Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 49

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

About LouisPhilippeCharles

I wonder if any person can shed some light on this old case? The master account User:LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked in February 2011 for abusing several accounts, but the socks which are tagged locally all show creation dates of after the local block date. So where is the abuse of accounts? Chenzw  Talk  09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a theory (since I wasn't active here at the time) but perhaps there was multi-project socking. There is a hint of this in the unblock requests at user talk:JustOneDay. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While that is so, what an editor did to get banned elsewhere is not our concern unless the same behaviour is exhibited here, and in this case LouisPhilippeCharles did not, in 2010/2011, encounter/cause any issues on this wiki. Nevertheless, I caught the editor evading the block (no matter whether the original block was justified or not) a few days ago by trying to edit anonymously; User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew has been re-blocked with user talk page access disabled, so all future appeals by him should go through email. Chenzw  Talk  09:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please semi-protect Wikipedia indefinitely...

...as it is one of the most common targets for vandalism - I'm shocked that this isn't protected - it's been like this on ENWIKI for years. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no, especially on the indefinite part. It hasn't even been edited in almost two weeks. I have added it to my watch list, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am beginning to think that it may be time for us to discuss how we can better protect stable articles from repeated abuse. The history of many articles on my watchlist shows edits made by IPs or new users, followed by reversions by Chenzwbot or one of the regulars, ad nauseam. The other pattern is the one where the vandalism goes unnoticed by anyone for several weeks or months. This pattern is even worse because it means the vandalism was live for quite awhile before it was corrected. I'm sure most of us have noticed similar patterns. I do not favor automatically blocking IPs from creating pages -- new pages aren't part of the problem I'm describing -- but stable articles should be protected in some manner that doesn't violate foundation guidelines. Ideas anyone? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sides to this problem:
  • ChenzwBot (and its predecessors) was designed with 1RR in mind. This means that the bot will never rollback a page to a revision made by itself (aka it will not rollback a page more than once in a row, regardless of the time interval between rollbacks) – at least one revision to that page must be made by another user before that page can be rolled back again. Exceptions to this rule are possible; there is functionality implemented for an "angry revert" list–these pages are exempt from the bot's 1RR. Currently, Wikipedia is the only page on this list, and entries must be added/removed to/from the angry revert list by myself (there is no code implemented for addition/removal by other users ever since the last bot rewrite). The 1RR becomes a handicap when the wiki has generally low editing levels, or in the case of unpopular pages which do not see a lot of edits.
  • The practice on this wiki is that indefinite protections in mainspace are not encouraged (see the protect log of that page, and this list for all indef protections). Indefinitely semi-protecting pages is not against WMF guidelines per se, because {{changesemiprotected}} comes into use for such cases.
  • My "no" vote was based on our usual practice, but I'm not opposed to changing it. If we do change it, I know of several pages I'd like to see indefinite semi-protection on. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Is there a way to see which articles the bot is making the most reversions on? Also, is there a report available where the bot can tell us where it would revert an edit but for the 1RR rule it uses? The former will help us see the scope of the vandalism problem while the latter might help us focus anti-vandalism efforts while we work on better prevention of the problem. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statistics are available at User:Chenzw/Bot reports. Just a quick overview of what I have included:
  • I have started recording reverts for a long time already, but recording 1RR incidents only started in late-Jan this year. Thus, the calculations only consider data from that point in late Jan onwards.
  • Most vandalised ranks pages based on how often the bot detects vandalism on that page. Revert/non-revert does not matter in this case.
  • Most reverted ranks pages based on how often the bot has performed rollback on that page.
  • Most reverted (unique users) - same as above, but only unique IPs/editors are counted. This corrects for cases when a persistent editor is vandalising. See the revision history of Wikipedia, 22 & 23 March 2016 for an idea of what I am talking about.
  • Missed reverts ranks pages based on 1RR incidents.
  • Missed reverts (unique users) - same, but counting unique IPs/editors only.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any more questions about the data, or if you need some other tabulation. Chenzw  Talk  03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful info. We also get a lot of well-meant but incompetent changes, or changes wich do not improve pages. These can only be judged by experienced editors. The bot helps because it frees people for things only they can do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming socks?

They have inserted confusing URL such as //wikipediatravel.weebly.com or //wikipedia-travel.blogspot.com/ to multiple articles. --KurodaSho (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the offending URLs to the spam blacklist for now. Chenzw  Talk  07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --KurodaSho (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent...

--KurodaSho (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two oldest current RfDs

Hello, fellow admins. There are a couple of RfDs that were scheduled to close on April 13. They both have all "delete" comments. I can't close them because I initiated them. If any of you are holding off on closing them because they are going to be more work than usual to process (because they're group requests and they're for templates), then I would be glad to do the deleting and cleanup. If you'd like to close them and have me do that, just let me know when they're closed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to close the one for Category:Username changing and usurpation templates, since I voted in it, but I will gladly close the other one and clean up the transclusions (if any). Chenzw  Talk  05:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I repeat my offer. The RfD mentioned by Chenzw was due to close almost two weeks ago. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect for your strong adherence to rules and policy, Auntof6, it seems to me that the rule that we don't close RfX that we open or vote on is meant to stop people with advanced rights from ramming things through. In this case, though, I don't think there is any objection stated to a close of "delete categories, keep templates". And it's been open six extra days. So I think you could safely do that. Alternatively, even though you don't like non-admin closes, I've never seen a policy forbidding them, and I'm prepared to mark it closed if you'd like. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on possibly questionable user name

User Yeehawmothertruckers was indef'd by User:Macdonald-ross because of the name's similarity to a vulgar English phrase. I think it's allowable. It's a phrase that could be used as a play on words by someone in the trucking industry. It suggests, but does not say, the vulgarity. What do others think? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a clever pun to me. It might be worth unblocking and seeing if they edit constructively.--Druddigon (talk | changes) 21:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Druddigon. The name inherently isn't bad, and we don't know the behavior of the editor. I'd say unblock and see what happens. --Lithorien Talk • Changes 22:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks, guys, but I put this on the Admins noticeboard because I wanted admin input. I'll wait to see what other admins respond. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of editing (or block) history on other wikis, I think we should give the benefit of the doubt here. Chenzw  Talk  03:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is really an issue about the implications of allowing near-beer quasi-obscenities as usernames, rather than the behaviour of a particular editor. Allowing one will lead to allowing others, and so on ad infinitum. A username should steer clear of being controversial in itself: that would include names that support political or religious causes, names of products, names that attack and so on. A special problem with obscenity is that many obscene terms are used with small changes in spelling. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a recent user page: user: Gogo Dodo is a njgger. We are going to go on getting offensive names protected by a thin veil of aberrant spelling. They should all be indeffed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with you on this Mac.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this one, because there's nothing else it could mean. I don't think the one I originally brought up here is one of these, though. We need to be extremely cautious about indeffing because of what we see as possibly offensive user names. For a similar issue, see the other "Bad username" section, currently at the top of this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator here, but I am an administrator elsewhere, so I have some skin in this game. In my opinion, Auntof6 is 100% correct on this issue. We need to use a reasonable-neutral editor standard here. Something like the "njgger" one is clearly indef material because there's nothing else it could mean. But the "mother trucker" one, in my view, is more likely to be a play on words than an intentionally misspelled obscenity. ("Mother vucker" wouldn't be, just to set things straight.) And Aunt is also correct about being careful not to overreact to names from outside the native Anglophone world. I have an Indian colleague whose name is "Kshitiz". That's his name; there would be nothing to be offended about if he used it as a username. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 While I still think the benefit of the doubt should be applied here, cases such as this one are instances where our username policy will apply:

  • Usernames which offend other people might make people not want to contribute to Wikipedia. That also distracts people from what they are meant to be doing - writing an encyclopedia!
  • If someone complains about your user name, please think about changing it. If lots of people complain, you will have to change it.

At the end of the day, this is about being part of a community of editors. If your username is going to cause offense to others, or even give people pause to consider "that is probably not an acceptable name", then it probably isn't suitable here. Do I think the block is improper? No; while I won't be issuing the block myself, I don't consider it an improper action if someone decides to make the call to block the user. Taking into consideration the possibility of the words used in a non-offensive context (such as in this news article, and apparently in the names of some bands), do I think {{UsernameHardBlocked}} is a bit too much, and that {{UsernameBlocked}} would be a better choice? Maybe. Chenzw  Talk  14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, if each case is considered separately, then there will be cases where we differ. We can hardly plan to discuss every instance where there is a difference of opinion. It is simpler to have a rule that "any swearword, even if slightly altered, is not permitted in a username". I would add that we have no regular editors who have such doubtful usernames, as far as I can remember. This is not an accident: someone who is genuinely interested in contributing will choose their username carefully. Accepting one altered swearword will lead to others, especially on a wiki with many young contributors. Furthermore, rejecting one username does not prevent a would-be editor from registering an inoffensive handle. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we need to consider each case individually, and we cannot have such an absolute rule. The English language is such that there are many inoffensive words that are only a letter or two different from inoffensive ones, not to mention words that have both offensive and inoffensive meanings. Bedides that, since Wikipedia is an international project, we need to be aware of words that may seem questionable to English speakers, but which are perfectly respectable in other languages. An example of the latter is the user Harshit shan, recently the subject of a block request (which was denied, since "Harshit" is a valid given name).
I think we have discussed this enough, and I am going to unblock this user. He/she can certainly be blocked again if there are objectionable edits. Besides all this, when you block a user for having a bad username, please do them the courtesy of leaving them a message explaining it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

This. J991 19:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has been globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Username Needs Blocking

Can someone block user Godhatesfags12346789 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Newspaper (talk • contribs)

Done, blocked. Chenzw  Talk  15:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adding pictures and media to my classes wiki page and having them access it from home?

adding pictures and media to my classes wiki page and having them access it from home?

Please help me with this query --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarriner (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you want help with. Can you explain more? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attn fellow admins: please direct your attention to the RfDs that were due to close a couple of weeks ago

Come one, come all, to the RfD-closing ball! Now you, too, can have the fun of closing RfDs. There are two antique RfDs awaiting you! Act now, while you have your choice of "Countermand Amendment" or "Unused user language categories and templates" -- or why not live on the edge and close both! There are so many closure options: delete, keep, no consensus to delete, or make up your own -- there's a world of possibilities! Act now before someone else robs you of the fun! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards closing Unused user language categories and templates as "no consensus" - but I am leaving it there for others to close instead. Chenzw  Talk  05:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. I didn't feel strongly about these. I was just doing cleanup. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet IPs

These two IPs have been vandalizing pages related to Sudan and South Sudan with similar content. I have reason to suspect they might be the same user and should be acted upon by an admin promptly. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above a user account by the name of Sstvnewshours (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked for making a change very similar to the above IP, which has been hidden from view. We could need to globally block the IP from account creation if this persists. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term IP abuse

IP user 66:37:226:66 has been introducing POV or vandalism edits to Sudan (among others) since the beginning of April. The editor has amassed 15 warnings, two quick deletions, and one 31-hour block to date. Since the block (less than two weeks ago), the editor has accumulated ten additional warnings, and continues to introduce bad changes to these articles. (The latter bad changes have gone unwarned, due to a string of eight "final warnings" that have gone unheeded.) I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Sudan/South Sudan to determine if repeatedly inserting the name of the leaders and former leaders of South Sudan into the article on Sudan -- as their leader -- is a political statement, a POV edit, or if it is pure vandalism, but either way, these changes are not supported by reliable sources, and the project disruption needs to be stopped for the long term. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

In moving Brown Bear to Brown bear a mistake was made, and I seem to have lost the content! I'm astonished, and can only hope someone knows how to retrieve it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I recreated some content... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure why there are two entries in the move log, but I have restored all the revisions on that page. Incidentally, the post-move content is much better than the previous revisions of the article. Chenzw  Talk  15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attention!

There is a pending request for autopatrol rights. Someone should please check on it. Oluwa2Chainz (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean your request for patroller? I replied to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle discrepancy

There is a discrepancy between the version of Template:Uw-test1 that is applied by Twinkle and the version that appears in the template space. Frankly, the actual template is better, but how do we get Twinkle to use the correct version? For an example of what Twinkle applies, see the warning I applied at User talk:187.210.142.21. The key difference is the words Thank you for experimenting with... while the actual template says Thank you for trying things out.... Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some peculiar reason, the wording of the template changes when you give it the first parameter (the title of the vandalized page), which Twinkle does by default. Take a look at the template's source code:
{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|experimenting with the page [[:{{{1}}}]]|trying things out}}
If you like, I can change it for you so that the template always says "trying things out", whether or not you specify a page title in the template. Chenzw  Talk  02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need some kind of consensus for that. It didn't occur to me to put the template in edit view; I thought Twinkle was grabbing a version of the the template from some other (perhaps outdated) source. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have put this up on WP:ST. Chenzw  Talk  09:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

Special:Contributions/Cerriecason909 and Special:Contributions/Cerriecason5 per WP:DUCK regards, eurodyne (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bsadowski1 has indef'd both. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move plus page history merger

I sandboxed a copy of Sabbath (disambiguation) a while back, and did a bit of work on it. The result can be found here: User:StevenJ81/Sabbath (disambiguation). No further work was done on the original source page since the time I copied it to my sandbox, and my revision includes everything that was previously included in the source page. So I think the best way to take this forward would be to merge the history of the original source page into the history of my page, and then let my page replace the original source page. I'll leave the mechanics of that in an administrator's hands. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the best way to handle it is for you to copy and paste it over the one in mainspace. If you are the only one to have made changes in your sandbox then you can freely copy it from one to the other. At which point the one in your sandbox can be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only change not by me is that I originally created what became the sandbox page (against the rules) as a subpage of the original source page. User:Auntof6 moved it to my user space. But she made no substantive changes. So I'll go ahead and do what you suggested. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Twinkle error that should be fixed

Twinkle made me notify myself for nominating a QD of my own page. Also, here's the *really* strange part. I nominated about 4 or 5 pages but only got 1 message. Could someone please post the details here? This may be a (very minor, but still worth pointing out) problem. :/ Krett12 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you use Twinkle's QD to tag a page for QD U1, the page creator will not be notified. For anything else (including "custom" QD reasons), you need to uncheck the box that says "Notify page creator if possible". Chenzw  Talk  03:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that edit-able in prefs? Krett12 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what exactly you were referring to, but the relevant options can be found in Twinkle's preferences panel. You are probably looking for "Notify page creator only when tagging with these criteria:". Chenzw  Talk  03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

88.96.242.198

Please block this habitual vandal, who removes good info and adds nonsense to articles. This person has also created several articles relating to "Atlasia". Jim Michael (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be posted at WP:VIP. I have given this IP a long block. They have been blocked 10 times in the last year or so for various rather similar offences. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How recent does vandalism have to be in order to be classed as vandalism in progress? Jim Michael (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, an hour or two, but others think it should be more or less "now". Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP written by article subject

Is the policy in this Wikipedia the same as at en.wikipedia regarding writing an article on yourself? I have evidence that a currently indeffed editor at en.wikipedia has come here and written an article on himself. Winkelvi (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably fall under a case of self-promotion on this wiki. What is the article title? Chenzw  Talk  04:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Konrad Juengling. Winkelvi (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite clear from the page history as to the identity of that editor who was blocked on EN. Can you elaborate a bit more? Chenzw  Talk  09:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
en:User:Bbb23 is the one who deleted the page on enwiki, so perhaps that user can enlighten. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and looked through the revision history of the article again, and the only sockpuppet I can find (apologies, I missed it out earlier) is Cagepanes (talk · contribs). The other IPs, however, have no block history on EN, and are not listed on the SPI casepage (nor their subnets) either. From EN logs, the IP that was most likely responsible for edits to the article on EN is 67.168.250.113, blocked by Bbb23 while also deleting EN's article. That IP has not edited on this wiki. I am not a CU, and have no access to the relevant data, so until there is further evidence provided, I cannot act on this. You may also want to refer this issue to a local checkuser. Chenzw  Talk  14:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If those who've commented here want to pursue this further, feel free. I've decided that I'm going to bow out on the subject. Winkelvi (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan editor

The Pakistan editor's back, editing as this IP. J991 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Pakistan editor? Krett12 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an editor (who uses only IPs) with strong views relating to Pakistan. The admins have had a long term struggle to communicate with the editor, so now they just block it on sight. See User:Chenzw/Reports/Pakistan. J991 16:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Blocked for 6 months. It seems stable/persistent enough to allow for a longer block on the IP. Only (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little help?

Fellow admins, I could use your help. We have an editor who has been repeatedly adding a fringe theory to Doctor Who and Master (Doctor Who). The information being added was also tried on enwiki, but was rejected there. You can see the discussion on enwiki here. In an effort to satisfy the editor, today I added a paragraph to one article mentioning the theory, but that was also reverted.

If I weren't the person who has been disputing these changes, I would have warned the user and possibly blocked him/her by now. I ask my fellow admins to look at the situation and see what they think. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have weighed in a bit more on Talk:Master (Doctor Who), and reverted the user. I will hence also refrain from further reverts or administrative action. Chenzw  Talk  11:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For later reference:
--Chenzw  Talk  14:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion?

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.
  Resolved. No action needed. Chenzw  Talk  05:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill switch 1999" created an account and immediately went to Chenzw's talk page, left an unsigned comment with a weird message. This has happened times in the past and most of them were in evasion of a block. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update : It has been blocked. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this next part isn't enough to block, but the account "GeRob39" was created one minute after Killswitch found out they'd been uncovered. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People create new accounts all the time. If you think they're the same person, you need evidence based on their edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's probably nothing, but this wiki is small enough that it should still be pointed out. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: Just so you know, every time anyone who has an account on any Wikipedia project page visits one of our pages, their account gets created here automatically. This is true whether or not they wish to edit here. (The same thing will happen if you visit another Wikipedia project -- pop into French or Italian Wikipedia, for example, and your account will automatically be created there if you are logged into this project!). Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, however, it would say "automatically created". I am not saying they are sock puppets, I am just pointing it out. Computer Fizz (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2016 (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.


Two IPs with no block notice

50.51.212.138 and 69.115.75.25 Computer Fizz (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this is a good idea? To go back down this path where you try to tend to administrative needs for the sake of extra bureaucracy? As I'm sure you're aware, users see MediaWiki:Blockedtext when they try to edit when they're blocked. They'll see a notice in some form thanks to that. Plus, both IPs you name are IPs that have been blocked previously, the first on other IP addresses, the second on the same address. No administrative action is needed here. Only (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, bringing it up here was suggested by an admin. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link from user page

I usually do not introduce comments on this page and am timid in doing so now. I really do not like introducing stress to me or to others (as some may already be aware). Nor do I express myself in concise language. However, as one who was personally involved in a negative way by the earlier iteration of this editor, (I considered leaving, but that is due to my personal nature of duck and run for cover); I feel it is a passive-aggressive gesture for this to be placed on the editor's user page: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AComputer_Fizz&type=revision&diff=5422018&oldid=5421410. And then say: I do not maintain the antivandalism website anymore. But I won't take it down. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC) This remains mockery and wounding to those of us who were active at the time. To me this is now an attack page in disguise. Please forgive my complaint as I like to maintain peace, love and empathy here. Thanks and all the best. Fylbecatulous talk 14:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC) \[reply]

Adding to say I have notified CF on their talk page that I have said this on the AN with a link to this section. Fylbecatulous talk 14:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for taking the time to lodge this complaint. I agree with your views, and have blanked the userpage for now. Leaving this open for fellow editors to weigh in as necessary. Chenzw  Talk  17:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an attack, and I'm not making fun of anybody. I'm just taking screenshots of half-second comedy of "fixing typo" while adding several hundred thousand characters. I don't really need it to be there, but that really didn't call for a userspace violation. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's only part of the problem. Make up your mind as to whether you want to continue editing articles here, and stop making a mockery of the {{retired}} and {{semi-retired}} templates. And if you do decide to retire from this Wikipedia, telling us (through your user page) about a seWP "comedy" site which you are no longer maintaining serves no purpose.
At least 3 editors (including myself) have taken issue with your user page, so either leave that material out, or seriously re-consider how you want to word what you put on your user page. Chenzw  Talk  12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Egypt

That article has had the CSD tag for a long time now and I believe it should get deleted. Thanks! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're a small project: 3.5 hours is not a long time to wait on a speedy deletion. Even on English Wikipedia it is common for speedy deletions to sit that long. Only (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the QDs on the time-related articles. You can take them to RfD if you really think they should be deleted. I think they are reasonable stub articles. Enwiki has the same articles. Ours are just shorter. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 01:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New name for the save button

Please see this note about a change that may be coming for the "Save page" buttons: meta:Editing/Publish, and how simple: can replace this if needed. Thank you, Xaosflux (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please consider indefinite semi-protection on the page (T·E·H·L·R) Justin Bieber as he is likely to be a vandal target for many years, as on enwiki. Thank you, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we protected that page, we'ld need to protect a dozen pages or more. We have at least one determined floating IP who periodically makes the same type of changes to the same pages. It's something we should think about, because we do have a mandate to give special protection to BLPs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very low amount of vandalism on that page. As mentioned before we only do that if we can't keep up with the changes. That page has an edit history going back many months on just the first 50 edits so it is definitely not a candidate for protection. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Photo attribution

I was looking at Wiki page for Rover P4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_P4

The photo used to describe the P4 Series on this page "1955 Rover 90" is in fact mine, taken in APril 2008. It is attributed to someone called Andrew90. I have no ides who this is. I am happy for the photo to be used, but request a change in attribution to: "Peter Huttemeier, Webmaster Rover Car Club of Australia". The Photos was taken at the National Rove held in Melbourne Australia in April 2008.

Cheers. Peter Huttemeier

Nothing to do with us. The person you see as the user on the wikipedia Commons page is the person who uploaded it onto Commons. And we are not English wikipedia, and have not used your photo. Start at [1] and go on from there. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone used my name improperly and without my permission

Hello,

In a facebook discussion about Wikipedia, Kayla Hall named me as successor to Salem Media Group. This is false. I have requested that she remove my name, but she has not done so as yet.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Karen Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4a02:250f:505f:a1de:d9ba:f547 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the Salem Media Group or your name on the Simple English Wikipedia. We are not able to assist you. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Salem Media Group. Wikicology (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, this is Simple English Wikipedia and the edits the IP is complaining about were made on English Wikipedia, which is a different project. The two are related, of course, and many users edit on both. In this case, I have reviewed the edit on EnWiki and reverted it. The name was added in a field meant for a successor corporation or company; it was clearly inappropriate to place a person's name in the field. The IP is reminded that the names Karen and Hall are quite common, and it may be the case that a different Karen Hall was intended by the edit. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerakibot

Hello! My bot Gerakibot was blocked indefinitely in 2013 for putting some wrong interwiki. I do not intend to use it in simplewiki but I would like it to be unblocked (since there is no reason to be blocked). Thank you. -Geraki (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only blocked, it is not flagged as a bot now. If you're not going to use it, there's no reason to unblock it. If you decide you want to use it, you can go through the approval process at Wikipedia talk:Bots. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?? It was not flagged as a bot locally, it was a global bot. If I decide to use it I will ask for permission and flag. But since there is no potential for harm what is the reason for keeping an indef block? At this moment it is not even a bot. It is just an account. -Geraki (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion (as a non-admin) is to speak to the admin who blocked the account. That said, what is your intent for the account, if not to run it as a bot? If you don't plan to use it on Simple, then why are you worried about its being blocked here? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela protection

The article, Nelson Mandela, has been either vandalized or had unneeded or extremely unnecessary content added by unregistered users. If you look at the pages history you can see it just not on unregistered user, but others. This page has had many undos by hard-working admins, so to prevent time consumption, I ask if the Mandela article can have some sort of protection like what the Jimmy Wales, Donald Trump and Simple English Wikipedia articles have. Thanks you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article to my watchlist as well -- when the protection ends, there will be one extra set of eyes watching it. This recent vandalism has led to a review of other edits made by IP editors in the same range: I've come to the conclusion that the IP range 202.45.119.xxx has been responsible for a significant amount of vandalism over the years (see, for example, User talk:202.45.119.14). Further research suggests this is a school IP from Templestowe Lower, Victoria, Australia. The active portion of the range appears to run from 10 to 235, but I haven't reviewed every address within the range. I'm not sure of the best solution to the problem, but any resolution will start with an understanding of what, exactly, the problem is. In this case, I think the problem is bored school-children. Suggestions anyone? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Can you plz make me a list of the western state and capitals — This unsigned comment was added by Mary120012 (talk • changes).

I think we cannot. This board/page is for nitifyung admins of situations which require admin attention. It is not for other tasks which do not.--Eptalon (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible unacceptable username

I think that P1KACHEWPOO is unacceptable because it has "poo" in it and poo is short for Poop. Thanks! DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think poo and poop are bad enough to block a user. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not terribly bad. Wikicology (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, the concept of feces is not inherently bad. There is a common four-letter word that means feces and which is considered rude, but that's the word itself and how it's used, not the meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some pretty bad usernames, and I don't think "poo" is enough to block them. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Let me clarify. By my comment above, I meant to say thst I was declining to block the user. I did not mean to indicate that this was a general discussion. I apologize for not making that clear.

This page is for people to notify administrators about things or to ask them to do things, things that don't have specific pages for requests, such as WP:VIP. The only things needed here are the requests and the responses to the requests. Please help us keep this page clean by taking discussions to more appropriate pages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achraf Baznani

Hi there!

Alfabytes, alias 105.157.155.74, keeps deleting information about plagiarism on the page (T·E·H·L·R) Achraf Baznani. This info has references.

Alfabytes did never contribute to any other page:

  • on WP:simple [2]
  • on WP:fr [3]
    • the page on WP:fr was deleted because of references references forgery
  • on WP:sk asking for creation
  • on WP:tr [4]

I guess WP:COI, and of course WP:POV, but I don't want to start an edit war.

Best regards, Heddryin [🔊] 18:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a start of an edit war going on here. I have temporarily Fully Protected this to stop the content disruption. For now until the expiration of the protection, please post any request to change on the talk page, and use {{editprotected}} to alert of the request. Thanks -- Enfcer (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for your answer!
Heddryin [🔊] 09:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Gang & co

user:Tiger Gang and user:Nepali keto62 are sockpuppets of En wiki user Sarojupreti, and the evidence is here: [5]. IMO they should be globally locked. I have blocked each account protem. The introduction of a known sockpuppet is a violation of our one-strike rule. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the checkuser results in the EN SPI to be rather weak evidence of sockpuppetry. Because I can't see the exact CU results, from a non-CU's perspective of the SPI report, a positive checkuser result on these accounts does nothing but confirms that these editors were editing from the same network. The overlap in IPs could be due to editing from the same school, or simply because Surunga is a relatively small town. Taking the comments in the SPI into consideration, I have a suspicion that Nepali keto62 is collateral damage of some school feud. Any CU wants to weigh in on this? Chenzw  Talk  12:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also took into account the stylistic similarities in the two accounts, the general inward-looking style of editing, and the lack of openness as to their relationship. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, someone privately pointed out to me a particularly incriminating diff which ties Nepali keto62 to another blocked sock on EN (account does not exist here, though). While I still think the link between Tiger Gang and Nepali keto62 is questionable, at this stage it seems that both accounts have no desire to contribute seriously to this wiki. Not sure if it's the language barrier or not. Chenzw  Talk  13:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross; I don't see how a global lock applies here. New editors are usually not familiar with "Sockpuppetry" and many of them do not know that using multiple accounts violate our policy. We shouldn't be too harsh on them. Looking at their talk page and contribution, I concluded that this user is naive and English is probably not their first language. Thus, I don't think they can contribute constructively to Simple English Wikipedia but I think we can encourage them to contribute to their language Wikipedia rather than global lock. Wikicology (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong on almost all counts. The user had been through all this on En wiki, and knew very well what our rules are, but deliberately set out to do exactly the same things on our wiki. His use of bells and whistles for decorating his various account pages and talk pages shows he is no novice. His many times repeated denial of his use of sock accounts is a clear breach of his duty to give full and accurate responses to queries by other editors. The purpose of a global lock is to prevent him doing the same thing again elsewhere on Wikipedia. I don't doubt English is not his first language, and am unable to read the script or language used on Nepali wiki. Being a good editor on any wiki requires a respect for the basic ground rules, and enough self-control to work within the system. That would describe almost all our regular editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did respect your concerns about our policies and guidelines. However, I can see the user has been blocked here which I think its sufficient for now. If they continue their disruptive behavior on other Wikis, we can request for a global lock on Meta-Wiki. I will personally monitor their global contributions. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated some of their files for deletion on Wikimedia Common. Wikicology (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mannock page

This page keeps being changed to list his birthplace as "Ireland". The only evidence is that the 1911 Census lists his birthplace as Brighton, Sussex, England. Despite this, there is no evidence of a birth certificate. Biographers invariably list Aldershot, Brighton or Country Cork. I have changed the page to reflect this uncertainty; however, editors with a biased POV have changed it previously to list "Ireland".

There is currently no article on this person on the Simple English Wikipedia, you may have confused us with the English Wikipedia, see [6]. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope Bsadowski1 gets hit by a semi truck"

Please block "I hope Bsadowski1 gets hit by a semi truck" as they are a sock of that same person. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, they're already blocked. please QD their talk page as it is vandalism. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: The page itself was not vandalism, even if the user name was bad. I deleted it as created by an indeffed user. For future reference, this is not the place to request qds. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it started out as a different request then changed to a QD, so that kinda slipped by me. Sorry 'bout that. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested

Please semi-protect the article paintball for a brief period of time. Two IPs and a new (non-auto-confirmed) editor have been arguing about which spam links to add to the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Yes, I had thought about this this yesterday. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More semi-protection requested

One or more IP's have been changing signed comments at User talk:Eddybrad. While it is possible that it is simply the (mostly inactive) user making changes while logged out -- indeed, the style of the edits looks similar -- it is not clear that this is the case. The user is auto-confirmed, so semi-protection of the talk page will not unduly impact the user, while providing protection against changes made to signed comments by one or more anonymous IP users. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really worth a protection, imo. -Barras talk 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of content dealing with 38th and 39th parliaments in the Ontario Legislature

Just read your info on this and the references to the official opposition leader in both the 38th and 39th parliaments are incorrect. I was the opposition leader for a good chunk of the 38th and around 2 years for the 39th. You have listed John Tory in that role. For much of the 38th John Tory was not a member of the legislature and for the 39th he was NEVER a member and hence, COULD not be leader of the opposition. That was my job and hopefully you will consider correcting those references. Thank you.

Bob Runciman

Senator, Ontario, 1000 Islands and Rideau Lakes — This unsigned comment was added by 24.114.76.209 (talk • changes) at 19:10, 19 August 2016‎.

I think this was meant for the English WP. I've made a change there. Debouch (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of RfDs need closing

Would an uninvolved admin please close the oldest two RfDs? I can't close them because I initiated them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

this — MBlaze Lightning T 📧 09:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that's bad enough to block for. It's a bit rude, sure, but there are worse words that could have been used. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salting?

The articles Playhouse Disney and Kids' CBC have each been deleted numerous times in the past two weeks. In order to further prevent project disruption, I am requesting that the article titles be salted. If someone wants to re-create these articles in a way that meets our policies and guidelines, particularly those related to notability, I think they should be able to do so within userspace, and then request that the title be un-salted to allow a page move. There may be additional similar article titles that should receive similar treatment. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a rangeblock yesterday (edits appear to be a long-term pattern of abuse), but it seems that the same editor has managed to get around it. (ISPs and their whimsical IP allocations *grumble*) I have semi-protected both articles for now, because the creations have all been by anonymous/very new users, and will look into the possibility of an abuse filter. Chenzw  Talk  02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New LTA case

We have a new LTA case. The individual or individuals involved are changing articles about places (Puerto Rico, Italy, Ukraine, so far) using an edit summary similar to "official government update" or variations of this. Many of our active editors have made some reversions to these changes, but wholesale changes to Puerto Rico somehow slipped by. These changes significantly changed the legal structure of Puerto Rico, the languages, the demographics, and the history. The editor or editors have used a variety of IPs, especially IPv6 IPs, and at least one registered account, so a simple block may not be enough to stop this abuse. I'm asking that those involved in anti-vandalism work be especially vigilant when checking changes with similar edit summaries, regardless of whether the change was made by an IP or a registered user. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  11:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Puerto Rico has continued since the above was posted. Requesting semi-protection of the article for a suitable period of time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for one month. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to...

... Albert Szent-Györgyi? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ndash was changed. I've reverted and protected the template. Considering it's transcluded on 1165 pages... Only (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA promotion

Per WP:Proposed good articles, people who have reviewed Hebrew calendar have said that an uninvolved admin could close this as promoted. This was about two weeks ago. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 3 weeks has passed since Mac and I gave our support for promotion, and that there have been no objections thus far, I have taken the liberty to promote the article to GA. Chenzw  Talk  05:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

this — MBlaze Lightning T 📧 18:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Mac blocked it a day ago. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  11:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salt request

To prevent continued project disruption, I am requesting that the article name "Yuzu" be salted. It has been deleted six times since mid-August. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Semi-Protected for 1 month. --Enfcer (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Meanwhile, perhaps one of our more established editors would like to create an article about the fruit by this name. It is a citrus fruit, similar in appearance to a lemon. It is already on our List of fruits, which may be part of the reason it keeps getting created as a nonsense article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Import request (two articles)

Hi. Will someone please import en:Purim and en:Tisha B'Av to my userspace (as User:StevenJ81/[name]). I plan to work on these to simplify them for our wiki. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Have fun --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TY. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orphaned articles

Can someone please delete the empty categories under Category:Orphaned articles. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for pointing them out. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add an entry to a wikipedia page content list?

Hello, Wikipedia,

With reference to the following Wikipedia link; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Leche_League

I would like to include 'Ireland' in the content of this topic.

My question is: How do I add 'Ireland' to the existing content list? I wish to place 'Ireland', in the content list, after 'Greece'. Which would mean that 'Ireland', instead of 'Israel', would then be number 4.13 and the succeeding countries would consequently all move up by number.

Once we have 'Ireland' in the content I then wish to add some information on the history of LLL in Ireland.

Any help would be very welcome. Regards John

—This unsigned comment was added by Chorusman (talk • changes) 08:16, 4 October 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I've placed some links on your talk page that might help you get started. (This page is for requests that specifically need administrator attention. General questions can also be asked at Wikipedia:Simple talk.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open RfD

One of the nominations at WP:RfD has been open for nearly two months. I am requesting that an uninvolved admin close the discussion. Since several of our most active admins have weighed in on this particular group nomination, it will probably require action from someone who doesn't normally close these discussions. While it is perfectly acceptable for a nomination to be kept open for longer than the usual seven days, this one has been open for quite awhile and it doesn't seem like there is consensus to either keep or delete the templates that are the subject of the nomination. Additionally, it appears that the reason these templates are not being used is related to technical issues that may be resolved in the near future as WikiData matures. If there was consensus on this project for non-admin closure in these cases, I would close it myself, but alas, that is not an option either! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

Hi can you protected page Leonardo da Vinci by exciv vandalism Apipo1907 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for one week, because some of the vandalism was from registered users. Full protection shouldn't be a problem because it's not likely that there will be any breaking news about someone who lived 500 years ago. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of 500 years, what matters is that the page is often vanalized Apipo1907 (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make is that we don't usually fully protect pages, because that prevents all edits. However, in this case I thought it unlikely that anyone would need to make even a valid edit, so I did the full protection anyway. Other admins: feel free to change that if you see fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN violation by Macdonald-ross at the article Human

Macdonald-ross reverted all of my valuable edits to the article Human (my edits made the article more correct and more informative),[7] and then he manually restored only some of them.[8] He might have done so by using (and thus abusing) his rollbacking power. I then continued to edit the article. Macdonald-ross then reverted all of my valuable edits to that article yet again, including new contributions that I hadn't made before.[9] That couldn't be a more clear violation of the WP:OWN policy. I therefore recommend that Macdonald-ross be blocked for a few days, both as a short-term preventative measure against WP:OWN violations during those few days, and as a deterrent against making WP:OWN violations in the future. Awqard (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits you made, I see some that were helpful, some that made the article more complex than necessary, some cosmetic changes (for example, adding serial commas), some that should probably be referenced, and some that were ungrammatical. I don't know if those were the same things that Mac saw, but maybe he was sacrificing the good edits because of the not-so-good ones.
There haven't been enough of these edits within any one calendar day to technically qualify as an edit war, but there is at least the spirit of one. Here's what I propose:
  1. Revert the article to the way it was before you made any changes.
  2. Copy the article to a sandbox under your userspace and work on it there.
  3. Ask Mac what specific concerns he has with the changes you make. Discuss those concerns in good faith and work toward agreement. If there are points you can't agree on, ask for another person to look at it.
  4. If you both agree, move the changes to the main article. If not, get another person to look at it.
User:Macdonald-ross and User:Awqard, are you both willing to do that? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you want to let Macdonald-ross off of the hook for his violation of WP:OWN, and you furthermore want to reward said violation by restoring his OWNed version of the article, and you want to make me jump through hoops to even have a chance of undoing his disruptive editting to the article, and then you [hilariously] ask if that is acceptable to me and Macdonald-ross. Obviously it is very acceptable to Macdonald-ross, and not at all acceptable to me. You already knew our answers to that question before you asked it. Just forget about the whole thing. Awqard (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what I had in mind. When I said "Revert the article to the way it was before you made any changes", the "you" was plural, referring to both of you. I meant for the two of you to discuss the areas where you disagree and come to some kind of agreement. The requirement is not to revert more than three times in any one day, but editors can show good faith and discuss things after only one revert. You both participated in a de facto edit war. Macdonald-ross could have better explained his reasons for reverting, and you could have asked for an explanation before redoing your changes. I don't see the two of you as one being right and the other being wrong.
Anyway, that was my suggestion. I was trying to encourage cooperation instead of blocking either of you. Since you don't like it, I'll leave it to other admins to weigh in if they like. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I personally would like to know why Mac decided to revert first, then following up with manually restoring those changes. I don't think reverting another well-meaning editor with "prep to edit" is a good reason at all. For that matter, next time such a similar thing happens, will both editors please discuss this issue on either the article's talk page or their respective user talk pages? Such disputes should be escalated to AN only as a last resort.

By the way, administrators are chosen by the community, whom they hold to high standards. Other editors should feel free to weigh in on this matter as well, if they wish to. It wouldn't be right to give the impression that administrators are "defending our own" over here. Chenzw  Talk  03:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I was thinking that only admins would be able to issue sanctions of the type that Awqard seemed to be looking for. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the changes made by this editor turned perfectly good English into less good English. In many places he added more words, but the words did not improve the sentences. As a matter of principle, if the text of a page is in generally good shape, changes should improve its comprehensibility or content. Otherwise, we end up with a page which is a patchwork of oddities - death by a thousand edits. Stylistic consistency within a page is a good objective, not a bad objective.
*Changes to the spelling (eg colour to color) and incorrect orthography of scientific names are clear-cut errors or contraventions of guidelines.
*The reason I used "prep to edit" in the edit box is that, out of all the changes, there were some edits which needed to be preserved. It was just an editing technique to achieve that. It is no good an editor complaining that I made unexplained changes when he made unexplained changes in the first place!
*I did not write this page originally, and have no ownership feelings about it. My only motivation is to have our most important pages written as clearly as possible. The editor is wikilawyering [10]. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering indeed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly problematic articles by socks of a globally blocked user

Alec Smithson (talk · contribs) is a globally blocked account who repeatedly still returns to multiple Wikipedias as an IP editing from Northern Italy using multiple IPs, but the majority of them resolve to Telecom Italia and Wind and begin with 79, 82, 87, and 151. He is known for creating hoax articles and articles which may be about real people or places, but which make false assertions about them which are completely unsupported by the references. A blatant example is Antonino Natoli of Patti, who is not a recognized saint at all. It was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia [11] and stubbed on the English one. Compare also his article Carlo Biotti with the properly referenced en:Carlo Biotti. Nothing he writes can be trusted and he often pastes copyright material verbatim into articles. He is particularly obsessed with creating and editing articles related to the Natoli, Polli, and Biotti families and obscure Italian artists. I strongly suggest you go over all his edits as well as those of the IPs he has used here and his known socks here, e.g.

If I find anymore problematic articles, I'll add them here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping watch on this user's actions, and have followed your advice.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peterdownunder. Alas, he has also been busy as Special:Contributions/95.236.137.94, whom User:Chenzw has just blocked for 48 hours as another sock of Smithson. However, he created two articles before he was blocked. Philippe de Nanteuil (Natoli)] is complete tosh. See the English WP version of that article, en:Philippe de Nanteuil. One of Smithson's persistent goals has to been to spuriously link the Italian Natoli family to French nobility, although the Nanteuil family are not nobility either. See en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordship of Nanteuil. The same IP also created Giuseppe Natoli today, not a hoax but full of spurious claims. Compare to en:Giuseppe Natoli. Yet another IP, Special:Contributions/82.56.91.25, has created De Nanteuil today, again nothing but red links and many of them spurious. Smithson will obviously keep this up here and probably increase his efforts since Simple WP, unlike English WP, still allows article creation by IPs. Do you want me to keep posting here as I find new articles created or edited by Smithson's socks? I imagine it will be very often. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep posting, our admin team is small, and we appreciate the extra assistance.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peterdownunder, I'm afraid this IP-hopping nuisance editor may test your resources, then. I removed some stuff at Giambattista Pittoni, most of it added by EthanSanders (blocked on en.wp as a sock of Smithson). Special:Contributions/79.54.153.200, who has also edited that page, has contributed to Helena Jurisic; that's a typical Smithson special, with some real fact obscured by acres of unreferenced and unreliable material. I assume that all the other Italian IPs there are Smithson too. I don't know if she meets your notability requirements, but that's probably a page created by a globally-locked editor (I don't know your deletion rules ... ). In case it's of use, there's a list of Smithson's contributions to en.wp here, under the heading "Troublesome editor clean-up". That clean-up has been a marathon, and is not yet complete. Containment has become a lot easier since Voceditenore got involved. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information and assistance.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela

Can you semi-protected Nelson Mandela for excisv vandalism? Apipo1907 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done at this time. Will definitely keep watch on this page, only 3 seperate IP address in the last 2 days, and only a handful of changes, we usually prefer to have more then that to protect. Vandalism levels, usually rise to such a level that normal editors have a hard time keeping up with the reverts, is when we issue protection. I have   Warned user. Since only 1 warning had been issues, and had a couple of cases of vandalism. --Enfcer (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enfcer already   Done by Macdonald-ross. See the protection Log for more information before to trated a request. Apipo1907 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apipo1907, the protection was done 3 minutes before Enfcer's edit to this page. It is entirely reasonable for someone to have missed the protection during this 3 minute window. Chenzw  Talk  15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzw that'is good, I understand. Apipo1907 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Apipo1907:Thank you Chenzw you are correct. When I looked, and initially declined it was not there. (Also can't believe I forgot to sign my original post here). In fact my additional warning to the user was 1 minute after it was protected. So this is a case where multiple Admins looking at the issue, and coming to 2 different conclusions. Which happens, and is no big deal.-- Enfcer (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

[12] — MBlaze Lightning T 16:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Chenzw  Talk  17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template sandboxes

Just put a bunch of pages in Category:Template sandboxes. Most of these look to have been created when the main templates were copied from en and then never touched again. Thinking they can probably be deleted but I wasn't sure if it mattered one way or the other. Thought someone here could take a look and make the call. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see these cleaned up periodically, partly because they can clog Special:UnusedTemplates. I think if they're identical to the main template, not used anywhere, and weren't created too recently, they could be deleted. If they don't meet those conditions, then more consideration is needed. However, when I proposed this a while back, there was no interest in keeping on top of these. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once they are created there is no point in deleting them, as deleting them sends the message that they shouldn't be used. While it is a shame they clog up the unused templates page. There really is no point in deleting them. They exist to exist. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it sends such a message. If that's an issue, though, they could be deleted with a reason that makes it clear that that isn't the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime an editor sees something deleted it always sends a message that it wasn't wanted, good message or not. Either way the whole purpose of a sandbox is to sit there and be used when needed which was really my point. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request: Elizabeth II

This article has been vandalized by at least one (maybe more than one) IP recently. May I suggest editing protection to stop vandalism? I only suggest it to be temporary, as it would probably prevent positive contributions as well, which is inconvenient. There is the talk page, but still; 24-72 hours prehaps should be enough? MPD (Talk to me!) 11:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A school IP which has been blocked for vandalism in the past, 212.219.73.253, created Vincent du Vigneaud as this. They then immediately changed it to a nonsensical verbatim copyright violation by copying a movie script about bees [13]. I turned the article into what it should have been about, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, [14]. My question is, what is your policy on leaving copyvio in the history? Does it need a revision deletion? Note I've also reverted their vandalism to two more articles today [15] and [16]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the violation, and it has been revision deleted. Please leave a warning message if you delete any further vandalism --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now left a level 3 warning for the two subsequent articles vandalised. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

There are several subcategories in Category:Unreferenced BLPs that can be deleted. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Thanks for pointing them out! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Disney movies

I'm not very good at vandalism stuff. Hoping someone can help with what warnings or actions should happen in this case since it's persistent. What I've found is Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2C95:8C0:58E3:79F5:8564:7108 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2C95:8C0:CDF2:80E9:F464:C195 so far today. Looks like it may be the same person and might be the same as other 2602: edits from earlier this week. --Tbennert (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And add Special:Contributions/162.201.80.140 --Tbennert (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to block on sight with this stuff.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked for 31 hours, however the IP's have been blocked on enwiki for 6 months. I will do the same if there is further vandalism.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 It can be hard to tell what's really vandalism with these. What can we use for an authoritative source? The only places I know to check are IMDB and enwiki, neither of which can be considered reliable. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check is sufficient here as these are not cited, I found a few searches could not establish any sources. Just block on sight.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On some of the earlier edits I went to Youtube and watched the credit screen just to be sure enwiki and IMDB weren't wrong. The changes seem to include some of the same people over and over and I checked those actors home pages or fan pages. None of the changes were valid.--Tbennert (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now blocked the range that this vandal has been operating from for a period of six months, this matches a similar block on enwiki.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now using another IP range, have blocked some individual addresses, and adding limited page protection. Continue to block on sight without warnings.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following another round of such nonsense earlier this morning (by Special:Contributions/107.77.198.11), I have applied a 6 month range block on 107.77.196.0/22. Chenzw  Talk  01:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Some heavy handed blocking and page protections seemed to have worked for the moment. Please watch the Disney articles for any further similar edits, as I am sure this vandal will find another way in.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection

I've noticed quite a few articles getting indefinite protection lately, and it seems to me that many of them don't really need it. Is it time for another review of everything that's indef'd, and maybe a discussion of when and when not to indef? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Indef should be used extremely rarely, like I would be surprised if it happened more than once or twice a year if we were doing it the proper amount. We should see what is indeffed and review. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three points: Previous discussion established that our protection was so low-level that it would not inconvenience a regular editor, even if not registered.
Many of the pages indefinitely protected are data pages which change rarely if at all, and require competence to edit properly. Others are sensitive BLPs which are otherwise frequently vandalised.
Many of these pages had been protected before for shorter periods, and re-vandalised as soon as they became available.
The daily workload of vandalised pages and bad new pages is enormous. The arrival of floating IPs, and the effective protection on English wiki is feeding in vandals who are hard to control.
It would make more sense to restrict indefinite protection provided we protected at a higher level, which would have the beneficial effect of inducing some to become registered users.
I am often shocked to see how long a serious piece of vandalism has stayed on our pages. At least some of the time we cannot keep up with the flow of edits meant to damage our pages. There's no point being pious about protection: it is just a good way to keep IP vandals off some important and sensitive pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to consider our approach to page protection, and its relation to the "anyone can edit" principle. At the very least, I personally think that indefinite protections in mainspace must be reviewed regularly, and as the protection policy states, applied only as a last resort (i.e. when enforcement through blocks/rangeblocks have been ineffective). We might not even need a formal review process - other sysops could just look through the list of protected pages from time to time and exercise their own judgment (see Croatian Liberation Movement for an example).
As I previously mentioned on AN, one of the reasons we see vandalism staying on articles for a long time has to do with ChenzwBot's 1RR principle. ChenzwBot's new algorithm is pretty accurate when it comes to picking up vandalism, and the bot's internal logs reveal that, out of 6700 detected edits from May till now, 25% of such detected edits were skipped on purpose to avoid violating 1RR.
By the way, Mac: can you please clarify what you meant by the "higher level" protection? Chenzw  Talk  10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Semi-protection of a page stops unregistered editors (IP addresses) and editors with accounts not more than four days old or having less than 10 edits from editing pages". Well, so far as registered editors are concerned, this is scarcely any barrier. It could be raised.
I should make the point that protection of a page does not stop IPs writing on talk pages. Why don't they do that? It is a weakness of this wiki that so many write directly on the page instead of making suggestions on the talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is sort of the point, semi-protection is meant to be almost no barrier at all. Its only intention is to filter out those who can't even be bothered to take the time to register and do 10 edits and wait 4 days which is probably about 95% of vandals. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed we are talking indef full protection, as such there is no higher protection and as such the protection being talked about is not low-level, and it prevents us from following our mandate of anyone can edit when used too often. There are definitely times it is needed, but those are few and far between. Those pages would be the ones that either get vandalized by multiple editors multiple times a day or are templates used on hundreds of pages. The average page that gets vandalized every other day or so should absolutely not be protected indefinitely. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_49&oldid=7786170"