Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 42

Malfunctioning GoblinBot...

I think I have already pointed it out on IRC, but some edits Goblinbot reverts are not clear cases of vandalism. Another such case occurred just now.

• diffs

In the long run, I think the bot needs a few changes:

• Get away from a strict "anonymous user posted article change containing one of a few words (eg. vagina)" more towards an approach based on "scores" (as in: such a user posting a comment has a score of 0.3, but 0.7 is needed for clear vandalism.
• Do not use static word lists, but get these periodically from onwiki pages (fully protected).
• Rely on editfilter tags?

Yes, whether the case abnove is vandalism can be debated, but a bot repalcement/improvement should be considered.--Eptalon (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Longtime Sockpuppet

I just noticed that a well known and prolific sockpuppet from En Wikipedia has found his way here and created an account. USer:Willy On Extrasuperwheels seems to identify to User:Willie on Wheels, User:Willy on Wheels, User:Willie on wheels and a whole pile of others from English Wikipedia. Someone might need to do a checkuser and see how many others there are.Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really him and also the account is globally locked. --Bsadowski1 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok but that seems like a pretty huge coincidence. Thanks for looking though. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit on protected user subpage

User:Barliner/userboxes/german has a redlinked category, Category:Wikipedian userboxes. Would an admin please change this to Category:Interest userbox templates? I did not do this via {{editprotected}} because I didn't want to create a talk page just for that. The user has not been active in over a year. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Osiris (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

COI/Self-promotion

Hello, just looking for clarification if any further action is required. I noticed User:Susie figgis editing the article Susie Figgis. I have left a message for the user to read WP:COI#SP but is any other action needed? Kennedy ^(talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User

User 46.60.252.85 has been vandalising frequently since 28 November. Looks like he needs a bit of attention. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IP resolves to "Southwest Grid for Learning", so probably this is a school (or educational institution). IP Blocked for two weeks; account creation/TP editing left open.--Eptalon (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I get the flood flag for a little while please

I am working on some AWB typo and formatting cleanup and I don't want to flood the New changes so could I get the flood flag for a little while? Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

taxoboxes screwed up

Overnight, someone has screwed up the taxoboxes. Please revert back to former, and discuss proposed changes with me. I am way the biggest user of taxoboxes on this wiki... Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and made a note to the user. It looks like it was probably an accident, but one that can easily be avoided in the future. Osiris (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you use the templates a lot doesn't mean any changes need to go through you, Macdonald-ross. This is a wiki, everyone is entitled to edit as they see fit. I'm a little surprised at having to remind such a regular editor about WP:OWN... Kennedy ^(talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually say they need to go through me. However, deliberate changes in established practice do need a new consensus, so in such cases everyone is not entitled to do what they like without consultation. As it turned out, this was not one of those cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages by 71.64.104.219 (and local block)

Please mass delete all pages created by 71.64.104.219, and a local block would also be appropriate. I already got a steward to block it globally, but the block is short though.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The global block ends on 30 December. Blocks are meant to be preventative, so we will monitor the IP's edits after the block ends and will block if necessary. Chenzw  Talk  02:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

Requesting action re 222.165.27.167, repeat vandalism of my talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done by Barras, along with a complimentary rangeblock. Chenzw  Talk  10:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection.

Hi folks. Would like to suggest the protection of both Daniel Tosh and Tosh.0. Both have been protected for fairly extended amounts of time in the passed, as they are both some of the most commonly vandalized pages on this wiki. The history of both of those pages paints a pretty clear message.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done by Chenzw. Osiris (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin.

Hi Folks. I've been fairly inactive for around a year. I let this go for a while, however eventually I asked for my tools to be removed. It's been a long story as some of you know, involving school, work, and the death of various family members. I'm slowly coming back to the wiki, and my plan was to edit for a month before holding an RFA to ask the community for my tools back, as it has been so long. However, after the few days I've been editing I've had to nominate a few pages for deletion, and even send a user to VIP. I never thought it would come to this, but I kinda feel like this wiki needs active admins. At one point we had way to many of them, now it appears we don't have enough. I thought about nominating another user for admin while I got myself re-integrated back into the community, however, I've decided it would just be best to ask for them back myself. So, +admin please? It really wasn't my plan to do this, but I feel simple needs the help. I think I'm still within the criteria to get them back, so thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if I didn't like what Gordon did to Bowyer, we're both Nascar addicts and I hope you'll succeed because we are few people not yet admins on top 50 on Simple http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm and you're more trustable than Kennedy and much more serious than me. I could of course propose myself but I think it's better when the nomination comes from an already-sysop-user. ONaNcle (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: You do not meet the criteria to be considered as an inactive administrator in 2012, and since your flags were removed per your own request, I don't see why you cannot get them back. Putting this on hold for now in case Barras knows something I don't know. By the way, @ONaNcle: I don't consider your comment to be particularly helpful. Gordonrox24 resigned from adminship due to personal matters, and what you said has little relation to what is going on here. Chenzw  Talk  08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Welcome back. (now get back to work) Chenzw  Talk  10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

Looking at the autogenerated statistics for Simple English is quite interesting. What I see, and would like to address:

• Out of the ten editors with the most mainspace edits (and supposedly activity), four do not have an admin status. In my opinion, they would be candidates for a nomination.
• 62 editors (with at least 3162 edits) do/did 57% of the editing, 15 people (with at least 10.000 edits) account for 33%, and 4 people (with 31632 edits) do/did 16%. This includes bots.

Summing it up: we probably have 62 "active editors and bots", which account for almost 60% of the mainspace edits.--Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Some are heading towards major milestones: Sasso and Creol are neck-and-neck for 50,000 article-space edits, and Ep himself is verging on 3000 new pages. Tbennert with 2,251 new pages is also amazing. TDKR Chicago 101 is clearly newcomer of 2012, with 748 new articles in just over five months. These are awesome achievements. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

3000 new pages and yet you still insist on having "I have not written many new pages" on your user page, Eptalon. ;) Osiris (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

...most of which are two sentence stubs created after deleting some graffitti left here? - It really does not feel like it...--Eptalon (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How does it determine who a bot is? It seems to think User:GoblinBot4 is a normal contributor, not a bot. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

there is a bot flag, but I guess it does not take that into account; as to GoblinBot4, there had been issues, so its flag was taken away.--Eptalon (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Its based on who has a bot flag and who doesn't. As Eptalon mentions GoblinBot4 had its bot flag removed so we could see its edits in RC. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Cool tool, even if I'm not listed on it.  ;-) – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting emptied cats

Today I emptied some cats, then QD'd them with the note, "This cat was emptied on 11 January 2013. You can wait 4 days to delete if you want." Is that acceptable? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That is acceptable. But really when you empty a cat you should make a notification in some way. Situations where you want to delete a cat with a fair number of articles in it is supposed to actually go to RfD. So if you are taking a cat with a number of articles and then emptying it and then 4 days later QDing it. That really is skirting process. If it is a cat with 1 or 2 articles in it (ie below the generally accepted 3) then what you did is fine I would say. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they all had fewer than 3 articles. Would it help if I said something like, "This cat had only one entry, which was removed or recategorized on 11 January 2013. You can wait 4 days to delete if you want."?--Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally would still put the tag on after 4 days but what you did hopefully would make an admin stop and wait, because an admin is technically supposed to check that when deleting cats. Because it gives people a chance to notice you tagged it. Creol for example in that Greenland issue was more upset I think that he didn't get a chance to react to your QD because it was done in less than a day. But this is just my opinion. Others may have another view. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection

There have been no good IP edits on Electrical circuit since the beginning of December. Requesting semi-protection. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, it seems no different from thousands of other pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I understand, does that mean pages are not normally protected here? Or is this just seen as not a lot vandalism? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not really a lot of vandalism - the article has only been vandalised 6 times since November 2012. Chenzw  Talk  09:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyfraw

I would like to unprotect this page per request. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Huik01

In December 2009, Huik01 was blocked. Since June 2010, it was discovered he had a large sockfarm and to this day has been creating sockpuppets. If you look at his category of socks, there are more than 40 (actually more like 60+) confirmed socks. I propose a community ban for Huik. --Bsadowski1 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

He pretty much is defacto banned. But if you want something official then yup I support. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. If he's confirmed to be a long-term sockpuppeteer, then ban him. Although I don't think there's much likelihood of them logging in to their original account and requesting an unblock... Osiris (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• My name isn't one the list! Joking aside, go ahead. Yottie ^=talk= 11:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Flood flag

I'd like to request the flood flag as I plan to use AWB and don't want to flood the new changes log. MJ94 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What would the task be. Need to know what it is we are hiding because some tasks need to remain visible. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

RileyBot malfunctioning

An IP made a bot edit (cleaning the sandbox). In accordance with the bot policy (all bots must log in to edit), this IP may need to be blocked. J9 91 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that big a deal for the type of work it is doing. But I have blocked it for 24 hours so the op will notice and fix his login. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue as to why my bot is editing logged out... Anyways, the "Talk to the bot operator at User talk:Riley Huntley!" is there for you guys to use (I'm not saying it is your fault for not messaing me), I was away on a trip so I couldn't tell that it was having an issue. :/ - I just did a test run now and it is doing fine. I'll take a look over the code to see why, thanks! Riley Huntley (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but being that it was logged out. We couldn't be certain it was your bot. Not without doing a checkuser of course which wouldn't really have been appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Telling me still wouldn't have hurted ;) Riley Huntley (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I oversighted the a private info here and replaced it with something neutral. -Barras talk 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for move over redirect

The new page Professor Albus Dumbledore should be at Albus Dumbledore, which currently redirects to Harry Potter#Main characters. Would an admin please move the new page over the redirect? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Osiris (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for import

Would someone please import en:Template:R from misspelling and its doc page? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chenzw  Talk  00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to import template {{Infobox cricketer}} to get updates

The version we have of this template isn't accepting some fields like birth_date. Would someone please import the current version from enwiki?

By the way, is Import a right that non-admins can have? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can fix this up. The policy on giving the flag out is here. It looks like the same sort of procedure for the flood flag. Osiris (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting the import flag is the same as an RfA. So you would run for it for a week and people would support and oppose. It is a right that can be a bunch of trouble and make a pretty big mess so it is very rarely given out to non-admins. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm though now that I read that page Osiris links to that page differs from how we have handled it in the past. I don't remember us coming up with those guidelines. But that is probably just me being old. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually just found the discussion to switch it from RfA to temporary and I have no idea how I missed that discussion. Very low participation. I would have completely opposed making it a temporary flag. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Given the requirements, there is no way I would ever even consider jumping through all the hoops to get the flag. It is completely impractical to ever get the flag. Most import jobs here are 1 (template)-2 (template and doc) pages at a time. To require an RfP, waiting, getting approved, getting a Crat to flag, moving the page over, flagging down another crat to pull the flag.. for one template, just to preserve its history for attrib purposes. Flagging down a Crat (twice), every time I needed to get a location template ported over? I'd just flag the nearest admin and make them do the import for me or more likely copy/paste and toss on an attrib notice. The policy certainly pushes users towards the copy/paste/attrib practice. Just hope they actually do attrib it. Heck, the only reason to actually get the flag is to be annoying to the crats and make them flick switches over and over again for you.--Creol(talk) 23:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was looking to see if I could save the admins some work if I did importing myself when I need it (which isn't often). Thanks for all the replies! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a change to make it permanent. As long as the user is well trusted and knows exactly what can go wrong with it. I've lost count of the number of page histories I've had to clean up. Osiris (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Barack Obama

I think it would be good if the article Barack Obama is protected. There are no constructive changes in the history since the expiration of the last protection. --Mark91it's my world 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We have had 44 edits to the page since the beginning of the year. About 25% (12) of these come from one editor (96.247...) and are constructive. Restricting editing to the autoconfirmed users blocks this user (since they are not logged in). Roughly about 15 edits are reversions. These two categories account for 62% of all edits. According to traffic statistics, there were 4900 views in the last 60 days, or about 82 a day on average. Statistics aside, I don't think the page needs protection, atm. --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Import needed

en:Template:uw-coi for Clarkcj12 (requested on my talk page) --Creol(talk) 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Imported, but needs more work to make the entire template completely applicable to our wiki. I will try to find some time to get that done. Chenzw  Talk  10:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess it also needs to be added to the list here also when will it get added to Twinkle? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Our twinkle doesn't get touched a heck of a lot. Up until recently it was a use at your own risk script because it was imported wholesale without being modified to work on simple. But someone was recently working at doing that so it may end up there soon. Feel free to add it to the talk page warnings list though. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Template import request

Resolved. Imported. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone import the template en:Template:Metroid series here? I'd like to add it to the Metroid articles, as we have a good amount of them here, and I think it would be useful for those articles. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Bullying

We have a long-standing problem culture of bullying that has been ignored for too long.

The culture of bullying harms the work of our project. DJSasso's behaviour is not limited to any one isolated incident, nor is it limited to me. The good work that DJSasso does is clear, but it does not excuse or resolve the problems caused by a bystanders in a culture of bullying.

DJSasso used the word "disruptive" and the phrase "bad faith" here. These are loaded words. With bitter regret, I have learned the hard way that this is only the first threat, the first step in a process of SHOUTING.

This is something that only administrators the entire community can handle. I cannot -- see here

A COMPLAINT: The diffs of DJSasso do often -- too often -- eclipse all others. Again and again, the single and cumulative diffs overwhelm meaningful discussion.

B COMPLAINT: At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs in 2013, the disruptive diffs of DJSasso make the process of consensus-building impossible.

{{smalldivIn part, DJSasso's tactics are deconstructed at en:Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals.

• At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs, NPOV is not reasonable, not helpful
• At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs, the diffs of DJSasso are only harmful, hot helpful.

The marginalizing or undermining tactics of DJSasso are both familiar and predictable. For example, at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs,

• "... I guess it is true that people here don't actually want new users, they prefer their walled garden where they can feel like big fish in a small pond.
• "... stop throwing in non-simple phrases into discussions that do nothing but cause disruption and show a complete lack of good faith while usually derailing whatever discussion you insert them into"

}}

C COMPLAINT: At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs in 2013, the culture of bullying is an unavoidable topic. This pattern mirrors what happened in response to Racepacket's diff at Wikipedia:Big Weekend#Evaluation Questions in early February 2012.

#1: A very basic and non-controversial question was asked here:

... "What worked? Why?" I would be very interested in hearing answers from other participants. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

#2: An attempt to highlight consensus-building in 2012 was mis-labelled as an attack here.

Half empty or half full?

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Racepacket's words here deserve emphasis and repetition,

[Other things] "...should take a back seat to the important idea of working together."

In contrast, DJSasso's reasoning here creates a red herring with a false analogy.

What have we learned from CCW and BAW?

IMO, DJSasso posits assumptions and questions which are unhelpful. In other words, our guesses about "What worked?" and "Why?" have nothing to do with Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded

Yes, we need to be aware of what's missing from Wikipedia. However, this focus or point-of-view is not helpful when it is used to squash the slow growth of teamwork. DJSasso seems to see the glass as "half empty" ....

IMO, the "Big Weekends" were successful in part because they encouraged us all to see the glass as "half full". --Horeki (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

....

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This has become another example of Talking past each other.

QUESTIONS

1. What have we learned from
   • Biography Weekend?
   • Capital Cities Weekend (CCW)?
   • Airports Weekend (BAW)?
2. What have we learned from this thread?

ANSWER = what's wrong?

• "Don't really think this is as good an idea ..." -- DJSasso

• "... should use such a tool to help the wiki instead of just making it look like we are helping the wiki" --DJSasso

• "... instead of just saying screw what the wiki needs like you suggest." --DJSasso

My words were not provocative. My tone was mild. The timeliness and significance of these questions are not diminished by anyone's spin. For me, any further investment in this thread is not worthwhile. --Horeki (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your tone was attacking. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The response to a glass-half-empty-or-a-glass-half-full shows that a culture of bullying was well established in early 2012.

A year of patient investigation and thoughtful reflection makes up the foundation of this mildly written complaint. The too-often repeated pattern is beginning to speak for itself.

It is timely and necessary to repeat Osiris' words as if they were my own: DJSasso should not be belittling anyone's contributions to the project.

DJSasso's likely escalation is also consistent with a long-standing pattern -- predicable and unsurprising.

I am intimidated, and I don't think I'm the only one. But I am not yet overwhelmed. It is now the job of administrators the community as a group to help me if they can. --Ansei (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ansei, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their edits are disruptive. Consensus is derived from people disagreeing with each other and both sides coming together. You constantly assume bad faith of every comment I make because you disagree with it. Disagreement is allowed. The statements I make are for the betterment of the wiki because I have a vested interest in the wiki being the best it can be. Secondly your link about my comment about you throwing in non-simple phrases. This isn't just my opinion, you have been warned about that by a number of people. You were even banned for a year on en because of doing it. If using such archane, obscure and disruptive language is bad on en, it is doubly so here where we have to be simple even in the language we use on a talk page. Your constant personal attacks on me are getting very very tiresome. You want people to treat you well all the while you personally attack me in just about every discussion we are involved in. You tell me that I shouldn't belittle anyone's contributions but you consistently belittle mine. If it is respect you are looking for, its a two way street. You have to give to get. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is easy for everyone to respect the statistical proof of long-term contributions to the growth of our project here. I join others in respecting examples of good work and cooperation as are shown here. However,

No -- bullying distorts and eclipses consensus-building, which is the central issue in this complaint.

The words above are struck-out because of DJSasso's diff here. The harm to our project is highlighted anew in a context which does not involve me.

• Gotanda briefly draws attention to problematic words here:

  "... this statement, 'Eptalon why do you insist on wasting so much time on this topic, you bring it up over and over.' is where the discussion first turned from a proposal to do something for the wiki to a personal discussion about intentions and questioning motives ...." Gotanda 22:49, 11 January 2013

• DJSasso rejects Gotanda's constructive effort here:

  "... I am sorry if you don't like the comment above but Eptalon has quite literally brought up this topic every couple months for the last couple of years. It is tedious to have to discuss it over and over ad nauseum and smacks of trying to wear out the opposes." -DJSasso 00:31, 12 January 2013

Again and again, consensus-building is the underlying issue when DJSasso points fingers at the good judgment of others for example

A. DJSasso points a finger at Eptalon here over the last couple of years

B. DJSasso pointed a finger at me here almost a year ago.

C. ...?

In his own words, DJSasso's point-of-view is explained here a little over six months ago. --Ansei (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What is best?

What can be done?

As a first step, this problem needs to be recognized.

Wikipedia's administrative tools are often likened to a janitor's mop, but this problem is not something that can be cleaned up in an ordinary way. Isn't this a bit outside what janitors are expected to do? Can you imagine a janitor (a) explaining what he sees as the problem; and (b) explaining why he can't clean it up or fix it?

If we use DJSasso's own words as a baseline here, this is a problem that has recurred more than a dozen times in the past two years. My complaint focuses on what DJSasso has done wrong; but isn't it also implied that the community was wrong to let this go on unchecked with such frequency across a span of so many months.

DJSasso unintentionally explains that Eptalon's long-term strategy is an example of something done right. In this context of blocked consensus-building, my diffs may have provided the missing catalyst at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs. My plan was made explicit here. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Side notes:

1. The links to Simple Talk are incorrect.
2. "At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs, NPOV is not reasonable, not helpful" - :

“	NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.	”
—

It is neither unreasonable or unhelpful - it is mandatory. --Creol(talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Creol -- Please take a look at the article about Ignoratio elenchi. It explains that "ignoratio elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue ...." --Ansei (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of your argument is that NPOV is not helpful and not reasonable. When this blatantly incorrect fact is brought up, you call that inconsequential. Hence, NPOV does not matter to you at all? A core philosophy of everything we do here is inconsequential? This is a violation of everything all sections of the Wikipedia Foundation stands behind. You point fingers and take shots at DJsasso again and again (and again and again.. it never ends) because he does not agree with you and is willing to defend his position on subjects while spouting that something as important as NPOV doesn't matter. I find this whole thing amazing. Extra point: for future notice, I will no long leave the wiki to get a translation for anything you state. If you cannot say it is plain English, I will no longer be considered what you say worth noting. You were banned from the English Wikipedia in part for this and warned time and again for it here, I will not allow you to waste my time by forcing me to read a dozen pages just to understand a minor point you are trying to make. --Creol(talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Creol -- On one hand, I can only repeat the words of Eptalon here as if they were my own: "ignoratio elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue ...." On the other hand, my response to your heated words is to repeat that bullying distorts and eclipses consensus-building, which is the central issue in this complaint. --Ansei (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the issue that was being talked about. Because what I talked about (NPOV) was the issue. It was one of the main reasons why we should not be doing what we was being suggested. It did address the topic, when you are proposing an action be taken you are supposed to look at both sides of the issue, good and bad, to decide if it is an action worth taking. As for his "heated words" you are the one doing the bullying. Since you are a fan of quotes "You point fingers and take shots at DJsasso again and again (and again and again.. it never ends) because he does not agree with you and is willing to defend his position ..." This is almost the textbook definition of bullying. I can't make a comment in a discussion without you taking a pot shot at me, which in effect causes me to stop participating in the discussion because you have derailed it. You've been asked time and again to speak in plain English by a large percentage of this wiki. Please start using your own words and using Simple English. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Ansei, DJSasso, Creol. The situation is currently being reviewed. Findings will be published in due time. Until then, please try to refrain from arguing. Regards, Yottie ^=talk= 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The central issue of this complaint is doing something about distorted and eclipsed consensus-building.

Yes, Yottie -- I think I understand your point, but one word is wrong. The participle "arguing" sets up a chain of reasoning which leads us astray. Your use of this one word sets up the three-way structure of moral equivalence.

Like you, Osiris was also right -- and wrong -- in making a similar assessment: "This discussion has now degenerated into two editors having a go at each other ...." This is not easy to parse, but please think carefully

(a) this is not about a mere squabble, not about one dispute -- not about me; and

(b) the problem of DJSasso's bullying remains a difficult Gordian knot even if all my words are struck out.

Can you see that Osiris made things worse because of the unintended consequences. This plausible re-framing distracts our attention from an underlying, long-term process which, according to DJSasso's own words, has affected consensus-building for years. Please give some thought to the man who says to a battered woman, "You made me hit you."

Perhaps it will help to re-visit what you know already about eclipses. The word comes from the ancient Greek noun ἔκλειψις (ékleipsis) and the verb ἐκλείπω (ekleípō) which means "to cease (stop) to exist (be there)". An eclipse is a process that develops slowly across time. It is also a process that resolves itself slowly. --Ansei (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, the situation is currently under examination. We will let you know the findings in due time. For the mean time, I advise you to be careful with what you say as it may be held against you. I am not suggesting you do not comment on this thread, but when I said arguing, I used it meaning having a go at each other. It is not constructive, and can be held against ether of you found doing it. Regards, Yottie ^=talk= 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be assured that a response to this will be prepared. And might I remind you that your actions border on wikilawyering. We are not formally trained in logic, and neither are we prepared to engage in a long discussion about semantics. Chenzw  Talk  15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am willing step away from this. If I change my name and start over, then I take myself out of this arguing context. A review of my change histories shows that my main interest is in articles, not arguing.

Username	Changes	Articles created	Total changes	Summary
Tenmei	Tenmei changes	557	4,998	79.36% articles
Horeki	Horeki changes	3,334	18,031	76.50% articles
Ansei	Ansei changes	1,062	3,677	81.68% articles
Enkyō?

I see that the username User:Enkyo (SUL) has been inactive since 2009. Maybe it's a good idea to take over this old name?

As I pull back, I hope this helps to sharpen the focus on what remains. --Ansei (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your change of username is irrelevant. As long as the person behind these usernames remains the same, and as long as interaction between this person and Djsasso continues, regardless of intentions, I can only repeat the words of yours here as if they were my own - this "long-standing problem that has been ignored for too long" will remain. I would like to note further that it is in the interests of the administrators of this wiki to ensure long-term project stability. The statements provided by Yottie and me still apply. Chenzw  Talk  16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Osiris -- Can't you see that long-term project stability is harmed when you re-frame my questions about a culture of bullying into "two editors having a go at each other ....". Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Yottie -- Don't you recognize that long-term project stability is harmed when you re-frame my questions about a culture of bullying as if it were only about arguing. Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Chenzw -- Aren't you sensitive to the fact that a culture of bullying is harmful to long-term project stability. Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I gave any indication that I am not, and I also don't think that any administrator here has mentioned anything that indicates their non-commitment to long-term project stability. It is also important to note that there are many things on Wikipedia which compromise project stability, and bullying is only one of those things. I hope you understand where I am coming from when I denied your rename request. To allow it is akin to choosing to "move on" and ignore the greater issue at hand. I can only reiterate that this is being noted, and I should remind you that your continued editing of your case in this thread is slightly inconvenient to the administrators because we have to take note of the new diffs and what you have struck-off. We take it that all material which you strike off is material which you no longer stand by. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Chenzw -- Yes, thank you. I regret causing inconvenience. We are all doing the best we can with a very difficult subject. My fine-focus changes are an effort to move this thread forward in a timely, meaningful, and forward-looking manner. --Ansei (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ansei, I believe I understand your problem and I am not 're-fram[ing] [your] questions' - What I pointed out as arguing, is a clear case of arguing, and is not related to the culture of bullying you mentioned. As stated before, the case is being looked upon, but many factors make this longer: time, number of people helping, looking at diffs, checking you haven't decided to strike out diffs, changing your comments, to only state a few... An answer will be issued, but only when we are happy the evidence has been looked at properly. In the meantime I would suggest you avoid talk pages/AN/ST or any other place where conflict is possible, and continue your good article work (by this, I don't mean you shouln't post there, but simply avoid common threads with DJSasso). Until a solution is found, this is the best way of avoiding further conflict. Yottie ^=talk= 15:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Yottie -- Thank you. Yes, if I understand you correctly, you want me to remember that "it is better not to reach than to go too far." --Ansei (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello all, I have had other people look at the logs, as well as this thread. The idea behind doing so was the following: If any of the claims could be substantiated, we would need to open a case at ArbCom. Arbcom cases take a long time, and the result on a small community such as ours would probably to split the community into two camps, those that support the ruling, and the others that do not. I have done decision theory; the economic/mathematic model of how people take decisions. The person I asked did not find amy obvious case of bullying. To me this means, that if we take this to ArbCom, the likely outcome will be the same, except that reaching the decision takes a long time. To those involved: If you don't get along with one another, try avoiding direct interactions, not biting, and focusing on the subject, not on who talks about it. Note that this is not an interaction ban; hopefully we are all adults, and to me, the situation looks like it does not need an ineraction ban. As for myself, I value all the editors involved; Ansei, you are more or less the only one writing about Japan-themed subjects. DJSasso, at around 50.0000 edits you are a welcome editor; I would also miss your work as an administrator and bureaucrat. If any of you insists, we can go the extra mile and make an Arbcom case; in my opinion, the outcome will be similar to what we have now, so other than consuming time, we probably will not gain much.--Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would note Eptalon, that we can't go the Arbcom route. The English Arbcom has no jurisdiction here and we at Simple have voted against having an Arbcom. Our highest authority is this page or rather any community consensus found here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Eptalon -- the curious proposal that I avoid disagreement with DJSasso is not realistic nor practical -- see here. --Jinki (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Eptalon -- The relationship between power and resistance is complex.

resist = (a) to attempt to counter the actions or effects of; (b) to withstand the actions of; and (c) to oppose.

Stepping back, is it possible that you may not have considered our small problem in more general terms?

I wonder if your perspective might be described in ways that are not uncommon in Japan? For example, the Japanese government creates and promotes "bureaucratic 'solutions'" as you have done. The bureaucratic strategy tries to channel, confine and re-frame any problem into forms which are more easy to control. Sometimes the goal is less to solve a problem than to make it look as if the problem is being addressed.

Is it appropriate to ask if you have a top-down perspective? Is it reasonable to wonder if your point-of-view more or less assumes that organized structures create categories and boundaries for discussing any subject including this one? --Jinki (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, or any other political system, for that matter. Wikipedia is also not meant to be a bureaucracy, and might you be able to tell me what "organized structures" you think eptalon is trying to implement here? Chenzw  Talk  16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth I generally try to avoid him but as you can see by the link Jinki has posted. He tends to attack me in every thread I am involved in instead of attacking what I am saying so it does become somewhat difficult to avoid. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Attack? No. I must disagree that that was anything remotely close to an attack. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to read the definition of a personal attack. When you attack the person and not the statements of the person that is considered an attack. Instead of debating my opinion on the matter he attacks my motives. That is the very definition of a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this Q.E.D.? Is this not another small example of the way a comment about questionable judgment is re-labeled, re-packaged, re-focused and rejected so that "the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voice"? The linked words are cited at :en:Criticism of Wikipedia.

Is this a brief and incomplete part of a pattern which distorts and eclipses our consensus-building? Is it not an issue of questionable judgment -- like Hans Christian Anderson's story about "The Emperor's New Clothes"? --Jinki (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What I would suggest is to create a page on Wikipedia:Bullying similar to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page, and end it with a similar set of escalating warnings, starting with 1. Your change may not seem to many as bullying but it could have a bad result. 2. Your changes have been seen as having a bullying chill. 3. Bullying is really bad and is not acceptable. 4. This is your last warning, and any more of this bullying will result in a time out of up to a month. The English Wikipedia, page, en:WP:WikiBullying can be used for some assistance. It is very timely that this topic is brought up because cyberbullying has been in the news a lot lately. Apteva (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

article in category space

Would an admin please either delete Category:Atomic physics per the QD request, or move it to article space? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion policy

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy regarding moving the speedy deletion part to another page. Comments requested. --Rschen7754 06:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

While at first separating quick dleetion and regulardeletion policies maylook tempting, there is a strong argument of keeping them together: There are many cases which cannot be clearly attributed to one or the other; in such cases, the usual way to handle it is going for "regular" deletion. In my experience, quick deletion applies to a few very clear-cut cases (examples: obvious nonsense, obvious vandalism, obviously promotional material, andobvuisly insulting/degrading material which may need oversighting as well). In all the case where the situation is not obvuius or contested going for regular deletion is usually a safer bet. In my opinion, this speaks against separating the two policies. - A policy is something local editors agree on, they are not unchangable, but adapt to the needs of the local community. Wikidata may be nice for things like interwiki links, but as to policies, this still needs proving. If all needed is that a page exist at the given location, we can alsocreate a redirect toour current page. --Eptalon (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Eptalon, I wish it worked in that way. However, right now, redirects cannot be put into Wikidata (which I do not think is right, and am discussing on Wikidata to change). Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to import template ELL2 from enwiki

Would someone please import en:Template:ELL2 and its doc page? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was already done. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection request for the page Space Needle

The page Space Needle has been twice suffering persistent vandalism from IP Addresses so I am requesting this page for page semi-protection. Diffs show how it is attracting persistent vandalism are:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. It must be from IP Addresses and semi protect it. The protection can expire April 1, 2013. Please respond below this message.--Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 00:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done, the page has only ever been vandalised by the same IP address, and that is not enough vandalism to justify protection anyway, in my opinion. -Mh7kJ (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Another template import request

Could someone import the template en:Template:Donkey Kong series here? I'd like to use it on Donkey Kong-related articles. Since we have a good amount of them here, I think it would be useful. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis...

Hello all,

Pope Francis was elected on the 13th of this month, and is the current pope of the catholic church. Media interest is high at the moment. Consequently, I expect many edits to the article. If possible, I want to leave the article unprotected (i.e. allow all to contribute). This also means that we need to closely monitor the changes made, so that we can revert hoaxes/vandalism quickly, and perofrm revision deletions/oversight in a timely manner. --Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. :) Kennedy ^(talk) 13:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to import en:Template:About continent and region topic templates

Please and thank you? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Left the categories for you to fix if that's okay. Osiris (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem about the categories -- categories should be my middle name! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fairview Alpha, Louisiana

Could someone(s) take a look at the history of Fairview Alpha, Louisiana and other assorted article revolving around it? In particular, edits regarding its status, its importance, etc taking into account the same articles history on the English Wikipedia and similar edits to its wikidata entry.

Data is constantly being added that is hard to justify or prove (but not always hard to disprove). The main user (possible 2 users = one = en: IP vandal) has also blanked my user page, dropped unsigned comment(s) on another's user page (instead of the talk page) and spread the issue across multiple name spaces (Auntof6, likely having a justifiable fit with the cat issues, has nom'd one cat already for deletion).

en:IP/simple:user CU would not be requested as the style of editing, wording, grammar, capitalization, etc is pretty much quacking up a storm here. All evidence does seem to point to a disruptive editor pushing a personal objective and PoV. --Creol(talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor blocked, not going to range block for now. I think we should revert the article to match that over at EN, as the later half of the article seems to be talking more about Natchitoches than Fairview Alpha. Chenzw  Talk  17:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki import needed

en:MediaWiki:Cite_link_label_group-lower-alpha, please. --Creol(talk) 18:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chenzw  Talk  18:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Creation of template sandboxes by anon

There has been one persistent user creating several template sandboxes for no purpose at all. The message on the editor's user talk seems to have been ignored, and from the fact that some of these edits have been made behind VPSes the edits seem to be made in bad faith and rather similar to the behavior of the template copy-paster. The most recent IP (‎67.205.103.205) has just been globally blocked as an open proxy (I intend to block further IPs with this pattern), but we also have those sandboxes lying around. Do we want to do anything with them? Chenzw  Talk  18:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin reply: although these don't really hurt anything, I'd be in favor of deleting them. On a related note, I was thinking of suggesting a general cleanup of sandbox pages -- maybe any that aren't linked to and haven't been touched in, say, a year. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This template copy-paster has been frustrating me for several months. He/she overwrites templates with (quote) "the updated codes from en"; in some cases it's actually helpful but in many instances it breaks things or wipes out improvements that the local community has done to make the templates more suited to our purposes. In other cases, they just copy over a random template and leave it, no apparent intention of using it. The sandboxes they create are for templates that are protected; they create them with the codes from enwiki and then leave them without any indication of purpose. I'm not too bothered by the sandboxes (although they do show up on Special:UnusedTemplates), but the copying and pasting and overwriting is getting tedious. The fact that they hop IPs every visit makes it almost impossible to contact them. Osiris (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is almost certainly User:Google9999. His account is locked and he consistently uses open proxies in order to continue editing. -Mh7kJ (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Import request: Template:Infobox instrument and its subpages

Would someone please import updates to this template from enwiki, including the subpages Classification, Colour, and Doc? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Osiris (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFA

How much time it takes to decide about a user whether he'll get rights or not?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule defining the minimum time, but the it generally goes from 3 months to 1 year. That being said, the time which you have been here is not the main factor for determining adminship, but more of the level of experience here and the quality of contributions. You should continue with your contributions; if someone determines that you are ready, they will typically offer to nominate you. Chenzw  Talk  16:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought Pratyya was asking how long it takes to respond to a request for rights. Pratyya? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

“	The vote runs for one week. If the request is a self-nomination, the one week period is counted from the time the request is submitted. If the candidate is nominated by another editor, the one week period is calculated from when the nominated person accepts the nomination	”
—Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship

After that, give a b'crat a day or so to make the call depending on how clear the discussion is one way or the other. Close call could take a bit longer to decide, clear consensus could take minutes if a crat is at hand --Creol(talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah if you are asking how long the RfA itself is then Creol pretty much sums it up. 7 days is the minimum unless its WP:SNOW oppose. If you mean how long do you have to be around before you are likely to be an admin. Our guideline I believe says you have to be around a minimum of 3 months but I highly recommend the number be more like a year. (many have had less than a year but many have also run into troubles by running too soon and then too often) It is just a rule of thumb I notice. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IP 92.43.66.7

Please block this IP address for vandalizing pages after warnings. This IP also vandalized page Nephron right after its final warning. --74.131.177.233 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited for ten days. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. For future reference, vandalism reports should go to WP:VIP. -Mh7kJ (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the school in questions history and expansive block log (it was blocked for most of 2011 on a 1 year block, has been blocked 16 times and continually returns to only vandalize), a case could easily be made that putting them back on an extended block would be preventative, not punitive. The only punishment they receive is having one less place they can screw around at and play the vandal to entertain their classmates. --Creol(talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

2.96.58.21 (Pakistan vandal)

2.96.58.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently blocked as a continuation of the Pakistan vandal issue. Before he was taken out, multiple articles and a category were created. Most every change he made is an issue. All the districts he created need to be researched and fixed as none that I went over are in the correct state. Each is listed as being in Hyderabad State which ceased to exist back in the mid 20th century. Each has been in a new state for quite some time. There is also the issue of PoV in general - Hyderabad State got put in Category:occupied territories even though it has not even existed for years. Given the flood of issues created by a banned user avoiding that ban, could we get his slate wiped clear with a mass revert/deletion spree on everything he touched rather than let all this false info lay around until someone eventually gets the time to look into fixing them all? The new articles are microstubs anyway and even if fixed serve little use. Others have naming issues making them a pain to get added to wikidata so they can get their IW links. --Creol(talk) 20:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Pmlineditor. Osiris (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Facebook

I was recently informed by Facebook that the "North Port, Florida" Facebook page was not controlled by an individual or local organization, but by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is currently using the City of North Port's official seal as its portrait photo for this web page. This is causing a serious misperception within the community. In addition, the City of North Port has a local ordinance prohibiting the use of the City's seal by any unauthorized individual or organization. It is a misdemeanor crime. The City of North Port is asking Wikipedia to please remove the City's seal as the portrait photo for its "North Port, Florida" community page on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/North-Port-Florida/103961276307065?fref=ts) as soon as possible. Please contact me directly if you have have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Hello, and welcome to our project. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. The Wikimedia Foundation runs a number of different "language versions". This is a smaller one, where there is not enough manpower around to monitor and control image uploads. If the Wikimedia Foundation is really running that facebook page, the places to ask would be the Administrators' noticeboard of the English language Wikipedia. The people there will probably be able to help you more than we can. --Eptalon (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not control the facebook page. Facebook just gets its information from wikipedia which is why they credit Wikipedia as a source. I believe the Wikipedia page uses the seal under fairuse law which would allow the use of the seal for educational purposes. But I am not a lawyer. If you are an official representative of the city please contact the en:Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and they will be able to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to import to my userspace

Would someone please import en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch to my userspace. I'd like to simplify it and publish it here as a guideline. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We have our own version at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Do you still want me to import? Osiris (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Our version doesn't cover everything the enwiki version does. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's coming. Veeery slowly.... Osiris (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- no hurry. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Auntof6/Words to watch. Osiris (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor keeps removing QD tag

The creator of Macedonians keeps removing a QD tag from the article. I've tried communicating on the user's talk page and the article talk page. Please help. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stay calm, this is obviously a new editor who does not understand our procedures, or have a good grasp of the language. I have put a complex tag on the article, and I will leave it for a few days to see how the simplifying process goes. If nothing happens we can either simplify ourselves, or delete. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Calming down. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see no edits since last week, and I agree with Aunt that something needs to be done. The words 'Macedonian' and 'Macedonia' are the subject of nationalistic antagonism. Citizens of northern Greece, Fed Rep of Macedonia and a part of Bulgaria can all claim to be Macedonians. If we leave it as it is, sure enough a Greek warrior will arrive! I would suggest reducing the page to a paragraph which says this neutrally, and cutting the rest. And then protecting it after others are content with the wording. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a dab page (Macedonia) that might serve that purpose. We could redirect the unqualified titles there. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work: cutting the present content, and replacing it with a redirect to the dab page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User javascript pages in Category:Wikipedia scripts

There are quite a few user javascript pages in this category. I don't think they belong there. If your excellencies agree, would someone please remove the category from those pages? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of them seem to be bad copy-paste jobs. I think those that are obviously meant to be user preferences (monobook.js, vector.js etc.) should be removed from the category, but MC10's scripts (which he authored) should probably remain? Chenzw  Talk  06:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with something living in userspace that's intended for general use, but I see your point. Could we at least remove the skin-related ones, then? Just trying to keep things clean! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That is how most userscripts work. They have to live in user space. Same thing with userboxes and wikiprojects. That is standard practice on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Auntof6 was specifically referring to some user preference pages. Some editors, while copying the userscripts from elsewhere, ended up copying the category definition as well. It ended up categorising their personal preferences as userscripts. Chenzw  Talk  12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah if they were skin pages thats different. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Help needed in discussion with administrator

I noticed that DJsasso has been undoing something I've been working on for a bit -- placing unreferenced BLP tags on articles that I didn't think had valid references. I asked him/her (sorry, I don't know which) if we could both stop the work and discuss so that I could understand what he/she felt I had done wrong. He/she is apparently frustrated with past things I've done that he/she disagreed with, and is continuing undoing my changes. I ask for help from the other admins to 1) determine what I've done that's inappropriate and 2) get DJsasso to communicate. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did stop and I am communicating. There are references on those articles, period. Template:BLP unsourced is a long way from Template:More sources. That isn't even bringing into the fact that you are supposed to bring any such large automation jobs to your bot account so they can be approved before you undertake them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

When you say, "Frankly at this point what is the use of trying to discuss?", that does not seem like communicating to me. I understand that you believe there to be references on the articles. My understanding of what constitutes a reference is apparently different, so I asked you to point me to the guideline. What is wrong with that? Also, your statement about automation jobs and my bot is not true according to my understanding. When working on this, I have limited my edits to about 100 at a time, as I was asked. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy is the BLPprod procedure that I mentioned in my comment. All it requires to no longer be considered unreferenced is one source that backs up a fact in the article. Every page I have removed the template on had a source. Give or take the odd one they all backed up something in the article, even if it is something as little as the birth date. As for the mass change. 10,000 changes is what you say you have in your queue. You are well aware that any such major task should be discussed prior to being undertaken so that situations like this don't occur. Mass tagging was the whole reason we asked you to create that bot if I remember correctly. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you for the link. I will not put the unref BLP tag on pages that have things in an other-pageswebsites/external-links section.

By the way, when I said I have 10,000 pages in my queue, most of those would be skipped because they have references (even by what I consider references) so it wouldn't be that many more tagged.

I am not aware that "any such major task should be discussed prior to being undertaken". I am aware that tasks done with a bot must be approved, but I am not doing this with a bot. I have seen bot requests be denied for the reason that some changes should be visible, and I thought that likely to be the case here. I do not remember anyone saying that such tasks should not be done at all without approval. I will wait to see what other admins have to say before I continue.

Also, I believe you are mistaken about why my bot was created. I was not asked to create it, and there are no mass-tagging tasks on the approved list. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll answer this. Ideally, if an item is being used as a general reference to support material in the article, then it should appear in the references section, as is called for in the guideline. The practice on the English Wikipedia, however, is normally to consider items in the "External links" sections to be sources for the purposes of tagging insufficiently referenced BLPs. Since the WMF resolution on BLPs primarily concerned the English Wikipedia, if that practice is good enough for them then it is probably good enough for us. If you think that the sources used in that section are insufficient and/or unreliable, then you should feel free to flag it as needing more sources or better sources.

On the matter of mass tagging: if policy dictates that all unreferenced BLPs should be tagged as such, then applying the tags is perfectly acceptable. However, if you're planning on potentially adding it to hundreds (thousands?) of articles, then you should definitely take the time to make yourself absolutely clear on the relevant guidelines and definitions for using the template. If you're unsure about anything, it's best to ask beforehand to make sure you've got it right. Mass tagging with a bot account would not be a good idea. Mass reverting with a flood flag on is not appropriate either (reverts of good-faith edits are not non-controversial, no matter how "correct" you think you are). Osiris (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Osiris. How about this: I will continue adding the tags, but only where there is nothing in either a references section (or sources, or similar name) or an other-websites section (or external links, or similar name). For the rest of the articles I have queued, for every article I tag, I will clear the tag on an article. That way, we will get most of them tagged and get some tags cleared. Does that sound OK? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's sounds fine. That's what the templates exist for. That being said, please try to slow down a bit, and keep in mind that we are not looking at tagging as the end goal. We are ultimately still interested in improving existing content pages, so do so when/where possible. Chenzw  Talk  13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please, could someone hide this diff taken from here? Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 08:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Mark. Osiris (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Account creator

Dear administrators!

I'm a long term Wikipedian, working with teachers on Simple-en educational program. One of the biggest problem we have is to create multiple accounts using school IP address, because were blocked after 6 accounts. Is there a group here called "accountcreator", and if yes, where should I ask this status? Thanks a lot for your help. Benoit Rochon (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benoit. We do technically have the account creator group, but I've never seen it given out. I don't see why we couldn't, though, if you're only going to use it temporarily and have the experience in using it elsewhere. The only other thing you can do is to give a list of usernames you want to an administrator and get them to create the accounts for you (the passwords are sent to an email/emails that you specify). I realise that's not as convenient. Osiris (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The account creator group exists, but it is not enabled on this wiki in the sense that administrators/bureaucrats are not able to grant this right to anyone. I don't think we will be enabling it any time soon, so you could just email the administrators a list of preferred usernames and email addresses (but not passwords). The password will be generated and sent to the email addresses you specify. Chenzw  Talk  08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

SEPTActaMTA8235 ban appeal

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 editor has asked this request to be withdrawn. Osiris (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello everybody. The user SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a community review of his/her ban. The ban was implemented in May 2011 (link to discussion), after SEPTActaMTA8235 was blocked under our reciprocal block policy. He/she remains blocked on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, SEPTActaMTA8235 can no longer access their original account and so is posting the appeal below from the account Hurricanefan24 (talk · contribs). Before starting up this discussion, I advised SEPTActaMTA8235 to disclose all accounts he/she had used on the Simple English Wikipedia. He/she did exactly that, and I have listed them below:

• Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs) — 1 edit (January 2011)
• Perseus8235 (talk · contribs) — 1 edit (February 2011)
• Highspeedrailguy (talk · contribs) — 1 edit (March 2011)
• Hurricanefan24 (talk · contribs) — 1 edit (December 2012, explanation)
• Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) — 146 edits (November 2011–January 2012)

SEPTActaMTA8235 also disclosed the accounts used on other Wikimedia wikis since the block, which are listed on his/her talk page. The appeal has been cross-posted below: Osiris (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't know much about this user, but he appears to actually want to do good work. The unblock request seems to provide a lot of information. Unless I'm missing something I'd be open to an unblock with a period of monitoring. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've read through the discussion and still maintain this position. Would support an unblock with monitoring/one-strike rule. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note that he was not blocked under the reciprocal ban policy although it was mentioned in the discussion. He was banned solely as part of a community discussion of actions on this wiki. He was most recently blocked for socking a month and a half ago. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I picked a few of the edits Hurricanefan25 did, and based on these edits, I see no reason for blocking him. Yes, he used multiple accounts to circumvent a ban. Looking at content edits (ie. no user talk pages / project pages), please show me edits of the last few months, that would warrant a ban? - If such edits cannot be produced, I see no reason to uphold the ban. (And yes, until we reached a result here, the user can continue to edit with one of the accounts above. As always, this is subject to normal block rules, ie. if he commits a blockable offense, a block is in order, like with any other normal user). --Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well circumventing a ban by sock puppeting would be a blockable edit... -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him because of his abuse/evidence from a while ago. If you did notice, his Perseus account was blocked by fr33kman before I blocked his original account. Eptalon, do you really want a sockpuppeteer rampaging with socks on this wiki? I sure don't. --Bsadowski1 20:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

•  (change conflict)  I don't agree fully with eptalon's reasoning. True, there is at present no reason to block him (disregarding the fact that the ban was evaded), but a community ban prohibits all editing on this Wikipedia. Whether such edits are good or not is irrelevant. The previous ban discussion was closed, establishing an "indef block endorsed by community", and the above is, strictly speaking, ban evasion. I remain ambivalent on this matter, and I think that the community should also realise the conflicted messages that we may be sending to others. Chenzw  Talk  14:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• If, as Sasso says, he's been at it again so recently, I see no reason to let him come back. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was blocked for being a sock a month ago; I had not been blocked before then. Although it was for socking, I have had no socks since 15 August 2012; and the block was for evading a block as SEPTA (May 2011). Hurricanefan24 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) --cross-posted from user talk page. Osiris (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems there's some confusion here...I'll clarify and respond to some two comments.

• I was banned as a result of this community discussion regarding my behavior on simple.wp.
• I was blocked as a sock as a result of my previous abuse (see Bsad's comment on AN), not because I was imminently socking on here.

Hurricanefan24 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)--cross-posted from user talk page. Osiris (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• You edited here in December with a sock account. Yet are claiming you hadn't since August. You aren't building much confidence with your comments. I have to agree with others who have responded here. I just don't see a reason to think you have changed when you are being less than truthful in this request. As Bsadowski1 mentions I don't think I want to see a sockpuppeter roaming around the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I count 2 in support of unblock, 1 neutral and 3 opposed to it. Your response here is slightly misleading; I have to agree with others who have responded here. - Who exactly are you agreeing with? Your post makes out as if everyone is opposed to an unblock, which is not correct. In fact right now there is no consensus either way really. Therefore see my proposal below... Kennedy ^(talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• No..my response quite clearly is that I am agreeing with those who said the same as I did in the rest of my comment. That is generally what people mean when they say I agree with others who have responded...in other words I didn't say everyone who responded. I specifically said others. That being said in blocks no consensus would result in leaving the block in place. ie there is no consensus to unblock. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal by Kennedy

As above, currently at the time of posting this, there are 2 in support of unblock, 1 neutral and 3 opposed. At this point the discussion will tail off and will close as no consensus. Therefore, I'd like to try a proposal;

1. Hurricanefan24 (or whichever account is preferred) is unblocked and allowed to edit.
2. The user will be subject to 6 months 'probation'.
3. A checkuser will be performed to ensure no unauthorised socks;
   1. Immediately before the unblock...
   2. ...and on a regular basis for the period of probation.
4. A one-strike rule will be implemented.
5. No other accounts will be used.
6. The user will edit constructively, slowly, learn the rules and ask questions where unsure.

Can everyone consider this proposal. I see it as allowing an editor to edit constructively, but with administrators retaining the power to block if there is any 'funny business'.

I'll offer on his talkpage to confirm if the user agrees. Kennedy ^(talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of the Checkuser tool with the reasoning "nothing is suspected to be an issue. Just being careful" (ie. a routine check of a user with no valid suspicion of wrong doing other than past history) could be seen as a violation of policy. There has to be a valid reason for the check and I can not see this as being valid. It could also fall under "pressuring a user" as the tool is being actively used to force an editor to act in a certain way instead of being used to deal with an existing issue. Making such a check could result in the removal of rights. Forcing a CU to operate in this grey area should be avoided at all costs. --Creol(talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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