Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu Vellalar), on the English wiki. Click on the history and see the different but similar IPs at work, which have apparently bled over into your neck of the woods. I suggested to Sitush that they figure out if there's socking going on from way back when, and to possibly inquire about a range block. I'm going to block pretty much on sight on the regular wiki. If anything exciting happens, you can drop me a line on my regular wiki talk page. Keep the faith, and Osiris, don't let me great DYK suggestion go to waste! Drmies (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Sitush says it's this one. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll keep an eye out for changes on India-related pages over the next few days, and let you know if anything you don't know about pops up. I'll get right on that DYK— I'm sure we can get an article going   Osiris (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template

  • The cascading protection used on Template:Convert is protecting a lot of unrelated templates from non-sysop edits (including template pages that haven't yet been created on this wiki). I realise it might be a bit tedious, but individual protection is a lot less messy.
  • The above would also get rid of this minor error, from when templates protected elsewhere are brought over but not protected here (either protect the pages or remove the template).
  • There are also two protected edit requests on its talk page. Osiris (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of an unrelated template being protected? -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The full list

In the case of the last two, it's preventing those pages from being created by any non-sysop. Osiris (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of disabling cascading protection and individually doing it if completely unrelated templates are being fully protected. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of those should be protected....the solution to the last couple is for me to create them right now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like one is a redirect and the other shouldn't really be on the page in the first place and has been removed. So currently the cascade is protecting exactly what it intended to protect in a less messy way. However in saying that if an admin wants to take the time to do it individually knock yourself out...just makes things harder later if we decide we want to remove protection from them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that all of those above should be or need to be protected—some of them (e.g., magnitude template) are outdated and need improving. But that's a secondary issue.
The convert template is unfinished—some of the subtemplates need to be edited (including the /doc page), especially when new combinations are created. Changes are being made and new features are being added all the time on enwiki and should be here too when required. Take a look at the redlinks in the /doc page for example— any of those or any other combination that would call the parent template cannot be created by non-sysops. I realise it's a lot of tedious work, but it's preventing improvement/expansion and it's a lot more messy. Osiris (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: protect the main template and any of the above-listed templates that need to be protected (doc, precision, mboxes) individually. Most of the subtemplates shouldn't be fully protected (semi is another matter)—those that should will already have {{pp-template}} on them and therefore appear in here. So it's about 80 pages... Osiris (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see its preventing anything. Most active users here are admins so can still edit them, those that are not can easily ask an admin to make the edit for them if there is something that needs fixing. Anything related to convert and could potentially show up as vandalism across hundreds of pages should indeed be protected. We have in the past gotten a lot of that kind of hidden vandalism that affects hundreds/thousands of pages so they definitely need to be protected. The subtemplates are probably the most important ones to be protected. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are we the only project that protects them? On enwiki and other, much larger, projects where changes affect many many times the number of pages than on ours, these templates are free for autoconfirmed editors to improve. Let's overlook the fact that cascading protection shouldn't really be used on templates— vandalism to obscure conversion subtemplates is pretty out-of-the-ordinary (even more so on a project of our size). I appreciate you doing those imports, but there are hundreds more (not counting updates to those we already have); the /doc page could also use examples relevant to our project. I'm not expecting you to do any of that, I'm simply pointing out that our editors should be able to improve these templates when and where they see fit. Some editors improve articles, some improve templates. Osiris (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are a smaller project with less editors to catch vandalism as it occurs. On en there are tens if not hundreds of editors at any given moment watching every new edit with things like Huggle. Vandalism is usually caught there within moments. Here there are gaps sometimes where vandalism doesn't get caught as quick. We are usually pretty good but it does happen from time to time. We have had vandalism to obscure templates in the past which has taken a long time to figure out what was causing it because it was on a sub template of a sub template of a sub template. Believe me I see what you are saying, I just don't think the benefit outweighs the risk when a request to an admin for a change takes all of two seconds. As for the hundreds more that are needed, we've always taken the view that we don't move convert sub-templates over until they are needed. (ie no point having them if they aren't being used) And anything not here already as long as its not linked from the doc page of convert can actually be created still as they aren't linked from the page so aren't protected yet. And really if we don't have it here it shouldn't be on the doc page to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed that today with your imports. I realise you're unwilling, but you suggested above that if I can get another admin to replace the cascade with individual protection, you wouldn't object. Does that still stand? Osiris (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I do not care if someone does it. As long as stuff is still protected. I may even get around to doing it myself...I figured its not that big a deal. Just a lot of work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hi! Can you replace File:Wiki.png with a new one? Thank you. --Ikh Sukhbaatar (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed in the past and has not had consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the update. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 05:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will have to be discussed on WP:ST as it is a side-wide thing and not administrator-specific. Chenzw  Talk  05:59, 4 February 2012 (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.

Moved to ST. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy

  Resolved.

Just curious. Someone mentioned a while ago that I could talk to someone... 'devs' or something... about reinserting an email address into my old account User:Kennedy to enable me to go through 'forgotten password' to re-enable my access. For the life of me I can't remember who said it, or if it is possible or who I should talk to. Anyone know if it is possible? Normandy 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% but I think maybe that you could ask a system administrator. Not sure if they can do it or not, but they're the closest people I can think of that may be able to do it. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ok with this. No person should bypass normal security measures. Nomandy, this is not towards you, only the idea. Jon@talk:~$ 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They have been known to do it for people that lose their passwords but I am not sure who they are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They" are the system administrators. -195.194.111.196 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that...I meant a specific name. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon; why? Its my account. Normandy 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The password recovery option was designed to be a 100% gurentee that the person retrieving a new password is the actual owner. Without any kind of public/private key authentication, or some kind of cert pki, something to verify you are who you say you are. I won't accept verification from another untrusted party. I don't think the sysadmins should either.
It is a questionable security practice all together. Jon@talk:~$ 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you believe I am not Kennedy? Normandy 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is possible to get this done, only a trusted person needs to verify that the account is really yours, which shouldn't be much of a problem in your case. -Barras (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. Do you know how I would go about it? Who do I speak to? Normandy 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 If the logs are still there, any checkuser should be able to verify both accounts were created from the same IP, or perhaps class C subnet (i.e. same company network). Once this is done, I guess any person with shell access should be able to reset your password to one of your choice. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it for Eptalon to do since he knows what it is he is looking for. I am not sure how to look for that info that far back to when the account was created. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages from user Racepacket's user space

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.
  • Summary: Racepacket blocked indef (but not community banned) for violating his one-strike. The block may be overturned following further community discussion. I would like to point out that the user's ArbCom enforced block on EN ends in June 2012, so that may also be a suitable time for us to review this block. Chenzw  Talk  15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged several pages for quick deletion that were moved from User:Racepacket's user space. I tagged them because I see little or no change from the enwiki versions of the articles. It might be better to move them back to userspace rather than delete, so I wanted to bring this up here before someone just deletes them. If there's a procedure to request moving back to user space, please let me know what it is. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Dative case & AirTran Airways articles there was almost zero simplification. I assume that to likely be the case with the others as well. No real point in moving to user space unless the user intends to put in a serious effort simplifying. -DJSasso (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an on-going situation. I have gone back over many of his articles and done cleanup, simplifying, linking, recategorizing, etc but it is hard to keep up with the new articles. Only minor work and pruning is usually done. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he was warned by the community for it previously and if I remember correctly almost blocked/banned for it when he promised to stop doing it and to work with another user to avoid doing it. If nothing has changed we may have to revist the previous discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to DJSasso for notifying me of this discussion. I will provide diffs to show the work that I have done on each article. I have been very open to feedback and am not doing this maliciously. I read each article carefully and have seen the changes made by 70.184.171.16 and viewed them as suggestions for mistakes to avoid going forward. So, I am very surprised by the indirect / confrontational approach taken on expressing any concerns about my efforts. I will hold off on creating new articles. I will make comments on the articles flagged by Auntof6. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the changes that I have made: [4]. (My diffs seem to be deleted as fast as I can post them.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I've gone back as far in the move log as I'm going to for now. Please know that my tagging the articles is just one editor's opinion. Also know that I was not targeting Racepacket specifically: I was looking at articles creating by being moved from userspace, because those bypass the patrol process. It just happens that Racepacket does a lot of moving from userspace. I also do not think Racepacket was being malicious. If the admins disagree with the QD tags, they are free to decline deletion and I would be fine with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We should note that the reason that I move the articles after creating them in user space is that it is an ongoing restriction on my editing. I am also having other editors move templates over from English Wikipedia rather than doing so myself. Again, any comparison between the Simple English articles and those on English Wikipedia should be made by a comparison back to English Wikipedia and not between different versions on Simple English Wikipedia. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my comparisons have been between the English Simple English Wikipedias. I also knew about your restriction on creating articles, and I did not think you were deliberately trying to bypass the patrol process. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the review process is not working if these largely unsimplified copies are still going through. Previously, and before that, and again. This problem has been going on for quite a while with little improvement or change. Gotanda (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Update: And now here. The editor just doesn't listen. Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could User:Gotanda please give us an example of a concern about an article that he has raised over the past month that has been ignored? I do not see how he claims this is the result of "not listening". Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a recent one. (within one month request is arbitrary and I've been busy with other things besides cleaning up after you). I removed extensive copy and paste from Windsor, Vermont. You complained to User:Barras but he supported the change and told you not to copy. You said you understood. Yet, the same behavior of copying and pasting from En continues unchanged. 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Windsor, Vermont was reviewed by User:Peterdownunder and simplified before we moved it to article space. I did listen to Barras and did not include famous resident lists in any further city articles. I read each article very carefully and make changes regarding grammar and vocabulary as necessary. I don't change sentences that are already simple for the sake of change. One of the interesting items that you deleted in Windsor, Vermont was the "Further reading" section that listed two sources. I still do not understand why you would delete references as being "complex." Citation forms do not follow grammar rules and do not involve vocabulary. They are valuable to readers and should be included in articles when practical. I am puzzled as to why you use emotion-loaded terms like "cleaning up after you." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I use the phrase "cleaning up after you" because it is a clear and simple description. You copy from En, then others have to clean up the complex mess left behind. Not emotional, simply accurate. Gotanda (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is what our readers expect of Simple English Wikipedia. Are we serving them with important information in a form that they can use and understand? Including lists, such as "Further reading" help our readers even if they are identical to English Wikipedia. It seems to me that leaving them in is less work than making a big issue about whether they should be taken out. The analysis of how to best serve our readers should not involve emotion or expressions of personal umbrage like "cleaning up after you." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think in answer to your first question there, "Are we serving them important information in a form they can use and understand" , that answer in this case is clearly No. These articles are not in Simple English or even close to it. You would not consider posting an article in this condition to the French or Spanish wikipedia, but for here you ignore or simply do not understand what Simple English is. Simple English is not just "well that seems easy to understand to me". It is a created language with its own vocabulary and grammar restrictions. If a word is not in that vocabulary, it almost always must be linked/explained/reworded. Without extensive work, most articles in English are as unacceptable here as they would be on any other language because this is not English. A SE article should not have a reading level of 9-12th ( to post graduate) grade. Seventh grade (US) students (max) should get a clear understanding of everything in the article and the supplied links to other articles needed. Anyone with more than the most basic ESL training should have little issues understanding this. At times, I've needed to spend 30 minutes looking up multiple terms just to try and understand what a specific point in your article is about before being able to translate it and I have a college education, extensive military training/experience and a decade+ of experience after that. You posted that you took a look at the IP cleanups of your articles, but then the next article needs just as much work. The articles yesterday were still in need of something as basic as categories we actually have on this wiki and removal of {{main}} tags to articles we do not have. A simple preview of what is going to be red shows things that need to be there (links and such) and templates, other articles and categories we simply do not have and in most cases will not have for an unknown amount of time.
It is only acceptable to present a page that is identical to the English version in the case that the English version happens to be in Simple English. It does happen at times (some lists, small stubs and disambigs) but it is rare. If we are just presenting the same page as them, we might as well be them. It is unacceptable to present a page that has not been validly (at least attempted to be) translated into the language of this wiki. --Creol(talk) 07:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key point in this discussion is that repeatedly, many many times over, RP has brought over whole pages (or large chunks) and failed to simplify them. Sometimes he has done nothing at all, but even when he says (in effect) "I made many changes", those changes are essentially trivial and do not improve the situation. He has never really accepted our basic remit on this wiki, and has continued with exactly the same behaviour I complained about in respect of his chemistry pages. I agee strongly with Creol's last paragraph. That is exactly how we should think. I believe RP should be permanently banned from bringing material over from enWP. Enough is enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My approach has been to look at the articles in two parts: (1) the text and (2) the lists, citations, quotations, and tables. With the text, I put the text into short simple sentences with active voice. I then make sure that each word is appropriate. With the second group, grammar is not as relevant and I cannot control the vocabulary in quotations or reference titles. I do translate the text and consider what the reader needs to know and what is less important. I then look at each sentence. I check vocabulary and put the first occurance of technical terms in red. I make sure that each article has at least one blue category, and leave some, more precise red categories so that if three or more articles get that category, I (or another editor) can make them blue. I try to link to wikt: if the definition better fits than the Simple English Wikipedia. (For example wikt:toxic in many cases is better than toxic. When I see a word or phrase occuring in red links many times, I create an article to make it blue. A lot of subject areas are difficult to explain and challenge a novice reader. So, I have put my energies into building a explaination for the reader. I start with the lead paragraph. I add more detail in subsequent sections, recognizing that readers are free to stop reading after the lead. I have seen some mistakes after-the-fact (for example from reading Creol's edits or Peterdownunder's reviews). I continue to go through a learning process, and a lot of this is judgment that is shape through feedback. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A separate problem is what actions to take on recent changes patrol. User:Gotanda cites to Thermosetting polymer which was created by User:Iain.garioch. I thought that the article missed the key point that these substances could be heated and moulded once, but not repeatedly. So, I brought the material from English Wikipedia because it did a better job of capturing the idea than what Iain wrote. I did not give it the multiple passes that I give my own articles, but I thought that it was a better solution than quick deleting the article. Gotanda then deleted the official (IUPAC) definition and the valid examples of thermosetting polymers. (Iain had also included most of these examples in his version.) The question is whether to try to fix articles with bad/false information or to just tag them or to propose them for deletion? I welcome your feedback. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I've been trying to stay out of this, because my opinion was expressed by making the QD requests in the first place. However, this is now taking up a lot of people's time. Would an admin be willing to userfy the articles in question? Racepacket seems to be rushing to make the articles acceptable, but the changes being made, while helpful and appropriate, are mostly trivial. In user space, they could be worked on without urgency and without so many people needing to be involved. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and consensus is helpful. I'm a bit surprized that so many articles and time went by without more feedback from people with concerns. Perhaps we should wait a few more days for more admins to weigh in. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I saw all these -- you had been doing much better for quite a while. I don't think multiple admins are required -- any admin can act, and my question stands. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given you reasons why you should userfy them, Racepacket, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to see that you haven't already done it. Osiris (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it does not appear that userfying works. It has been tried and that was the editing restriction after Racepacket was unblocked by NonvocalScream after an irc discussion. The issue is copying and not simplifying. That issue has been ongoing. As Creol wrote above. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and Racepacket's edits are generally not simple--certainly not simple in any of these current cases up for QD. How many times do we have to go through this for a user already banned on En for one year partly for disruptive editing? Gotanda (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gotanda is misrepresenting what happened on En Wikipedia. That I respectfully tried to mediate a dispute between a graduate student and a teenager from India who was being cyberbullied and questioned her relying upon her intimate friend to give her favorable GA reviews is not "disruptive editing." She claimed that I was "harrassing" her about her misconduct. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the issues here. Your using this argument does suggest that you are motivated by things other than a concern for simple articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, Gotana. The fact we keep allowing this to occur is time consuming on our parts. That Racepacket has no clue that his articles are not simple is a major concern here. Only (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication is just a solution for the articles in the QD category, not for Racepacket's editing. Another option is just to clip the articles to stubs of one or two sentences. We can't just leave them sitting in there until he gets around to fixing them. Osiris (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the options here, I see three: Importing restrictions, blocking (mainly as a warning getting the message across that this isnt acceptable) and everyone else just fill in and repair the damage. As #1 is a bit much, #2 is overkill at this point and #3 serves no one, might I suggest a #4 (based in #1): A restriction against creating new articles (based on existing material ie. enwp) or moving articles from the user space to the main space. He can still create articles in the user space and clean them up as he choeses, but is restricted from moving them into the main space - He must get someone else to validate that the changes were sufficient and move the article themselves for him. This causes someone else to both validate the changes (semi-mentoring) and accept signing off on the articles creation. If the problem does not get corrected, finding people willing to assist gets harder and harder until it just doesn't happen any more (ie someone else gets yelled at for putting unacceptable articles into the mainspace which should cause others to be more picky about if the article is relatively acceptable). He can still create the content he wants (in the user space), but is in effect patrolled about making new articles until such a time that those patrolling him sign off that the work is within the scope here. All current content (listed on his user page already) gets a quick admin review - if it needs tagged as Complex, it gets moved back to the userspace (and the redirects deleted - hence the admin review). 70.184.171.16 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I have blocked Racepacket for 24 hours for a libellous edit summary contributed to this thread. This time period chosen simply because I am aware that, having met the editor who was being slandered, I am possibly involved (although certainly not, as Racepacket suggests in his unblock req, a "friend"), and because he does need to contribute to this thread to resolve the original problem here. I would however suggest that in the light of his enwiki ban and history here, this behaviour would otherwise warrant a stronger action than that taken. Your mileage may vary; BRD applies. sonia♫ 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah at this point I think he has probably used up his one-strike. So could most easily be sent packing rather than trying to fix the unfixable. I should note the now hidden edit summary alone would be enough for me to say he violated his one strike. That was a grossly degrading personal attack that was waaaay over the line. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this has been reported to the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia here as this is a violation of an arbitration remedy. While of course the enwp ArbCom has no remit on Simple, this could bring some consequences at enwp. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was sitting back and watching this from afar as I didn't really have an opinion. Much of his work is good, and I hadn't honestly noticed the 'bad'. I didn't see the edit summary but by the descriptions I can hazard a guess. It goes back to PAs... as with further up this page. Normandy 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. The articles had sat there long enough. I have deleted them. Anyone that wants to fix them let me know and I will undelete one at a time for you to fix in your user space. The second thing is that since there were no obvious objections I am extending Racepackets block to indef for violating his one-strike by directly doing exactly what he is banned from en for. I am open to reversing it if someone can give a reason why we should and then we can put it to the community. But I don't think there will be much objection which is why I am taking the action. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (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.


Protection

There seems to have been an attack on Electronic Arts‎. With no immediately available administrator, it was asked of the m:stewards to step in, as this considered an emergency. I semi-protected the page for 12 hours, and I am leaving this note here for there to be a record for local administrators. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also blocked 207.6.50.74 for 3 hours for similar reasons. -- Avi (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction needed

I'm sorry. My IP adress was revealed when I created the article United States Navy SEALs without logging on. Could someone withhold my IP adress, please? Shakinglord (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirects

Noticed there are a number of broken redirects struck out, but they've been there for ages. I thought it was ones already done but actually on closer inspection they are IW redirects such as [5] [6] [7] [8] usw. Not wanting to QD, do we just change to a soft redirect template? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave em but you could change it to the soft direct template if they bother you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Requesting access here for use of AWB. I was originally removed from the list when admin's did not need to be listed there so now I'm not authorized. Plan on dealing with a couple minor annoyances (film -> movie, ==External Links==, American - United States|American) --Creol(talk) 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, happy editing. sonia♫ 08:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 200+ film->movie down, 700 more to look at then the other groups.. oi this is fun stuff here. --Creol(talk) 12:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Youareretarded

  Resolved. Blocked by Tdxiang. -Orashmatash (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Youareretarded (talk · contribs)'s username is acceptable... --Bmusician 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Translated" pages from en-wiki

User:Shakinglord has been creating a number of pages with the edit summary "make page translated from english wiki. Hope it works out". For example, Underground Railroad. Is this sufficient attribution, or does a link and revision number to the en-wiki version need to be included in the edit summary too? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice would be to add this template to the articles talk page: {{Enwp based | url= (add full address here) }}. The full address should be obtained by using the permanent link from the left side tool box. This will put the full page and version address into the address bar in the browser window which is then copied and pasted into the template. See Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology for an example of how it works.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'll start adding attributions to my articles immediatley. Shakinglord (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CRRaysHead90

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.

The discussion here was closed as the user 'retired', now that he has returned could an administrator please review the position. It seems that he position currently is that he has evaded any action by not editing for a very short period of time. Would an admin make a decision or should I start a community discussion for consensus? Normandy 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is POINT-Y. I've apologized numerous times, hell I've begged for forgiveness, my conscious is clear. I've seen many editors in private call this an all around stupid dispute. I think this is wasting the community's time when we could be content building. But go ahead, what I did was wrong morally, but it is not bannable by wiki policies from what I've been told. Again, pointless. However, I will "hide" no longer. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it 'POINT-Y'? Have you even read that before you posted it? I am talking about it, and I am not disrupting the wiki. Normandy 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read it, and feel by doing this your disrupting the wiki to prove to me I've done something wrong. Which I have and have apologized for like I said. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 11:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes personal attacks are banable, and yes NPA talks about ones made off wiki. Off-wiki harassment is blockable on-wiki per policy. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that discussion may be needed here. The previous discussion was closed since he retired, so no further discussion was had. But, since the "resolution" has now been "overturned" in a way, we need to discuss it again. Having people tell you offwiki that they want you to come back does not equal a consensus. Many valid points were made on both sides of the previous discussion, and they were cut short by the retirement. Just apologizing does not make up for having done it, and that you don't feel these were personal attacks show that you do not fully understand the issues surrounding the event. Considering your past history and your previous ban, these issues should be examined. Only (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said on CR's page. I was going to block him when it happened but he announced his retirement so I didn't. When he was let off his ban last time it was under the condition that even one problem would land him back on the ban. This clearly was a problem and thus a breech of the conditions that got him off the ban he was already on. He should be put back on a ban, and since this would be the 3rd time I believe, it would be a 3 strikes your out situation. Unless the community objects over the next day or so I will block as a violation of NPA and the conditions of his unbanning. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hasty block. I would appreciate if this issue is properly discussed by the community. I don't see that Twitter account created by him as a form of personal attack, not to mention that the tweets purely consisted of material that can be easily obtained from this site (ie. they were quoted). If we consider this as PA, then I guess the folks at the Wikipedia Review have been continually making personal attacks at us. I would also like to point out that the previous ban discussion (which ended prematurely) did not involve the entire active community's participation. Chenzw  Talk  13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really require the entire community, he was under a one strike situation as was already agreed to by the whole community. Yes the tweets would be harassment and yes pretty much anyone on Wikipedia Review could be blocked/banned should what they said be bad enough. We don't need to have another discussion as we had one when he was unbanned deciding that all it would take was one problem and he would be banned again. Purposefully targeting one editor is harassment no matter how you try and spin it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note I don't have a problem with the community discussing it again though. But it is one hell of a waste of time since this user keeps causing us to have to have these discussions over and over. And then he tried to duck out of responsibility last time by retiring clearly so he could come back later when he thought the heat had died down. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That one strike rule does not exist, I just reread the entire discussion. It was mentioned, but never agreed to and was not applied by the closing 'crat/admin. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to anyone who is brought back from being banned. So yes it is in effect. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The actual quotes are not an issue (they were said, so can be linked, as they often are). It is however in this context that he secretly created a social networking account, not disclosing who was the operator, and using it with the intention of humiliating and discrediting a user here, solely on edits contributing to Wikipedia. NPA is essentially 'comment on the content, not the editor', and CRRays90 did not do so, and is in breach of NPA. As for the discussion previously ending prematurely, I foresaw this issue and would have preferred the discussion to remain open with the community changing their opinions to what would happen if he ever returned. When CRRays voted in a discussion I warned him that he declared himself to be retired to get away from community discussion on his future. He returns here with the attitude that "I can't be banned for it" and throwing guidelines around where they are not relevant to try to impede this discussion. Normandy 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how you came to the conclusion that I intended to "humiliate" and "discredit" BG7? Because no where did I imply any malice towards BG7 with that account, I explicitly stated that account was meant for laughing with BG7 not at him. I think you are jumping to improper conclusion and suggest you re-examine the evidence again objectively. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 13:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly stated "that account was meant for laughing with BG7 not at him."? Well darn, I must have missed that because I saw it nowhere. Yes I will revisit the evidence to check my conclusions, but I would note that to laugh with someone they need to be in on the joke. BG7 was not, you did not notify him of it, therefore you were laughing at him. Which is a PA. Normandy 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please block for a duration of one year to prevent further disruption. Jon@talk:~$ 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Waring. This is a first time NPA offense, not an on-going offense. I've re-read the previous unban discussion, and can see no mention of a one strike rule. I proposed a six month period for one strikes, and that was opposed. I don't see any one strike rule in effect. We generally do have a six month period, however it is just shy of a full year now, so that would have expired. So, this should be a final warning. Any other behaviors should result in blocks and possible bans.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think he should be blocked. To be honest I thought it was over after the first discussion, CR says he apologized (whether BG accepts the apology or not matters little) and maintains it wasn't intended as a PA. Can we just get on with more productive things now? :) Yottie =talk= 12:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a week since this discussion started. Could an admin please make a final decision on this and set for archive to let us move on whichever way we decide to go? Normandy 12:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? C'mon admins make a decision here please. Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CR90, Hello community. As an uninvolved admin, I take the following decision: Personal attacks on other editors are bad, but I see a potential editor here, a resource this wiki badly needs; So CR90: you are off any one-strike or parole rule that might have existed or continued from the past. I restore you to the "rank" of regular editor, edit any page you like, as you see fit; be however warned that any admin will bock you in accordance with our blocking policy for behaviour that is bad for this wikipedia, or that leads to an attack of another editor or admin. Have fun editing here, but respect the environment. --Eptalon (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (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.


PacificWarrior101

This new user appears to be adding incorrect information or fringe ideas to various articles relating to ethnic groups. His edits have caused problems on here and enwp. He appears to have had a disagreement with several editors over there, and has now brought the disputed content to add here instead. Osiris (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be occupied with articles relating to the South East Pacfic, espicially the Malays. Perhaps a topic ban should be enacted. Shakinglord (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that warrants a block currently, but he does need to look into citing references to substantiate his claims. Chenzw  Talk  16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are for long-term offenders, and agree with Chenzw that there's nothing to warrant a block. The problems with his edits have evidently been explained to him by several users on enwp. Adding the disputed information here instead is not appropriate. Osiris (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry....i've added MANY sources to many posts lacking citations in Southeast Asia. ive cleaned up some unnecessarry crap on Nalays as well. i explain myself on my talk page PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101[reply]

Redaction Needed

One of my freinds apparently thought it was funny to post my first name on my talk page. Could that be redacted and the vandal(s) (so far just User: BigDaddyCactus, but i'm sure there will be more) blocked? I know this guy personally and I know he will not contribute to Wikipedia. Shakinglord (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a warning. On the non simple English wikipeida, Shakinglord has a history of claiming actions of friends which appear to be untrue. You may want to see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord/Archive before spending a lot of time with them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on that, but there isn't anything of substance in the post by BigDaddyCactus so there shouldn't be a problem in redacting it as a precaution. Osiris (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem with that. Was really suggesting you may want to investigate further and consider blocking Shakinglord and anyone else involved as well as removing the content. Seems clear their stories are hard to believe with the history, as you agree here. But choose my words carefully. Did not want to come across as someone from another wiki telling you to block someone else solely because of their activity in my wiki. Or make claims or suggestions which I would need to defend. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for continuing the same behaviour which got him banned on en which was sockpuppeting. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a bunch of his socks have just turned up on en-wiki as well. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. Shakinglord appears to be a troll, starting threads about himself and baiting people into investigating his own bad behaviour. Who's time is that worthless? Osiris (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I feel it might be a good idea for an admin to take a run through the list of 203 users with the rollback tool. Several are retired, long gone and even banned.

Also, as it keeps getting missed, this needs closing. Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this awhile ago and it was felt it wasn't a tool we should remove if people go inactive. It causes no danger. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, understood. And the other issue is still unresolved? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am involved so I can't do anything about it. But I am guessing there isn't enough discussion to really make a call on it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we're closing it as no consensus it would be good for an admin to do so. Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Could someone please protect the following pages?

They've been protected on enwp because of disruptive editing, so the perp has come over here instead. Persistent copyright violations. No point in blocking the IPs, since it seems to jump every few hours. Osiris (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Chenzw  Talk  11:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Thanks. Going to sleep now. Osiris (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Can I please be added to the registered users list for AWB? At the moment, I need it for fixing coordinate formatting here and replacing deprecated parameters here and here. Osiris (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you, however the request page for this is here. -Barras talk 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
! The talk page! Duh! Looked everywhere but. Thanks, Barras. Osiris (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flood flag

Could someone give me the flood flag? I'm clearing out a maintenance category and fear I've been flooding RC. -- An example diff -- Osiris (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dome, please post a message when you are done. --Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Osiris (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Osiris is finished flooding. Osiris (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag broken

Hello fellow admins,

please note that the 'flood permission' (flag) does not hide edits of the respective user in the recent changes log. A workaround is using the bot flag. I have not yet reported an error, awaiting independent confirmation of this problem. --Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's my fault. Am I supposed to log out of AWB and then back in again after receiving the flood flag? I made 2 non-AWB edits on Firefox (a QD tag with twinkle) and they didn't show, but all the AWB edits did. After you gave me the bot flag, the AWB edits continued to show up. Until I logged out of AWB and then back in; now it's working fine. Osiris (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse a non-admin for answering, but yes, the flood flag takes effect the next time you log in after it is set. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! *slap self* My bad. Osiris (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It is an AWB issue, you have to set it before you log into AWB otherwise you have to log out and back in for it to work. It is a long known issue. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This problem occurs because MediaWiki requires "&bot=1" passed in order for an edit to be recognised as a bot edit, even if an account is flagged. AWB retrieves your user information once upon login and caches it for the rest of the session, thus it will not recognise the new bot/flood (flood does work) status halfway through the AWB session. Chenzw  Talk  12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karen Rose Perez Roque‎

This user needs to be made aware of the policies on privacy and user pages. The page has gone beyond WP:UP#NOT; the names of her family members should definitely be deleted. Osiris (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed and deleted the inappropriate revisions and left the user a note. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Orashmatash, although I think you missed some revisions. Osiris (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just noticed. Deleted those also. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. That should be it fixed now. Let me know if there are any others. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's done it again, both on her userpage and on her talk page cymru.lass (talk)⁄(changes) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure its not actually her. I removed it again...if she puts it back give her a final warning...then I say block. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable username?

  Resolved.

New user User:Fjuck off -- OK or not? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks. -Orashmatash (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QD

Anyone know why Militarism 1 world war isn't showing up in the list of QD'd pages? It was QD tagged on 6 Feb 12 by Tegel but isn't coming up on the cat:

Ali Azhar D
Battle of Kerh (1516)
Battle of Tabriz
Trabzon expedetion (1510)

Any ideas? Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some obscure bug (or an issue with our QD template). Purging the cache didn't help. Chenzw  Talk  16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely a cache issue, there is more than one place where you have to purge sometimes if things don't get updated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was purging the cache too. Just hope there aren't others. DJ, did you manage to get it showing on the tree by purging another page? Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw had already deleted it so it was too late. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

Requesting flood flag to clear out a maintenance category. Osiris (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you are going to use AWB, I suggest you log out (if you have already logged in to AWB) and then log in to AWB. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished flooding. Banebdjed (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates to protect

  Resolved.

If someone has some extra time, the following all have {{pp-template}} on them, so I assume they need to be protected indefinitely.

They are not protected by the cascading protection on Template:Convert. Osiris (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh! ;) Thanks! Osiris (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first two (top left) are still unprotected. The rest are fine. Osiris (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got them. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

Meanwhile, we're making great headway on this mission. Big thanks to everyone who's been helping out! Osiris (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for bringing this to notice. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a quandry

Got a problem here and as it was caused by an admin action, I post it here. I had a tab open working on a copy of an article for the satelite/cable television network Disney XD. It wasn't a full transwiki translation, just a small expansion of the existing article here. The problem was that the article was tagged for quick deletion because it was an obvious advertisement (g11). The article consisted of the en:wp inforbox and a brief statement about the network (sat/cable, owned by Disney/ABC), a comment on some of its programming (basically giving its style of programming) and the networks it replaces. While there was not a lot of info, I could easily argue there was no real one sided POV push that often defines advert articles. But anyway, an admin felt it was a proper reason and the article was deleted. (The validity of which is another issue that isn't part of this) And that brings up the issue. User talk:Creol/Disney XD is the cleaned up version of the article I had working in the tab. I do not see how it can be an advert and should be acceptable for a stub on the topic, but I do see how it is now totally in violation of policy to post it in main space as it has been made impossible to attribute the base edits it was written from due to the deletion. It is only in a very small part based on the English article (and much of that bit could just as easily be attributed to TV Guide or a host of sources that list programming info) and mostly based on the information provided by a user whose edits where deleted as advertising and can no long be attrib'ed.

So the issue - Tag it for QD since it now clearly can not be validly used without being a copyright violation? Even keeping it in the userspace for now could technically be seen as copyvio since all attribution has been deleted and no longer exists. --Creol(talk) 05:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, I should make a comment. Your rewrite of the article is quite acceptable as a stub. The only thing in common between the dleted version and your new version is the copied infobox. To deal with the attribution issue there are several things that could be done. The QD could be reverted and the new version copy pasted into it. Or a an attribution could be made on the talk page. Or the template saying the article was based on the En article (or part thereof) could be added to the talk page. My deletion was mainly an info box copied from enwiki, the name of a couple of programs, and a ref to what appeared to be a possibly non-reliable source.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that needs to be done to fix attribution is to move it to mainspace and then undelete the deleted revisions which will merge them back into the article history. (Which I have now done) -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of User Rights from User:Purplebackpack89 Blocked and Bannned User

  Resolved. No real need to remove the rights seeing that the user cannot use the flags anyway... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Administrators, need to inform that this user User:Purplebackpack89 has been blocked Indefinitely and banned from Simple Wikipedia as per this [9] and [10] . And indefinitely blocked and banned users are always stripped any user rights if they have (of all types). I kindly request the administrators to remove the rights from the said account, as they can be given again if and when the user decides to return to Simple English Wikipedia after their banned time has expired, if unblock request has been has been approved and the user is trusted with these rights to use them. There is no use keeping such accounts with any user rights. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware that every wiki has different ways of handling things. On simple we don't tend to strip such rights when they are blocked or banned because the tools would still not be able to be used and as such it does not actually harm to the wiki to leave them on the user. A common mistake many people make coming here is that they assume we have all the same "rules" as en.wiki and we have many that are very different. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i understood your message Djsasso, and know that on every wiki the things are handled differently, but i don't understand that why would any user account that has been banned and blocked indefinitely be allowed to keep user rights. As you see, if some user who has been banned and blocked indefinitely and was an Administrator or Bureaucrat or CheckUser, etc. would obviously have their rights removed immediately. But when other users will search for people in the user list for users having the required rights rights and that user account being blocked will cause inconvenience to other editors and in turn waste time and energy. Also there isn't any valid reason given anywhere as to why should indefinitely blocked users be allowed to keep any user rights. Most of the times the rights are removed when a user is blocked indefinitely and this user has both been blocked indefinitely and banned. And anyways as i said above, the rights can be restored if and when the user returns and appeals the block after the ban time, if the administrators will approve the unblock and if the user can be trusted to use them again. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we would remove admin etc because a user who is blocked or banned can still use those tools to harm the wiki. Rollback and patroller do not have the same potential for damage. There is simply no need to add a layer of bureaucracy to things to have to remove and re-add rights. Since the block/ban had nothing to do with the abuse of those tools he is still authorized to use them should he ever return. Removing them just to remove them is adding insult to injury in most cases, as such they have been left on the user. It is a rare day on a wiki this size that anyone is going to search those user lists for anything anyways. We have a whoping 20 active users I believe so its not something that many people would ever do so the addition of a couple of people who are blocked showing up in the list is not ever going to waste much time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behavior on Main Page

  Resolved. Fixed. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Firefox, I see a normal Main Page. On Chrome (v. 17.0.963.79 Mac OS X) I see a red link "Main Page/Article 8" under Selected Articles. If I click that link, I go to "Changing Main Page/Article 8". It appears I can edit it, but I don't want to mess things up any further. Preview showed a test edit, but I did not save it. Something strange is happening. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange. The selected article rotation system works by automatically going through the pages on Category:Selected articles and transcluding them, but one VGA was demoted. I think they may have to be moved back so that the numbering is correct. I'll keep looking into it. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary fix instated until a permanent fix can be found. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that they're in order? Can't you just redirect it to the latest one and delete /Article 36? Osiris (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting it to the latest one would mean that the same article would appear two days in a row. I don't understand why I would delete /Article 36; that is a redirect to WP:Very good articles/Saturn (planet) which is still a VGA. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Very good articles/Saturn (planet) is the latest one. Osiris (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get what you were saying now. I thought you meant the article that was supposed to appear tomorrow. Done, I think we've found a permanent fix. Good work! -Orashmatash (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should've been a bit clearer. ;) Osiris (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gotanda (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popups broken

Navigation popups are broken. Popups don't look right.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned. There's nothing we can do about it locally since our Navigation Popups is loaded from ENWP. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They work fine on enwiki.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its mostly a case of we just copy their code but don't always have all the backend templates and css implemented that they do. So things like popups here tends to be a "As Is" situation unless someone wants to take on the monumental task of rewriting all of our backend settings and finding all of the templates it might use and updating them all. So yes they work on en.wiki because they were written for en.wiki but they weren't written for simple. Someone just copied it over to get as much use out of it as we can. But we don't have the necessary people to go through fixing it all to make it work here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They also work on meta, frwiki, and MediaWiki.org.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, every wiki has different css and templates etc. Those wiki's might have made sure they all match up. We have not. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did I mention that they worked some time ago (~1 or 2 months) on browsers except IE?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was brought up on Simple Talk back in February and covered by Bugzilla:34480 . It was looked into and found that nothing could/would be done about it. --Creol(talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoblinBot4

I recently removed this after the Monday Night Comeback issue was resolved. However, User:GoblinBot4 still gives me issues. It gave me 3 warnings about vandalism, just because the quote from Dennis Green that I used had "bullshit" in it. It's not attacking others, like it said, but it's just part of what he said. I even tried censoring it, but it still said that I was attacking others. ZappaOMati (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a tolerance issue with new users.. It let me make the edits without reverting. Just ignore it if you can.--Creol(talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when adding quotes, it's a good idea to include a reference for them, especially if it could potentially be controversial or inflammatory. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoblinBot4 is coded to revert edits by non-autoconfirmed users which match the heuristics. Basically the part of the quote which said "bullshit" matched a pattern. Because ZappaOMati was not autoconfirmed when the edit was made, it was reverted. Just in case anyone was wondering. -Orashmatash is travelling (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most wanted articles: Shangrila?

On the New changes page, in the Page requests section, there is an entry for "Shangrila". I suspect this should be "Shangri-La", which is a fictional place, not a fictional person as listed on Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded/People. Can we remove "Shangrila" or change it to "Shangri-La"? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've taken it off the list and redirected Shangri-La to Lost Horizon (novel). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware this list will eventually just be replaced each time the page is updated with the meta version so making a fix on any of these pages means going to meta and making the fix there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the meta version? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/People --Creol(talk) 09:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin edit some user pages of a user who hasn't been around in a while?

I keep running into things like

  • redlinked categories that are only used on pages with the prefix "User:This lousy T-Shirt/" (see list here)
  • User pages from that same prefix that make up a good percentage of the articles in some existing categories (see Category:Parables of Jesus)

I question whether categories should usually be used on user pages, and these have been like this for some time. Would an admin be willing to edit those pages to eliminate these issues? Changes like [[Category:Xyz]] to [[:Category:Xyz]] would be helpful. I suppose I could just be bold and do it myself, knowing that it could be reverted if the user returns and objects, but I'd like to avoid getting my metaphorical hand slapped.

A side issue is that the prefix on those pages doesn't match any existing user, but there is User:This lousy T-shirt (lower-case "S" on "shirt"). Should those pages be renamed to match the user name? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are supposed to deactivate categories when they are in your userspace. Anyone can edit them so shouldn't take too long for you to run through with your AWB making that switch. And yes I would move them. I don't have time at the moment to make all the changes but if they aren't done when I get some time later I can do it. Otherwise anyone is able to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy to do it. I just didn't want to do something I shouldn't. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_40&oldid=8898604"