Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 44

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

Request

Hello. Could you please remove my patroller and rollbacker permissions from my account? Thank you. -- MA 09:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username

Can someone please take care of this request as it is on the Changing username page for over 5 days. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post this kind of reminder for requests that are not yours. The admins, checkusers, and bureaucrats here are all volunteers and can't always get to things right away. If the person who made the request wants to hurry the process along, he or she can post their own reminder. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes requests such as those are left for a period of time on purpose. You have been asked before to step away from worrying about administrative things and to focus on writing articles. These sorts of things are part of what got you in trouble last time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will stop posting reminders etc. about administrative stuff or worry about it anymore. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is telling an editor that they aren't fit to edit here grounds for any kind of sanction? It was an IP editor, so a block or ban might not have much effect, but I thought I'd ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page and recommended that he go to Wikisource. If the editor refuses to relent and continues their behaviour, block per WP:3RR or WP:NPA, whichever comes first. Chenzw Talk 03:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if I should take any action, since I was the target. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 210.93.99.240 and Number line

IP 210.93.99.240 continues to express concern over the pictured number line in the number line article even after I undid the IP's edit and insisted for the IP to discuss the issue on the talk page. I do not want to get involved in an edit war and fall victim to even a two revert rule, so can an administrator take care of this and protect the page? No compromise will be completed if I simply revert again, and it seems he's not listening to the message I left on his/her talk page. Thanks! — RyanCross (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is most likely stale now. — RyanCross (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I just reverted the IP. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your revert after I posted this here. I wanted to avoid engaging in an edit war. However, the IP seems quiet now, but we should remain watchful. — RyanCross (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Rivers RfD

I would like to ask that this RfD be reopened under the grounds that I was not around for the RfD and therefore was unable to argue my points as to why these articles should not have been deleted. Anyways, until I hear back from the administrators on this site, I feel uncomfortable reopening an RfD that has been closed for so long. Please let me know if you would be willing to take another look at these articles. Thanks, Razor flame 22:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikipedia:Deletion review be the appropriate place for this? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I didn't know that page existed. I'll go post it there. Razor flame 02:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 World Trade Center

Please unprotect this page. I want to move: 200 Greenwich Street on this location. Rzuwig (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Osiris (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Vandal?

I have extremely limited experience of the Disney Vandal but I came across this user. Huge amounts of irrelevant or unconstructive edits, creating categories etc. Also not responding to messages on talk page. Someone in the know have a look please? Kennedy ^(talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks likely, as they have now started adding future dates to articles.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories deleted, articles removed from categories (via bot rollback), and IP blocked for 2 weeks. The IP is dynamic and and changes across at least 3 /16 blocks, so not range-blocking for now. Chenzw Talk 08:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to revert a set of changes made by a user, but not all their changes?

User:24.218.110.195 removed categories from quite a few template categories. It looks like s/he was trying to remove topic categories and leave the template categories only in the template category tree. I disagree with this, and would like to undo those changes. Is there a way to mass-revert a user's changes based on, say, time criteria, without reverting all the user's changes? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. There is the mass-rollback script, but it reverts all of the user's changes. I mentioned those changes to the IP on his talk page. You could try seeing if he'll self-revert I guess... Osiris (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think I'll just take care of it myself. Thanks for the reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to raise money for Wikipedia

I see wikipedia is asking for donations. As a high school student, it would be difficult for me to make a donation of consequence. I was wondering, however, about advertising on Wikipedia. Obviously, the idea of advertising antagonizes the wikicommunity. However, if advertising, like donations was made optional, it would be less of an issue. Furthermore it would enable people like me to help support the wikicommunity. One could click on a button on the top left to activate, or deactivate advertising. One can even put in a loyalty point system for time spent on Wiki with advertisments on, and loyal wiki users can be promoted in some way.

Please consider the idea of optional advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanraina (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a question for Wikimedia, not an individual Wikipedia. Have you brought this up there? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brya

User:Brya has arrived with a history from English wiki. He has been aggressively commenting and deleting Type specimen, and needs watching. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deflag of all interwiki bots

Hi all, now that wikidata has been deployed to all wikis, I propose the mass deflagging of all bots whose sole purpose is to maintain interwiki links. The deflagging is to ensure we will be able to watch for accidental reactivation of the interwiki bots, as one has done so recently and had to be locked to mitigate the damage. Anyway, the mandate (so to speak) for most interwiki tasks is over, and leaving the bot flag as it is poses a risk in the event that a bot account is ever compromised. Chenzw Talk 13:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...that's not good. If this has the possibility to keep happening then yeah, deflag all of 'em. T C N7JM 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, if this doesn't apply to bots maintaining them via Wikidata. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do this anyways once all the interwikis had been removed from all pages. Had been waiting until then or until a one year inactivity point hit (which is when we usually deflag). If you want to do it quicker I have no problem with it but I don't see much harm in waiting either. Since the interwiki script that most bots use has been updated to work with wikidata. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am asking for a fast-track of this process, due in part to the above malfunctioning bot. I understand that malfunctioning bots come by rarely, but I don't fancy having to revert a whole bunch of invalid bot edits again, especially when there is no rationale for those changes anymore. Chenzw Talk 14:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was malfunctioning? It is still valid for some interwiki links to be added to pages until they finish with wikidata implementation is what I was getting at. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty sure about it. #wikimedia-stewards was alerted, bot account was locked, and wikidata phase 1 (the part dealing with interwikis) has already been deployed to all Wikipedias. Chenzw Talk 14:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is cool. I realize that Phase 1 is deployed. But as part of fixing incorrect wikis I believe some bots are putting the interwikis on the wiki still for other bots to then come and migrate them to wikidata. Atleast that had been happening, not sure if its still happening. But yes in looking into it his bot does appear to be incorrect. I have no problem removing it for any bot that is only flagged for interwiki. Some also do double redirect cleanup etc so leave those be until they "time out". -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. There are still langlinks that need to be stored locally (redirects, section links, etc). According to [1] there are over 7k links still on simplewiki, which probably can't be added to wikidata for various reasons. Hastily mass-deflagging bots without understanding the full situation is just a bad idea. Legoktm (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we want the redirect and section langlinks maintained (and I'm not sure we do), are the bots able to tell which kinds of langlinks they should continue managing and which they shouldn't? I believe there are still a lot of them that do need to be moved to Wikidata -- I still find a lot of them when I do work with AWB. In any case, deflagging bots shouldn't break anything -- it would just stop some automated work from being done. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how your bots work, some might work, some might not. That's an entirely different issue. Bot ops should fix their bots if they are broken. If your bots stop working and you don't maintain your interwiki links, it doesn't become an issue for just this project, you corrupt the entire network of interwiki links. Legoktm (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link problem

When I go to a page and click "Add links" in the "Other languages" space it says "An unknown error occurred.". This is going on for weeks. Is there any general problem or is this only happening for me? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~It still does the same. Can someone please reply? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I know realized that it was because I didn't rename my account there from Receptie to Reception. Sorry for disturbing you. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disturbing us...I am glad you solved the problem, and your solution might help someone else in the future.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two different bot edits

I just realized that two bots clean the sandbox (Rileybot and HJ-bot). I now realize that each one does it in a different way. One writs "editing skills" and one writes "changing skills" (link). Can you please fix this? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard did ask Riley to use the specified text rather than his own version over a month ago. He hasn't replied. This is why retired users shouldn't operate bots... Osiris (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Then what can be done about this? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really we shouldn't have approved a second bot to do the same task without first ensuring they used the same text. That being said since he has not responded to Hazards request I have temporarily blocked the bot requesting he make that change. If he does not respond in a week I will simply remove his flag as a bot operator must respond to issues with their bots. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, they did use the same text until I saw this and made this edit. Re-checking mis bot request, though, there was no mention of that. Hazard-SJ ✈ 08:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goblinbot4

I have noticed that from 7 August Goblinbot4 has not been editing anymore. Is there a problem? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. That's why the bot is inactive. I meant to update the code, but haven't found the time to do so. Chenzw Talk 15:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was just curious. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming by Fatjesus564/Cornucopia

A user that has been adding promotional content to the English Wikipedia for at least a month now has apparently come to our project as well. They're known as Morning277 or MooshiePorkFace over there, but here it looks to me like they're using different accounts:

Fatjesus564 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Cornucopia (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Pretty much all of the articles they dumped on us within the space of a few hours have been previously attributed to socks of either Morning277 or MooshiePorkFace on enwiki. They are probably getting paid for their edits, which is fine for them, but all of the articles they've created are very promotional in nature, and it's not clear whether any of the subjects are notable. None of the articles are even close to being in Simple English. I'm proposing that we nuke them. Osiris (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of pages created

4cabling (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

AEgis Technologies (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Brendan Wallace (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

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

Caren Turner (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Chris Krause (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

David Gorodyansky (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Enigma NMS (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Gerald Imber (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

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

Kaleem Shah (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

Message Systems (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Neal Creighton, Sr. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

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

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

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

Telly (network) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The RLJ Companies (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Tom Dyson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Wayne Tamarelli (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

WillowTree Apps (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

Kill with fire - I have already deleted most obvious advertisments that were created by Fatjesus564. Chenzw Talk 18:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) Off the top of my head, these 15 (out of 26) are previously-suspected or confirmed Morning277 topics discovered on the regular English Wikipedia:

4cabling (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

AEgis Technologies (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Brendan Wallace (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

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

David Gorodyansky (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Enigma NMS (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Gerald Imber (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

Neal Creighton, Sr. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

Telly (network) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The RLJ Companies (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Tom Dyson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

WillowTree Apps (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

They were (or should have been) already listed in the enwiki Morning277 long-term abuse page.

This company has a habit of restoring deleted articles, but under a different title, e.g. Foo might reappear as Foo (company). If the preferred title is create-protected, at least it will draw scrutiny when someone tries to move the article to the proper place. Rybec (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: David Gorodyansky is a near-verbatim copy of what was posted on enwiki. Tom Dyson starts off the same way. Let me know if you want me to check more articles, but that's enough for me to block on enwiki. --Rs chen 7754 07:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Great! Thanks for the help, everyone. Hopefully we'll be able to stop this quickly; we definitely don't want the kind of activity we're seeing on enwiki. Osiris (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past accounts that have edits here: User:Chiliconwiki, User:Anissa putri, User:816phloh, User:NaturalScholar. May need review. I also have a report at m:User:Rschen7754/Reports/Morning277. --Rs chen 7754 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks, Rschen! I've blocked them (except for the one that's locked) and I'll get a CU to try to see if we can't find any more lying around. Osiris (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were these articles Fatjesus564/Cornucopia contributions? I'd like to add them to the long-term abuse page on enwiki if they were.

Real life music group

Zhi wen

-- Rybec (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kersh, Deepak Ravindran and Incrowdnow were by Fatjesus564. The rest are not related. Osiris (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelland/Crouch, Swale

Shelland (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Based on CU evidence from Bsadowski1, the above account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Crouch, Swale (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (also see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale/Archive). I have half a mind to delete all the articles created by him, but am unsure because I am not that familiar with the geography of the UK and his previous disruptive behaviour. Can someone also please take a look at the articles? Chenzw Talk 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The placenames I checked were all genuine. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janevzoo

There is a considerable zoo of sockpuppets active through a huge number of WMF projects including simple that pushes photos of its dog, articles about its race (see d:Q38991), and family members Ratko Janev (d:Q477729, appears to be notable) and Igor Janev (d:Q1449737, appears not be notable but blown up with faked references). See the checkuser cases at Commons and at en-wp. There is a cross-wiki discussion about this case at Meta. Many of the articles about Igor Janev have already been deleted including Igor Janev at the local project, see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Igor Janev. But you possibly want to block the sockpuppets and check the articles Tosa Inu and Ratko Janev. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Osiris (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user with offensive name

I just blocked a user with an offensive name. What else, if anything, needs to be done in a case like this? Do we delete the account or anything? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. We used to rename them, but that is no longer done. I guess you can choose to delete the username from the block log. Chenzw Talk 04:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll choose not to, because it's the idea in the user name that's offensive, not the actual words. If it were profanity, I might do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

needs advice?

User:Christopher Universe seems to need advice. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (later) It turns out his work was all vandalism. I have replaced it with sound material. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User noted

User:2.30.139.170 is a user whom I have given a really final warning. All he does is replace sound data on taxoboxes with false but rather similar data. This can be quite difficult to pick up, and it took a survey of his past changes to identify the pattern. If he continues, I recommend a significant ban as an all-vandalism account. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I see Os has already blocked him. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregonian2012

See here. This is frankly out of line and downright rude, and surely worthy of a temporary block per our 'Unkind/Being rude' policy. That said, this is just the latest in a long line of fairly recent hostile and inappropriate posts. I've not got time to scour through to find them all now, but this user has becoming pretty disruptive recently (imo), and I wouldn't say that a short-term ban would be too far at this moment in time. Although the user has retired this cannot be an excuse to avoid sanctions. Gob lin 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

More diffs: [2], [3]. The user now seems intent on trolling everyone that doesn't agree with them. Gob lin 00:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]

I'm not coming back. I'm 63 years old, the survivor of two heart attacks, a disabled and decorated Vietnam vet, and a former government worker. I'm mentally ill and suicidal. My doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, case workers, family, and friends have urged me to do something like Simple English. It's something I can do in my wheelchair and has kept me occupied for hours. Much as I enjoyed the site, I don't have the patience for the high schoolers. I give up. You win. I won't be back. Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours, only because he continued to edit after announcing retirement. A short break is hopefully what is needed here. I really hope that he does come back, Oregonian2012 makes excellent contributions otherwise. Osiris (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - despite starting this thread it is purely for conduct issues, and I genuinely hope that Oregonian does decided to return after taking a break. Contributions are definitely a net positive, even if there have been some attitude issues lately. Gob lin 01:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

He seems to go back and forth between being making good contributions and being cantankerous. The rudeness did get a little worse this time, though, and I'm not just saying that because some of it was directed at me. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in my two cents here. I think he has great article changes, but his conduct is inappropriate and has problems with WP:OWN. Just leave him in his own solace and we'll see what O decides to do. -- WorldTraveller101 T C G E 21:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing

I'm a complete beginner here.
I wish to add a short line to a subject.
My first attempt has been deleted.

In the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" there is this: "Your role is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell."
I can quite see that what I wish to contribute could be seen as promotion or selling.
How can I discuss this with an editor or administrator to ensure that my contribution is not deleted?
Thanks.

Gwatuk (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell us what you are trying/tried to add? I tried looking at your contribution history, but I can't find anything that was deleted... Chenzw Talk 14:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Would someone please move Period (punctuation) to Full stop over a redirect? The latter is far more common, and used by En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the opening line of en:Full stop, they are both regional variations. I don't know that it matters what is more common in those instances. You could lodge a move request or open a thread on Simple talk. Osiris (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stale userspace drafts category (old class project work in userspace)

Do we have a procedure for cleaning up old class project work in userspace? User:Keroobean hasn't edited in almost three years, and there are ten of his/her user pages in Category:Stale userspace drafts. Can/should we delete these? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rfd would be our way of doing it. Basically deleting everything here goes through Rfd. To do it on en for example we would use Mfd aka Miscellany For Deletion but since we don't have that here we would use Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fair number of our users would like to see those kind of systematic deletions separated from those that would require deeper analysis (regarding subject notability, complexity, et cetera). We're still getting suggestions from users about skipping discussion of instances that are mostly uncontroversial but need to be seen in case anyone wants to object. Editors seem to feel obliged to make sure there is a vote on every nomination, regardless of how uncontroversial it may be, and that's probably due to everything being processed altogether. Splitting off the procedures for miscellaneous things like unused templates, redirects and stale drafts might resolve that. It might be a good idea to see whether many people think it would be an improvement to do that. Osiris (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that isn't an decent idea. But just so people know why we hadn't done that in the past. It is that we end up having more pages to watch and then more things slip by unseen which sort of defeats the purpose of putting it in one place so that it all gets seen. We have so few editors here and so few pages that are up for deletion at any given time I really see no need to separate them out. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of options we could explore, which don't necessarily have to involve more pages. I'm thinking just a general survey might be a good idea for now, asking whether editors want to see systematic/housekeeping nominations separated (in whatever way) from content-related discussions. Osiris (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User talk:24.218.110.195

Can an admin please semi-protect the above page? There has been multiple IP-addresses that have been disruptive over there. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is here. 24.218.110.195 is free to edit his own comments on his own user talk, and 107.3.117.228 claims to be 24.218.110.195, but is adding a notice to inform editors so that others can reach him at his own talk page. How is this "multiple" IP addresses being "disruptive"? Chenzw Talk 12:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chenzw. I also saw what happened after reverting that edit. No need for a protection, imo. --Glaisher [talk] 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- just noticed that you, Chenzw, have closed the comments per Glaisher above. So there's no need to protect or block. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox 2

As noted here and here, TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only here to edit this sandbox page. The content is a bunch of article drafts, but they're not for Simple English Wikipedia. The user is banned from this topic on the English Wikipedia (by Arbitration Enforcement) and the page is just a holding area for their work until their restrictions on the English Wikipedia are lifted. I've asked the user to get rid of the page and take it somewhere else, but it appears they're not going to do that. Can someone please delete the page as a violation of our user page guidelines? Osiris (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if I used the content to contribute to simple Wikipedia? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to translate it into Simple English beforehand, but if the sandbox was used for simplewiki then yes, that would be acceptable. Osiris (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that then. I don't have time now, but tomorrow I will make or expand articles here with the info I have and continue to do so. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made three and will continue to make more. Please let me edit in peace now. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit in peace as long as you work to eliminate what you have on the sandbox page. I see you have created articles, but that doesn't mean you can keep the work in progress on the sandbox page indefinitely. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been working on this page for two months. How much time would you need to get it into shape for Simple English Wikipedia? Before you answer, make sure you know what's expected in articles here. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no part of our remit to host unusable material. The material itself is not even in the ballpark: it is in a quite unusable state. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He has had 7 blocks for such violations, 5 this year, 2 for socking to circumvent his ban, and then 2 previous blocks before his restrictions were set. Just to save some digging time, so it probably should be deleted and IMHO, he's quite close to a full site ban on en. Just sayin'. WorldTraveller101 (talk • changes) 23:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to have led anywhere, so I'm going to nominate the page for deletion. Osiris (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please lift my ban

At one point, I was banned from editing any articles by MySweetMelissa. I attacked her on my talk page. At that time, my medication was being radically altered and I was in a very cranky mood. Anyway, I edited one of her pages recently without thinking. She was linking things to enwiki. In two instances the links led to "pages to be created" at enwiki. She created these pages by linking. Another link led incorrectly to a figure (Mary Magdalene) with a similar name. In another instance, Pietro Novelli was linked to Carmelite rather than Pietro Novelli. As I recall now, she was placed under a mentorship. I think her mentoring should intensify but we are so busy and so short-handed here it's probably not possibel. As I recall, she wants only the most experienced editors to touch her work. Please lift my ban. I could scrutinize her work and take anything I think amiss to a more experienced editor. Thank you for your consideration. Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the specific information about why Oregonian edited the article and the user's talk page, and his opinion about how MySweetMelissa should work here, are irrelevant. The ban did not say that edits were OK if there were issues with MySweetMelissa's editing, it said no interactions with her at all. I can understand that medication issues could cause the behavior that led to the ban, but rudeness and abuse are unacceptable here even if caused by factors beyond one's control. His recent edits were in violation of the ban, but they were civil, and may have been partly my fault because I forgot about the ban and suggested that he edit the article that MySweetMelissa created. I think Oregonian has been civil and made constructive edits since returning from his brief "retirement". I have not forgotten that Oregonian was abusive to me personally, but I think we could consider lifting this ban. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we ask "would there be any benefit in lifting the ban?", then I think the answer is no. The ban does not stop him editing normally, and does stop a potentially bad situation from developing. He should forget about her, and get on with normal activity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to edit normally. Who has created an article or who has contributed to the article is irrelevant to me. What, why, or how I edit has nothing to do with personalities. It has to do with the project. Oregonian2012 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we lift the ban, then I would suggest that you do not "scrutinize her work" at all. It was your following her actions that led to the conflict between the two of you, so we know where that is going to lead. I don't have a problem with lifting the ban if it's just to get things back to normal and let you edit constructively without any restrictions. But you don't need specifically to scrutinise anything MySweetMelissa does, or comment on her editing capabilities (e.g., "I think her mentoring should intensify") or make facetious comments about her cooperativeness. I rarely see you edit articles listed on NewPages or revert other editors' work, but you did on both of the articles that MySweetMelissa has created since she's been back this month. I think a probationary lifting might be a good idea, to see whether you will indeed "edit normally" or whether you'll go back to obsessing over this one user's edits. Osiris (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban lift but just remember a few things Oregonian.

1. You must remember to follow WP:HOUND and not hound her, as otherwise you will be blocked or have the ban reimposed.

2. You are not a vested contributor with a one-way pass. Unless you're her mentor, then you should not comment on her ay all.

You are a great content contributor Oregonian, so PLEASE don't let me down. Best. WorldTraveller101 (talk • changes) 23:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would someone please explain this to me? If this editor has been under a ban forbidding him to interact with me or articles I have worked on since June 13, and he has broken that ban - which he has done six times since then, why is he being considered for the lifting of that ban?

I'm just asking because it seems counterintuitive to consider lifting the ban when it has not been adhered to in the first place. I have nothing personally against this editor and I wish him well, but I do not see anything that would lead anyone to believe that he will voluntarily adhere to something he did not obey while he was under sanction. Thank you. MySweetMelissa (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide diffs of Oregonian violating it, as this might switch me to oppose. WorldTraveller101 (talk • changes) 10:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. MySweetMelissa (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing them here? That could influence others as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying Auntof6, but I have no wish to embarass this editor further. He has stated that he has medical issues and that is why I have not reported them until now. I think my statement says it all and this Users Contribs since the June 13 ban speak for themselves. The violations are clearly there. I will be happy to mail them to anyone who asks. Incidentally, they are not only the ones that you stated that you inadvertently encouraged him to do. MySweetMelissa (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. I didn't know there were other occurrences. If you have the list handy, would you send it to me as well? You have my apologies for the ones I encouraged. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your help and patience guiding me with regard to categories.MySweetMelissa (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.218.110.195/107.3.117.228

107.3.117.228 has violated their topic-ban again here and here. This is the fourth breach, even after having had it explained to them multiple times. Previous blocks for breaches are here but since it was my edit they reverted in this case I need another administrator to examine the situation. The main problem is that the changes are breaking the template by removing possible input values and changing the spellings of others. Osiris (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what you had done at Template:Cainozoic graphical timeline and most of the graphical timelines at Category:Timeline templates (Geology) by reverting my old changes, you ruined that template. I changed the templates back in June to allow simple english spelling. I had added the addtional input values back in Template:Next Period today. When you revert my changes you remove simple english spelling and messes up the graphical timelines. The graphical timelines use simple english spelling both links and tranclusions. I have gotten mad at you for messing up the graphical timelines. 107.3.117.228 (talk) 24:10 30 September 2013 (UTC) 8:10pm 09/30/2013 EDT.

You ruined our other existing templates when you made your changes to {{next period}} and {{period start}}. We are not going to allow you to make undiscussed changes to templates if you end up breaking other transclusions all over the wiki. Whether it breaks your own template which you created for no apparent reason is irrelevant. Blocked for 72 hours. Chenzw Talk 02:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Class 4CD

Class 4CD (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

There's this class which seems to be working on a project about Egypt and its history. However, the articles created/edits made are grossly unencyclopedic, have issues with coherency, and for some, even appear to have been copied from other websites (please see deleted contribs). The school IP (85.12.93.2) has been blocked in the past with an explanatory note. The creation of this user account is a step in the right direction, but the edits are still problematic. Anyone willing to help out? Chenzw Talk 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll look at their edits. I just deleted one of the articles and left an explanation on the talk page. Is there a particular reason you haven't left messages about more of the things you reverted? With enough warnings, we could do a short-term block, no? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes, but I am reluctant to block the account because there is evidence that they are also working to correct the problem - when I blocked the IP and linked them to Wikipedia:Schools, this user account was created (presumably after they read the instructions there). I don't know exactly how I should communicate this issue of poorly written articles to their teacher. Chenzw Talk 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted some more additions that were copyvios. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full or semi protection of my user page

Hello. Can someone please fully protect my user page indefinitely with the addition of the fully protection template per my request (one reason)? The other reason(s) why I want this protected is because in the future, I don't want to change the design of my user page because it already looks good enough and it wastes my time of my pages too. As you may have noticed, I requested deletion of my user page before I recreated it because I don't want my edit history looking all messy. Thanks. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an unusual request.. but I have done it anyway. Please use {{editprotected}} if you need to make any changes in the future. Chenzw Talk 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection

Please make Winti create protected. It can be only auto-confirmed users or sysops. But protect that from IPs. It got deleted 7 times this year for bad reason.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzw created a stub there, so no creation protection is needed there now. We'll see if edit protection is needed after the blocks on the accoutns who were making the article expire. Only (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TDKR Chicago 101

User:TDKR Chicago 101 is flying the gay rainbow flag from his masthead. Further on, he tells us he is a teenager. I've written him telling him to not declare his sexuality or his age to all and sundry. It looks like he's soliciting a certain kind of company. The admins need to take care of this. Good luck. Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"take care of this" how? What policy has he violated? And what "certain kind of company" is he "soliciting" by posting this? Members are allowed to have userboxes/other symbols on their userpages if they so choose, and those that relate to sexuality are not banned. I see nothing wrong here at all. Only (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm just an LGBT supporter. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its just Oregonian who's being mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.149 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looking at the comments here, it is quite clear that a longer block is endorsed by the community. Therefor, Oregonian2012 is now community banned for an indefinite time. A review of that ban may happen in future after a reasonable time. The block cannot be lifted as decision by a sole admin, to remove that community endorsed ban a new community consensus is needed.

Any new or at least not-regular user would've been immediately blocked indefinitely when they would have made comments as Oregonian2012 made. As an oversighter here I could review the comments. The comments belong to the worst I've every seen on any wiki despite some attack names across other wikis.

The comments made pretty much outright Oregonian2012's good article work and along with all the comments below, a ban here is needed to protect the community from more such comments. -Barras talk 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregonian2012

Oregonian2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know that in the last few months, discussion was had, and blocks were given to Oregonian2012 (talk · contribs) because of his being rude and/or unkind. See the most recent discussion on AN here. I think that his recent editing behavior has led to the need to discuss such a block or other action again. His creation of this thread here on AN is harassing in my opinion. I think this post on my talk page is even more rude and harassing. Because of my recent interactions with him, I do not believe I should implement a block, but I think one needs to be discussed and/or put in place. Only (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this reposting/expansion of his post to my talk page is even worse by insulting the user and using scare tactics. Only (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PERSONAL ATTACK COMMENTS REMOVED by Only (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

(change conflict) This is a real shame. But I support blocking him yet again for a period of several hours until he can make useful actions again. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 23:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that this time would require more than "a few hours" considering the previous blocks of 24 and 48 hours did not seem to change things majorly. Only (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Future blocks of this contributor will get "longer and longer". --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Oregonian and TDKR have had brush-ups in the past but pretty much straight-up telling somebody to leave the site because they're a teenager and support gays is probably the worst thing I've ever seen here. Oregonian's re-posting of the comments regarding TDKR here are even less called-for and would make me support a one-week block. T C N7JM 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregonian has made some valuable contributions to this site, but this kind of behavior is harmful to other editors. There is no justification for this kind of harassment. A significant block seems in order. Gotanda (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him for one week in light of his most recent comments. I welcome outside review of it as I know I might be seen as an involved administrator. However, since no other admins seem to be around at the moment, I decided to block to prevent further harassment and attacks on members of this project. i also welcome review of the length; if admins believe that this is too harsh or too light, please discuss adjustments here. Only (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Oregonian continues this behavior on his talk page, I would suggest removing his ability to edit the page and perhaps a longer block. It is yet ridiculous. It's easy for this contributor to create articles and help improve the editing environment. It's not easy to yell out at other users and attacking them with a big message. If this happens again, I would also suggest blocking him again for two weeks, then three/four weeks, and so on. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 00:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing talk page editing is usually a step if the talk page is being used inappropriately, in this case, continuing the behaviour. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Oregonian's continuing rudeness and other inappropriate posts on his talk page, I have changed the block parameters to prevent him from editing his talk page. I realize I could be seen as involved here, so other admins are welcome to review. I fear Oregonian will now resort to emailing. I encourage anyone receiving inappropriate emails from him to report them here so we can consider preventing him from emailing if needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: I also support this block (even doe he was blocked) because his rude behavior to many editors on this wiki is very harmful. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)~~ You can see my other comment below. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indefinite block at this point. The comments on his talk page are completely beyond the pale. --Rs chen 7754 06:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the comments made on his talk page were so bad that they were oversighted. I saw them before they were suppressed, and that should be grounds for an indefinite block. --Rs chen 7754 06:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have used oversight on the user's talk page, and would support a longer block. I am still on a wikibreak, but this case was urgent.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case cam to my attention because two users sent us an mail to the oversight mailinglist. After reading the comments there, I'd support a much longer block. It's just not acceptable what happened there. -Barras talk 08:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For two editors to have emailed the oversight list about this highlights how serious the matter is. I would support an indef block at this stage to protect the rest of the editors and the encyclopedia. Might we also want to start a ban discussion now? Chenzw Talk 09:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see the comments that were oversighted, so I defer to the judgment of the admins who did see the comments. If three of you are saying they were that bad, then, yes, I think an indefinite block and potential ban is necessary here. Only (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As another who saw the oversighted comments before they were suppressed, I would support an indefinite block instead of a one-week block at this point. The comments were way out of line. T C N7JM 12:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the worst comments I have ever seen on the wiki. Fly waaaay past what Racepacket said. I'd move to ban/indef block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suport indef block As TDKR send a message to everyone about this I saw the comments before they were oversighted. The comments were way to rude for a Wiki like this. Oregonian has been very rude and I don't think this is acceptable anymore. After his block expires at some point he always starts his rudeness again. I'd support a indefinite block or at least a one year block because his behavior is unacceptable for this Wikipedia and therefore something must be done. Every time an editor does something which his doesn't like he stars being rude etc. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Oregonian's disruptive comments were way out of the policies, I would support for an indefinite ban instead of a one-week block at this time. This is getting even more ridiculous. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This thread is all over the place. People are talking about longer blocks, indefinite blocks, and banning, even though there has been no formal proposal for any of those. If someone wants to make such a proposal, we need a separate section just for that, where arguments backed up with specific policies. If no one wants to make such a proposal, I'd like to see people stop piling onto this discussion.

Note that I am neither supporting nor opposing any of those options. I'm saying that throwing around comments like "I'd support X" doesn't get us anywhere if "X" hasn't actually been proposed. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues, then what? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like needless bureaucracy, to be a bit frank. --Rs chen 7754 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Rschen. The majority of the site's active contributors are saying either an indefinite block or a ban needs to be put into place. T C N7JM 22:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd ask how you know it's the majority. Second, it's partly the "block OR ban" option I have an issue with: those aren't the only options. In any case, this section started as a discussion of a possible block, then the admin who started it let us know that he/she had gone ahead with a block, then different people started discussing possible other options. Not everyone follows discussions on this page, and some who do might not have followed it after seeing it was an admin giving notice of an action. I just don't think the discussion is organized enough to tell which option, if either, is preferred by the community. That is why I think we need a dedicated section for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further action

The recent actions of Oregonian2012 have been subject to a lot of controversy. He doesn't seem to have learned from past blocks given to him after harsh behaviour toward other editors at Template talk:Did you know, as his recent actions there include blatantly violating WP:PROVE after his nomination of fisting for deletion was closed as no consensus. Afterward, he lashed out against users Only and TDKR Chicago 101, violating WP:NPA multiple times and baselessly accusing the former of things so bad, two people mailed the OS list and the comments were suppressed. This is obviously not something that should be taken lightly, and his use of scare tactics both in his comments at AN and at his unblock request at his talk page only worsens the situation. Therefore, I am proposing that Oregonian2012 is indefinitely banned from the Simple English Wikipedia. If anybody else has any suggestions, feel free to add them below. T C N7JM 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer – Quite bluntly, those comments earlier by Oregonian2012 are some of the worst I've ever seen in my time as a Wikimedian. Nobody should have to be subject to that kind of harassment, and his inability to learn from his previous blocks along with the severity of his actions sways me toward this in favor of a shorter block. T C N7JM 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 23:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. You're proposing an "indefinite ban". Bans are permanent. "Indefinite" means for an unspecified period of time, and implies that it could be lifted, which would be a block, not a ban. Could you clarify which you're proposing? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word ban does not imply permanency. I am proposing an indefinite ban to be lifted whenever the community thinks it is time. T C N7JM 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - On that note, I just want to clarify that both blocks and bans can be permanent. A ban is a community endorsed block (which we are heading towards, whether we like it or not - such is the definition of a ban). His conduct probably warranted an indefinite block (and leading to a de facto ban if the community does not support his unblock request), but I digress... Chenzw Talk 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Oregonian2012's recent comments were extremely rude and uncalled for. They required oversight because they disclosed personal information about another user -- information that, ironically, he was telling the other user not to disclose. Each time he was told he was being inappropriate, his abuse got worse. Every person who criticized him became a new target of his abuse. Even if we take his word that he has serious health problems, and that his medical providers think that editing here is good for him, we have the right to require that editors here behave in a civil manner. Oregonian2012 has been getting less and less civil. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still support Even though Oregonian's contributions to content were helpful, his recent comments were very rude and seems to cause very big damage to our encyclopedia world. In addition, this contributor should have probably focused on improving and creating articles rather than damaging parts of this site. I would strongly suggest that an indefinite or other long block in the future is really needed to prevent this user from having to continue that he wants to be unblocked with a very rude reason--it is not going to work. Oregonian2012 doesn't seem to listen to us very much; as a result of his attacks, some of his comments and edits have become problematic that causes us to notice his comments and edits when we are busy adding content to articles. Again, please consider to ban this candidate indefinitely to prevent any other further problems. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per my comments above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per comments above.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - attacking others and spiteful reactions have well overshadowed the positive contributions.--Tbennert (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oregonian has made many good content contributions to this wiki. In light of this, I do not think a ban which is not limted in time is appropriate. If we need to ban this editor, we should opt for a time-limited version (of three or six months). Technically, a block will be used to implement the ban. Once the block expires, we determine again based on the contributions of the editor. This wiki is too small to be able to "throw away"/block good content editors, based on a contribution they may have done in anger. In short, I oppose banning Oregonian, as proposed above. --Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has been one of our best contributors to article content, and we have very few of those. I am also uncomfortable at throwing him into the outer darkness with an unlimited ban. I would go for a limited ban. It's right that he should face a ban, and I can see others feel this strongly, but remember how lenient we have been on other offenders. I would think three or six months is about right. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of a similar opinion to Ept and Mac. I think that if we're trying to be preventative, then six months seems like it would be enough of a break to remind him that such attacks are not going to be tolerated. I am considering this in light of his excellent content contributions, which are so very rare on this project. Oregonian usually keeps to himself except in correlation to DYK, so perhaps we might also consider an indefinite ban from those kinds of community-level discussions. Osiris (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with a three to six month ban, that should be long enough of a break to reduce his wiki-stress, and hopefully make him a productive editor again, since he otherwise seems to be a good editor. Enfcer (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And a side point, he still has the patroller bit, is it appropriate for someone who has been this flagrant to have any extra bits at this point? Enfcer (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given his good content work, I guess that removing that bit will make little sense: A large quantity of his edits are content edits, which are totally unproblematic. Would you like to check 99 edits that are ok, to find the one (talk/user talk) edit that might be problematic? --Eptalon (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not his first time causing trouble that requires oversight. I think this is a pretty big problem, especially considering that it warranted emails (not 1, but 2) to oversight-l. Chenzw Talk 16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a general comment. We have a handfull of editors that have rollback or patrolled bits, that are on some sort of block or ban, mostly for long terms. I see these bits as trust flags, and have been earned. If they are blocked or banned for negative reasons, that being they themselves haven't asked for a forced break, then they have lost the trust, and the bits should be removed, and re-earned. Enfcer (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support an indefinite block and want to point out that we're about 6.5 hours from his current block from expiring. I feel like a decision should be reached here before that comes. While his article work may be good, the comments I saw out of him (I never saw the oversighted ones, I'm just talking about comments like this and this) are among the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've been editing off and on over the span of 7-8 years. Based on this being a reoccurring thing and not something that has come up once, I think an indefinite block is in order. Only (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (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.

Semi-Protection request

Hey guys, I'm Pratyya Ghosh. Obviously you know that. Now I want an admin to make my user page-- User:Pratyya Ghosh semi-protected. I'm a vandal fighter and many users or vandal come to vandalize userpages of anti-vandal user's. That's why I want it semi-protected. I want a clear page of mine. Whatever my talk page vandalized or not I want a clear userpage. I hope you understand my thinking. Can you please make it semi-protected?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Osiris (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help importing

I'm having trouble importing some pages into User:Mainstreammark's userspace, as requested at Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins#UPDATE. I'm getting the message "Import failed: Could not open import file". Can someone tell me what might be going wrong? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were too many revisions. Looks like a server fail. You got the first 228 revisions and it's stopped. Sometimes it continues slowly, but in this case it hasn't. It may take several hits of the import button to get them all imported. I personally recommend just importing the latest revision, unless there is a reason why the older revisions are needed. Osiris (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just keep hitting import and eventually you will get them all. But yes, as Osiris mentions you can always just import the last revision on really long histories. Personally I like getting all the revisions so I take the time to keep hitting import. But there is nothing saying you have to do more than the last one. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geeze I just realized this was from a month ago. LOL oops. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-filled deletion reasons

I've always noticed that simple doesn't pre-fill them like other wikis do (when they're already tagged)... does anyone know how to enable that, and if so could it be done? (I assume it would be more convenient for everybody.) -- Menti fisto 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a gadget which probably can be imported from another wiki, where this works. Might be a good idea actually. -Barras talk 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use m:User:PiRSquared17/cleandelete.js, but it removes the autofilled reasons from all deletions. --Rs chen 7754 05:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I the same on en because I don't like having the reason filled for me because alot of the times the tag on the page isn't the most appropriate reason. But I can see how it is really useful for other people so if it can be changed per Grunny below than that is good. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you folks talking about, if you please? :) --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you press the "delete" button, some wikis have a script that looks for a deletion tag placed on the page, and then automatically copies the reason given in the template to the deletion summary. So if an editor tagged a page for QD-G12, then when you go to delete it, QD-G12 is already filled into the delete summary, along with whatever extra details (such as a URL) might have been given in the template. Osiris (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so instead of having to select the reason from the dropdown, it would already be selected? That could be cool, although we don't always use the reason that was given in the QD request. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We actually already have the relevant JS that does this here: MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js. The quick deletion template just needs to be changed to support it by having the appropriate reason placed inside an element with an id of "delete-reason". For example, on enwiki, their template has: <span id="delete-reason" style="display:none">{{urlencode:The reason here}}</span>. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be working now. The current implementation is not as elegant as I hoped it would be, but it works. Chenzw Talk 13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela semi-protection

After his death, there has been multiple editing around this article -> Nelson Mandela. Some good or some bad. I'm requesting a semi-protection request for this article to prevent further vandalism on this article, although the shortest time period possible should be appropriate. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No need for it right now. Since November 7, I only see 3 vandalism edits, 2 by the same user. Not enough action to justify the protection. I think it's receiving a lot of attention now, so users will likely catch vandalism as it occurs. Only (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your right there's been an increase in vandalism from unregistered users right now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I've done it for a day - won't hurt I imagine. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's the unregistered users this article should be worried about until his funeral is over with. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDKR, please be careful talking about unregistered users. Both here and in other places you have made it sound like they usually cause trouble. One of Wikipedia's tenets is that anyone can edit here, and that includes editors who choose not to create accounts. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the ones that causes trouble. I'm grateful for the good ones. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD over a week past its close date

Could an admin (not a non-admin, please) please close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Movies by actor? It was due to close on December 2. If anyone is hesitating because it's going to be a bit of work to do all the deletions and category removals, I'm willing to do that work. I just can't close it because I proposed it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - closed as delete. I'll let you do the honours as I don't have the time (the reason I didn't close it before). Thanks Kennedy ^(talk) 10:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the close. The deletes are done. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork :) *thumbsup* Kennedy ^(talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Can another admin make a decision here please. Thanks, Kennedy ^(talk) 10:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me based on which policy that user has been blocked? There is no policy on our projects that prohibits the disclosure of own personal information, even if the user is a minor (which no one actually knows, he could be older/younger than he says). I personally only explain them why they should not post such information on a public site and suggest the suppression of the data. However, we are not the parents to all kids editing here. I'm aware of many cases where such information of users were voluntarily disclosed by the users themselves without them being blocked (even here on simple, but also on dewiki, enwiki and possible other projects). -Barras talk 10:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, en.wikipedia does block younger editors who repeatedly add too much personal information to their userpages, where oversight was granted. --Rs chen 7754 11:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, my page url says me I'm on simple.wikipedia.org... - With that rule we would have needed to block several good users in the past. -Barras talk 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barras, to be fair...you brought up En. saying that blocks for disclosure by minors don't happen there, so Rschen7754 was responding to that. Only (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say those blocks don't happen there. I only said that I'm aware of cases where users were not blocked. I said that I know that there are people (even a former steward) who disclosed name, place, age and possible other data when they were still underaged. I didn't say that blocks against minors disclosing data don't happen there. -Barras talk 11:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying that it does happen, when editors repeatedly add too much personal information about themselves, reverting against its removal. I'm not saying that it always happens when editors add any personal information about themselves. --Rs chen 7754 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILD guideline. Yes its a guideline. It was for prevention. This part was particularly relevant; "Users may be blocked on a case by case basis if ~~they disrupt Wikipedia by pretending to be children in a harmful way~~, or add back personal information that an administrator has removed." Again, feel free to remove the block. I did what I thought was right - to protect a child's privacy. This is why I would like another admin to review. Thanks Kennedy ^(talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:CHILD is what would allow us to block the user to protect them, which says "Users who say that they are children and give out personal information may have that information removed. If they keep adding it back, they may also be blocked.". Being that he is indeffed on en.wiki I was personally intending to hit him with the block that lasted until he was of age if he added it back again. So 24 hours is lenient. :) We specifically created a guideline on it here since one of our target groups is children. As such we need to be more vigilant than en.wiki is. This user twice had the information removed and then was blocked when he added it a third time. I don't think we are being too hard on an individual who was warned and given a couple of chances. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off and On WikiBreak

Would someone kindly import Template:Off and On WikiBreak from English Wikipedia for me? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's going to be the story of my presence here for a while, I think. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection request (User:Mar4d/2014)

Some IP editors that I believe are socks related to User:Yasir72.multan of English Wikipedia are blanking User:Mar4d's user space draft User:Mar4d/2014 repeatedly, so I request that page be semi-protected. -- Smsarmad (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d's pages have just sat around unused on our site, so I have nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2013/User:Mar4d/2014. I have semi-protected the user page in the meantime. Only (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Boogaloo"

I have added an edit to the entry for Boogaloo. I can send a scan to substantiate the ammendment, but do not know how to attach / send to Wikipedia. How do I send it?

This user is referring to an article on English wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cook Jr. and David Cook Jr. and Dave Cook, Jr.

These aer hoax pages that diffrent IPs (likely to be the same person with a dynamic Ip) keep creating. I must have tagged about three in the last four days. Could someone pleas look into protecting these pagess so they cannot be re-created. Thanks --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is probaly more of them that had a diffrent name the creater seems to use slightly diffrent names for these hoax pages.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I protected these three -- only auto-confirmed users can create them. I meant to do that the last time I deleted them myself, so thanks for the nudge. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sadly I don't think it will take the creator long to create another one under a different name but I will be on the look out for any pages with "David Cook" in its title.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said these were created by IP editors. No IP editor will be able to create them. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under a slightly different name they can. Like one is David the other is Dave and another has a comer in it.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant under a different user name. Yes, they will be able to create them under a different article name. Not much we can do about that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed!

Resolved.

Admin help needed here. Also, please direct all your future comments there. - Jayadevp13 12:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. -Barras talk 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tdfdc

In 169 edits, Tdfdc (talk · contribs) has not made a single edit that has not related to Spider International in someway. Between the endless user talk page debates and the deletion reviews, it has become increasingly clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. He definitely fits the first bullet on that page: "Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing." Valuable editor time has been focused on his article that, still, does not look like it will ever see the light of day on Wikipedia. Therefore, I propose that a block be placed on his account. I was very tempted to implement the block without discussion first, but figure I'd seek community input before doing so. I welcome input on such a block. Only (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(And, yes, I recognize the irony of sinking more time into an account that has been a time sink). Only (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd endorse a block, that user appears to be nothing more than a SPA. -Barras talk 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved here, but I agree. Given that the user now appears to be trying to circumvent consensus, it's pretty clear that this will only continue to be a drain on our resources. Although the user initially stated that they had "been asked by a representative of the company to write a stub/small article about it", they later denied that several times and then redefined their connection. Whatever the case, I have never wasted so much of my time on such a useless pursuit. I had hoped that, eventually, they would agree that the subject does not meet our guidelines for inclusion, and then turn to writing about topics in their field of interest that would actually be useful to this project. I'm now certain that that won't be happening. The user has accused several editors of not assuming good faith. I personally believe that we've gone way beyond what is reasonably expected in that regard, and I apologise to everyone here for having let it get this far. Osiris (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on deletion review is probably not going to pass, looking at current consensus. I suggest we hold on to the block button until the discussion there has been closed (preferably by an admin who has not contributed to that discussion). Chenzw Talk 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the discussion on Spider International as the community consensus was clearly to support the deletion of the article as being not notable. At this stage I see no reason to block or take action against an editor who has simply made a robust defence of an article. If the editor is a "single issue" warrior, then their future editing history will show this and we can take further action then. In terms of the argument about the editor wasting our time, we can choose how much of our own time we spend on an argument. At this time I see no further action needed, and let us use our time and energy building useful content.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chat option

We have all got used to the model of communication of posting on user talk pages and in other venues. That is somewhat similar to sending e-mails on the internet. I was wondering, what the admins and experienced editors think about adding the ability to chat? That would allow interactive communication that could be used in dispute solving, or in collaborative editing for example. The editors could decide at any time if they would like to avail themselves to chat. So, if any editors wouldn't like to be chatted, they could keep everything as it is now.

I think the ability to chat could be useful in many instances. The logs of the chats would be either saved in one place, and links to the logs would be posted on the editors' talk pages; or the logs could be posted on the talk pages, perhaps in collapsed form. I'm not sure if it is currently in works, or what would be the right venue to suggest it.Tdfdc (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IRC. That's the closest you'll get. Only (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'm aware of the IRC. But I think communication's requirements have evolved, and not many people are using IRC as of today. If Wikipedia is to attract new editors, we should strife to create an environment based on the current trends, such as in-house chat.Tdfdc (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is probably a little out of date nowadays I'll agree. But your proposal is an on-wiki chat which is logged somehere, then I fail to see the difference to any other talk page. I wouldn't be in favour of such a feature. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRC doesn't really need to be "in-date" or whatever. It's just a means of chatting on the internet. It doesn't need to be anything fancier than that. Personally, I prefer it a million times over talk pages because it's in real time. T C N7JM 12:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what IRC is, I've used it for years. And I still believe its out of date nowadays. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you modernize typing on the internet? What we're doing right now is practically no different from IRC discounting the fact that it isn't real time. T C N7JM 13:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that additional software is required mainly. And the fact that there are numerous better alternatives. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually true...I just use freenodes web based IRC chat most of the time. IRC is still pretty highly used around the net mostly because it is the most efficient form of communicating in groups real time. 1-to-1 chat of course there are better modes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew about the web-based ones (I use them often too). Still, we're all actually in agreement despite our differences of opinion I believe Kennedy ^(talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate, that I'm not proposing replacing IRC with on-wiki chat. I think of it as an additional way of communication, and every editor may decide to use it always, never, or on occasional basis. There is no discussion, that though IRC might be useful, it's an outdated way of communication. We may certainly decide to have the chat turned off on the default. Otherwise, it would be nice to see who among the editors you know are online, perhaps greet them, or discuss something. Yes, I think logs should be kept, and it should be similar in this regard to talk pages. Chat however will provide for a real-time information exchange.Tdfdc (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to go to the WMF to propose this as it would have to be done by the big guys above. You keep mentioning IRC is outdated but you do realize group chat built into webpages are actually the outdated mode of chatting right, what IRC replaced? That was done a looong time ago on webpages...I always find it amusing when a website adds that feature because no one ever uses it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest the link on WMF for the proper venue? Sorry, I couldn't follow your argument. What webpages are you referring to?Tdfdc (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, there is a MediaWiki extension (mw:Extension:WebChat) which can do this, but it seems to use an IRC network to provide the service, so in my opinion there really is no point in implementing an on-wiki chat system when freenode IRC is a perfectly fine alternative. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Mh7kJie has said. Vogone (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a chat service that doesn't require anything to download (as in Facebook). And it's nice to see when someone has started to reply and is currently writing. But you are right, ANI of the simple wiki is not the right venue, if ever, it should be implemented on all Wikis. Could I be suggested please what would be the right venue to seek community's consensus?Tdfdc (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the m:Wikimedia Forum is what you are looking for. Vogone (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Tdfdc (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was/is being considered: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Future/Real-time_collaboration.Tdfdc (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]