Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 51

People have been vandalizing Wikipedia all the time...

...so I wonder why this page hasn't been protected indefinitely from anonymous and new editors. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We almost never protect a page indefinitely. That's because a basic tenet of Wikipedia is that as many users as possible should be able to edit everything as much as possible. On this particular page, all the vandalism today was from one unregistered user. There is always a preference for blocking vandals instead of protecting a page, and that user has been blocked. Before today, the level of recent vandalism wasn't enough to protect the page. I know it's frustrating, but we do have these kinds of things that we have to consider. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And the vandalism has continued. If the page does not need to be protected indefinitely, the page should at least be protected for a long time. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And again, vandalism reverted immediately. Its like you aren't hearing what we are saying. Protection is almost never done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The last change to the page was a very serious case of vandalism. Should this be enough for an only warning? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but note that this edit was from a registered user. As such, vandalism that severe warrants indeffing the user as a vandalism-only account, even though we don't usually do that after only one edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Claimed sockpuppetry

Could another admin look into the deletion tag at User:Rehmat_Aziz_Chitrali? Rachitrali (talk · contribs) claims it's a sockpuppet of someone else imitating him. I looked into it quickly and see that they're both blocked as socks of the same user at English Wikipedia. I don't have time to look more into it, so could someone else? Thanks! Only (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted because it wasn't the owner who created it. It doesn't look like either of the editors have made many edits yet, so I think no further action is needed, for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If more action is ever needed here, please keep me in the loop. There's a related issue at LangCom and in Incubator that I am involved in. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can promise to remember that you want to be in the loop. You might want to watch the two users' user and talk pages (you can do that even if they don't currently exist) so that you'll see if anything changes there. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:188.141.7.213

Should we have some protection on this to stop it being created again? It's been deleted five times. J991 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It is only the second time today that it has been created. I placed a Single issue warning about user pages in violation of policy. If this continues, then a block would be in order. Protecting a user page of a non-registered user seems counter productive, unless it is being created by a different IP, and then it is still questionable. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Global banned user recreation

Stuart Styron has been recreated three times by the globally banned user Styron111 (User:Registar5 latest sock). en.WP has salted it and the draft, so worth adding to the blacklist. Widefox (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox Large Edits

Some IPs have been adding millions of bytes of nonsense content to Wikipedia:Sandbox. Although this is a space for test editing, it still might crash other user's computers. Should anything be done about this? J991 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia a user posted to the help desk about doing exactly this on the Japanese Wikipedia. That user got blocked for "mischief" and I would certainly agree. (Quote from that page: "you increased the size of ja:Wikipedia:サンドボックス (Sandbox) from 302 bytes to 93,562 bytes to 434,475 bytes to 965,629 bytes over the space of 4 minutes in 3 edits... I think a lot of Wikipedias might assume that was vandalism!") ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't need to do anything about this because a bot regularly resets the sandbox. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah we ask that they do whatever they want there so they don't do it elsewhere hopefully. Its an outlet. And as mentioned the bot regularly cleans it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk vandalism

Please semiprotect my talk page and block the IP editing it. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec on English Wikipedia for details. Gestrid (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: A Steward has softblocked the IP range for six hours. Gestrid (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've locally blocked one of the IPs for two weeks. (I did that before I saw the global block.) I deleted your talk page, then semi-protected it so that only auto-confirmed users can create it for the same time period. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Old RFD

Would someone please close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Template:Vandalism information? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bump. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't highly sensitive pages about Wikipedia be protected...

...as popular vandal targets, such as Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and even just Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia? Literally. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call any of those highly sensitive. We semiprotect pages temporarily if the amount of vandalism gets to be hard to keep up with. That doesn't appear to be the case currently with any of the pages you mention; one of them hasn't been changed in over a month. The fact that a page might get vandalized more often than others doesn't necessarily mean that it gets vandalized frequently -- that's relative. If you see a page getting more vandalism than you like, add it to your watchlist so you can see when it's changed. I watch quite a few pages for that reason. It can be frustrating, but we have to operate under Wikipedia's philosophy that as many pages as possible remain editable by as many users as possible for as much of the time as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please protect Hinduism

An IP hopper is repeatedly vandalizing the page. 7 different IPs are consistently attacking the page. Thanks, L3X1 (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur on this. Give the page 72 hours or so to cool off. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

LGBT-related vandalism has not stopped. Seems like something to bring to global steward attention. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected homosexuality, and lesbian (autoconfirmed needed for editing). I will also do this with gay. If other pages need protecting, please tell me. Protection is a week or two. We generally don't have many problems with hate speech on this wiki. --Eptalon (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Gay has not yet been protected. LGBT could be another possible target, but if this case of WP:LTA continues protection would be better off long term. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The other pages you refer too, have not been touched for a couple of weeks. We generally should not proactively protect pages. Protection should be primarily done, when blocks of Users, IP or IP ranges are not having an effect, or when an IP range would have a detrimental effect on the editing base. Protection must be weighed in light of other methods of dealing with a problem. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I really must question what bringing this to a steward would do. They can not act on a local wiki that has editors who can preform the required functions, unless its an emergency. And very little would fall under the emergemcy rule, that would not be taken care of in a matter of hours, and at most they would do it for a day or two, and notify us here that they have done that action, and request that we review it. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have protected gay and LGBT (edit:autoconfirmed) for a week or so. I do have to say though: There is almost no vandalism, except by known Long-term offenders (who are probably blocked across all wikis by now). Given that the subject is controversial (not everyone agrees about same-sex relations), I would also expect more activity. This wiki has very few editors, who edit different pages. For this reason, I don't believe protection should be our long-term goal... --Eptalon (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I'd sometimes like our users here to have to be approved before they can edit, that's just not the Wikipedia way. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request on English Wikipedia

Good afternoon. On Wednesday, June 14, 2017, I made an unblock request on my English Wikipedia page. To date, this request has not yet been responded to. Can someone please look into this, and let me know what they find out? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the Simple English Wikipedia and is different from the English Wikipedia, where you are blocked. Unfortunately, no one can help you here. Best of luck, eurodyne (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Black people

Seems like this page should have some kind of semi-protection. Granted, I myself have edited this article before being auto-confirmed, so this may seem like hypocrisy. Still, it seems to be getting constant trolling and vandalism from IP editors. Many of these edits are downright disgusting, some to the degree where revdel was necessary. --Joefromrandb 05:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We only protect as a last resort, however your concerns are reasonable, and the admin group are watching these edits. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As I was writing the above comment, one of the admin group has taken action.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  What Peter said. Normally we don't protect for that amount of vandalism, but I have semi-protected for three months because of the nature of the problem edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed user permission

I don't think this is the ideal place to put this, but RFP doesn't have a category for these requests. Can someone please grant my account the "confirmed" userright? I'm already tired of having to solve a CAPTCHA every time I add external links to pages, even when I'm restoring links that were removed via vandalism. Catalan (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done RFP doesn't have a category for it because we usually don't grant that right explicitly. After your account is four days old and you have made at least 10 edits (which you already have), you will be auto-confirmed. Then you should be able to do those things. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: So you're saying that until my account is 4 days old, I still have to solve CAPTCHA's even when reverting vandalism? Catalan (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. There isn't a way to tell what you're doing, so it's for all changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering you were blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia within hours of account creation yesterday, I don't think any of us would be comfortable granting that permission. Only (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion/sandbox vandalism

Special:Contributions/45.33.131.101 was blocked earlier today for vandalism. Recently, Special:Contributions/107.178.34.37 showed up and inserted profane language into the sandbox.

• The profane lanague and edit summaries need to be removed via RevisionDeletion
• This IP address is very loudly quacking towards the previously blocked one

A block may be needed, either for vandalism and/or block evasion. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 01:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We usually don't worry about edits to the sandbox unless they are severe, on the level of cyberbullying or threats of violence, because a bot regularly cleans the sandbox. I advise you to stop leaving warning messages based on changes there. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6 Obvious disruption aside, the 107 IP is a confirmed proxy, so should probably be blocked. 45.33 is as well so maybe should be extended. Chrissymad (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but before doing anything I'd want to verify the information: I don't block just on another user's say-so. Where are you getting the information about these IPs being confirmed proxies? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6 Wikimedia/Wikipedia has a function on every IP contrib page that says Geolocate. Once you click that, it may sometimes identify whether something is a proxy or not. It's not always correct, but if it indicates as much, a port scan can be run. Aside from that, you can also click on Global Contribs or check on the English Wikipedia, where often proxies are blocked faster than the speed of light. As is the case here. Chrissymad (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

LTA from Italian IP

Using the WHOIS tool, I have found out that several IPs registered to Postemobile S.p.A. in Italy have been responsible for some very nasty vandalism on Wikipedia project pages. I have made this case two and a half months ago and it does not seem to have stopped - perhaps a case of IP block evasion? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see it still on-going? None of those IPs have edited since April. Only (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Only See this one. There's also cross wiki abuse here as well, I can gather some info and make another LTA page here for ya. I assume this is what Gadget was talking about. :) Hope this helps and I'm not overstepping, LTAs are my jam. Chrissymad (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Fellow admins, please weigh on an issue from WP:VIP

A couple of editors (@Chrissymad and There'sNoTime:) have disagreed with my decisions not to take action on a couple of vandalism reports. It could be that I need to be educated on handling cross-wiki issues, so I'd appreciate input on this from more experienced admins, especially those with experience in handling cross-wiki issues. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6 Responding to your last comment: I wasn't implying it should be blocked because of an old edit, but that it's not punitive when there is a proven, consistent and continued disruption to the project, as I've clearly demonstrated. Take a look here for a preview of just a bit of what they've done here, including an edit that has sat since April and was nothing but their conspiracy theory garbage vandalism. Chrissymad (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• And as for why declining the block of the other cross-wiki abuse and LTA, please see this block which is directly related to what I reported for the second LTA. So not only is it cross-wiki abuse, it's a local block evasion. See also: 79.69.141.76 Chrissymad (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Chrissymad: do you know of range blocks that occurred on the English Wikipedia related to these IPs? Let me know and we can implement similar range blocks here. If range blocks were already done there, it'd be easier to just mirror here instead of blocking individual IPs or calculating out a range. Only (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Only: English Wikipedia admin and previous cross-wiki admin here, yes this has had a rangeblock (173.67.160.0/21) relating to the LTA on the English Wikipedia. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I've blocked that range for a month here as well. Is there a range block associated with User:79.69.131.175 at this time? Only (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Only I believe so but there are about 2 dozen different ranges they're in and they're all mobile. Give me a bit to look for them. Chrissymad (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Chrissymad. That's why I'm hoping there's a range block already in existence that we can just mirror here, otherwise it'll be a little effort to get the appropriate ranges; if we've already done that work on English then it makes it easier/quicker here. Thanks! (Note: I'm not going to be around most of the rest of the day and off and on in the next few, so if no one else implements a block in the next few days, let me know on my talk page and I'll look into it). Only (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Hello, former admin/global sysop here. Personally for each of the two cases I would have collated the other IP addresses involved and calculated rangeblocks; this would not be punitive for the reasons @Chrissymad: has already outlined. With regards to the warnings (or lack thereof): the point of warnings is to try to get a vandal to cease and desist before a block becomes necessary; these are both cases of long-term abuse, so warnings will almost definitely be futile, which is why LTA blocks are usually issued without need for them. With regards to cross-wiki abuse generally: cases of cross-wiki abuse across multiple projects are best handled with locks or global blocks, but if the abuse is limited to only two projects (as seems to be the case here), then local blocks would be more appropriate. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• For everyone's convenience, I've created two LTA pages for these IPs in question, with only their edits to Simple Wikipedia, to demonstrate the need for not only a single block, but a range block and for admins to be a little more discerning when experienced editors report LTA and cross-wiki abuse. User:Chrissymad/IPBlankersimpleonly | User:Chrissymad/ACALTA (these are in no way complete, I got tired of looking at ranges after I got so many hits from the first 5.) And to clarify, I'm in no way upset my block request was declined; I'm concerned by my experience here and what seems to be either a willful ignorance to Wikipedia norms and policy or incompetence and I think allowing such behavior to continue, both LTA and others, is only continuing to serve as a great detriment to this project. Chrissymad (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can only really echo the above - I'm shocked and disappointed at the level of incompetence shown here. It's not a one off, and if it continues we should be worried about the future of this project. Coming from the English Wikipedia, I can appreciate things are different here and would like to take a moment to thank all the anti-vandalism patrollers and content creators who have kept things going the best they can. I've only been active with the Simple Wikipedia for less than a month, but in this time have seen enough to deeply worry me. I take no joy in recommending the desysop of Auntof6 as they are making fundamental errors of judgement, are unaware ofe key Wikipedia policies and are negatively affecting the project -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your experience in dealing with LTA and crosswiki abuse is helpful to our small admin team. However to describe us as wilfully ignorant, or incompetent, are comments that do not help. Our admins have a range of skills and experiences that assist this project, if you can bring new skills to positively assist us with the project then we can all move forward for the benefit of the whole project.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peterdownunder: I appreciate your comment, but would just like to clarify that I don't find everyone here to be anything near the words I use above (in fact, the majority of administrators here are a joy to work with, and I have a feeling you fit into that category) - this is aimed directly at one individual. As for helping out here, we're trying but there's only so many times I and other experienced editors will put up with silly roadblocks -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think User:Auntof6 is far too easy on vandalism cases. But she's a very good administrator, and I would not in the least support desysoping her. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there - perhaps you could link to a couple of examples of good administrative actions? As far as I can see, there is very little administrators have to do bar anti-vandalism so not being competent at that is a real issue. Goes without saying that being incompetent at a role isn't the end of the world, it just means the role isn't suited to them - having reviewed Auntof6's earlier edits it's clear they're a talented and committed editor, but perhaps she should have remained as such. Adminship is not a big deal and shouldn't be held on to for dear life - I stand by my suggestion that the community calls for a desysop, and allows Auntof6 to request it again when they can show a valid need and the required competence for the tools -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we are overlooking one other aspect of LTA & Crosswiki Vandalism. Not only can a range block be issued at the individual project level, but globally by the stewards. In fact it is often more productive to reach out for for those blocks as they protect all projects. And if an individual project feels that the user is a beneficial contributor, they can be white listed local by an admin. I know when I block an IP, and then notice that another IP any where in a /16 range, I try to at least issue a short term block on that range. That being said, Auntof6 does block IP's. I am not sure what technical level Auntof6 has, but figuring out an appropriate range is a somewhat technical function. It is not a requirement of an Admin to know everything about all tools, and not to get involved beyond their comfort level. That is why we have other Admins. If one feels something should be done, another Admin can do it. We all have had other Admins review our actions, and have even asked what we were thinking. But by no means, does that make any one Admin a bad Admin, or less capable. We never ask anyone to do anything beyond their comfort level. I would suggest reaching out to Auntof6 in a civil manner, and seeing if a side conversation on how range blocks work would address the range block issue. Also not all Admins work on other projects, and as such, may see cross wiki issues, as a lesser issue, and only focusing on what happens on this wiki. Looking at the request for RevDel, that is definitely a LTA-Sock that has been plaguing this wiki. I have been blocking on sight for Sock-Puppetry and or LTA anytime I have seen them, and local checkusers are working on it also. As for desysoping, I do not see the need. You are applying En.Wiki standards, to a non En.Wiki project. We are separate and have a different set of guidelines. None of which I have seen that would cause a need for desysoping. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
in a civil manner - I can only apologise if my statements have been seen as anything other than a civil concern into the administrative efforts of the project. I was asked to contribute here to help out with an influx of vandalism, and only want to see your project grow into a quality source of information - the only thing which matters here is the reader, that's why we do all this. Auntof6, I apologise profusely if you believe I am attacking you on this matter, and I would happily help you understand some x-wiki global policy if you're not familiar - it was wrong of me to assume you would just know. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Its ok, you have fallen into the trap far too many en.wiki editors make coming here. We are very very different from there and have very different standards for many situations. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this wiki need so many vandal warning levels?

I wonder if there's a central Wikimedia rule that all wikis have to use four levels of warning templates. If there isn't, then I don't understand why this wiki has copied the very elaborate Enwiki system with four levels and lots of different templates. This wiki is meant to be Simple, and that system is anything but simple. I understand and agree with "assume good faith", but I think in most cases of unhelpful editing, one warning plus an openness to dialogue would be enough. A good faith editor would either stop and do something else when warned, or ask a question about why their edits were bad. 95.250.150.56 (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The warning levels are fine in my opinion, it's just how they are interpreted - you don't need to follow the consecutive warning system for someone who is obviously a x-wiki LTA. They should be blocked on sight, warning or no warning - the issue here is lack of active admins (an LTA is currently having free reign whilst the report is sat at VIP) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In so many cases, most disruptive editors get the message before we go through the all the warnings. For many young editors, they may miss the first couple. It is a guideline however, and not a firm rule, so admins have the discretion to block at any time, with or without warning.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I do feel, however, that sometimes we are too rigid with making sure each user gets levels 1 to 4 before they are blocked. It's okay to start at level 2 or 3 sometimes when the user is blatantly a vandal or they've made numerous bad changes before someone got around to warning them. Only (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally see no issue with the warning system - For me if they're a blatant vandal they'll get a Template:Uw-vandalism4im and then a report at AIV if it continues or if I give a Template:uw-vandalism1 and they blank their tp and carry on vandalising then I'd go to AIV - I tend to shortcut the system on all wikis if I feel it's necessary - It's all about common sense really - If you know they're NOTHERE then it's pointless giving them 4 chances to pack it in but anyway in short I think the system is fine here. –Davey2010^Talk 13:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question - I've had some times that my warning is after a Level 4. Am I supposed to report at VIP? Because it is usually over several days, so it's not really "in progress". --Tbennert (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example User talk:93.44.195.252. User:September 1988 already issued all the warnings, plus there were more that I reverted. I didn't leave a message because hers were there for the same day. Tried AGF after several more reverted changes over a few weeks. The IP continues to input the same information on several articles. --Tbennert (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. If it's a named account then definitely report to VIP. For anonymous users it depends upon the edit pattern. If it's clear the user is likely the same person again (maybe they're editing the same articles or making the same type edits) then report. If there's a long pattern of edits from the IP that are vandalism then report. If it's unconnected edits and it's only the second or third spat of edits from the IP then I say start with level 2 and report if it reaches level 4. Note: this is my belief of how we should work and operate. Some admins might require them to receive a full set of warnings each different day. I don't agree with that. Only (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Good summary -Peterdownunder (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor here, but I remember seeing vandal reports declined at VIP because the warnings were started at too high a level. There was no question that the edits were blatant vandalism. I don't have a diff, sorry, but I'm sure others have also seen this. Shouldn't the admins come to a consensus and tell everyone else to be consistent? 95.250.150.56 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if that consensus includes a time after which existing warnings to an IP are considered too old, could a bot be used to remove them from talk pages? It could delete sections that only contain standard templsate warnings. Maybe after 24 hours with no edits from that IP, unless it is blocked? Hard to see the point of a permanent wall of shame, if warnings need to restart from the lowest level in any case. 95.250.150.56 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It's important for us to see past warnings to see if there's a pattern there more easily. I'm not going to go through every past edit an IP has made, but if I see on their talk page that there's warnings from May and March and January, I know that this account has had problems before. Only (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Warnings are 100% editor judgement. No one has to follow any set number of warnings depending on the situation. However, more often than not atleast one should be given. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

83.24.99.100's edits

Can others please look at the edits of 83.24.99.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and clean up some of their mess? I'm on mobile right now and not comfortable handling some of the cleanup that's needed on my phone. It'd be easier to handle on an actual computer. The user is already blocked, but made a mess with archives and such. Thanks, Only (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of it all now. -Peterdownunder (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't take care of the clean up, but wanted to at least stop it with the block. Sorry to leave it to others to clean up! Only (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion needed

The edit summaries of this revision and this revision need to be RevDel'd - they are completely obstructing the page history. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 13:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are valid revdels. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request for African-American people

Should be semi-protected - has been vandalized by multiple IP's within the last few weeks. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The level of vandalism has not risen to the level of even the last time it was semi-protected. We only semi protect if blocks, and or the amount of vandalism is more then the local community can handle. This is not the case at this point. It is worth keeping an eye on this article, but right now is not enough to warrant being semi-protected. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Class assignment - Shanghainese food

An FYI for interested admins/editors - it appears there is a class assignment going on at Shanghainese food (see Mr Spear's user page). So far the following accounts seem involved:

• Rocket*Charlie‎
• Intelligent.Candy‎
• Iron-Shark Tony
• Cindy050512

I'll leave a link to WikiEd on the instructor's talk, though I'm not sure they support this wiki -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems your Schools Gateway is really well done and should suffice -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: I'm a little concerned with this (see the recent history of this page) - I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a class assignment and instead a recently blocked good hand bad hand editor finding a legitimate way to bring in some socks (given the technical data would be rather similar). I'll assume as much good faith as I can, but normally argumentative behaviour like that points to something malicious going on. Would be happy to hear your thoughts (also, join IRC some time?) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume some good faith here. We'll all obviously be keeping an eye on this set, though. I was also a little taken aback by the combativeness. We shall see. We will also have to figure out what to do about the article eventually. Might need to be merged into the main Shanghai page.

As for IRC, I used it for awhile a few years ago, but wasn't a major fan. Only (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: The next time you want to bring something to the attention of all editors like this, not just admins, it would be better to post at WP:Simple talk instead of here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Will do, thank you for letting me know - I think perhaps now it may be a good idea for some admins to have a look at it, but you're right I should have posted to Simple talk initially -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Combating sockpuppetry is, of course, a valid concern. It should have been mentioned with the initial post here to alleviate the bad impression you're going to cause inexplicably and unusually listing children's accounts. (No similar list or treatment is dealt with here and educational projects are listed elsewhere if there's a need for that.) Before I post any extensive reply to the assume-no-good-faith, bite-the-hell-out-of-the-newbies treatment I just endured, though, Auntof6 and Only, is there some good policy reason that my previous posts and concerns here have been deleted by TNT without any warnings or admonitions being directed their way? One swallow doesn't make a summer, but they certainly don't seem to have the temperment for admin work unless you're very shorthanded. I explained precisely my valid concerns, linked to the valid location for the accounts in question, and had them removed amid accusations of vandalism. Mr Spear (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Spear I would strongly recommend amending your edit to remove the reference to them being children's accounts as no one else here had any idea of age and that borders on outing. Chrissymad (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not 'outing'. They listed that on their own pages and I, on their behalf, would request better treatment than what I've received here. This has been atrocious from beginning to end, which is a damned shame given that they were really enjoying the experience of sharing their culture in another language. Mr Spear (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 (change conflict) I've struck my last comment after viewing their user pages. Mr Spear as their teacher, I would strongly advise you ask them to remove personally identifiable information from their user pages as they are public and it is viewable by all and in fact, should be oversighted. Chrissymad (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How about you lot just stop jumping up and down on the newbies and focus on improving the project instead of harassing new users until they abandon it in disgust? It's fine to have sockpuppet concerns, but this list should be at the education project if anywhere, which was my entire concern in the first place when being accused of 'vandalism'. Mr Spear (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Spear The privacy of minors is a global issue and one based in policy. I have not been nasty with you, nor warned you. I have pointed out that as a teacher of children you should understand that them publishing personally identifiable details about themselves on a public website puts them in danger. Chrissymad (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad You have absolutely been civil and largely correct in your concerns. This is actually a safer forum since, afaik, there are no PM functions and I can even see deleted postings on their pages. My actual concern is precisely the unpleasant abuse that is continuing to occur from unpleasant users. You're quite right that none of it has come from you, and apologies some ire got directed into my response to your valid concerns. I agree the list should be elsewhere, if anywhereMr Spear (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Spear I fail to understand your issue with the list. As this is a public encyclopedia, the content is viewable by anyone. Condensing it into one notice on a noticeboard is kinda what the purpose of a noticeboard is. Chrissymad (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad Precisely the increased risk of these kids getting drawn into needless unpleasantness. They're listed on my page and at the page they're working on if admins are concerned about SOCK or issues with that particular page. This entry is only needless, as you say, outing that serves no terribly compelling administrative purpose.Mr Spear (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your combativeness has been the only atrocious thing here - I welcomed you, you called it spam, I notified the admins here so that the confusion which happened on one of your "student"'s accounts wouldn't happen again, you removed it, I reverted you and left you a message detailing why, and you flew into some childish rage. I'm not convinced you're a teacher, and if you are I pity your students. Grow the fuck up and go "teach a class" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So, for the adults in the room, is there a different forum for deadministration requests? I know I'm a new account here, but this one is failing WP:ADMINCOND pretty badly. Mr Spear (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator here, however for a new account you're rather good at using x-wiki links - you're a sock or a LTA, no amount of good faith is going disguise that one -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, my mistake, but I guess that's a bullet dodged. Mr Spear (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So, how many accounts have you had? You're way too proficient at markup to be a new user, so you're not fooling anyone - shall we get a checkuser? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to review WP:SOCK. If this account gets involved with any fishy voting or editing, you're correct to consider it problematic. In the meantime, being able to cite chapter and verse regarding your misbehavior (my comments remain deleted above, apparently without admin warnings similar to those I received) isn't against policy.Mr Spear (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah so you've had/have previous accounts, and are aware that they could be technically legitimate per WP:SOCK as long as they are not disruptive? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned above but as a heads up to the admins, I just reviewed Tony's talk page and found out he had created something like five four other accounts. That looks fishy, I'm sure. He's just going to be using this one and you're welcome on my behalf and his to delete those other "Tony" accounts. He'll just be using this one for my class and doesn't really have a reason for any others.Mr Spear (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB request

Can someone please review my request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It already shows you as a authorized user AWB Checkpage -- Enfcer (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It was my understanding that I needed to make a new request for each instance I wanted to use it. --Tbennert (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tbennert and Enfcer: You have to have each kind of thing you want to use it for approved. If the specific task was already approved, then you should be fine. If you're asking for permission to add the municipality-type links, I'll approve you for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I read it, and didn't completely process it. After re-reading it, yeah, I realized my mis-read the first time. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks on lesbian related pages.

Lesbian related pages should be protected to prevent these socks of long term abusers from messing with these pages. Look at the history below, it's ridiculous.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian_feminism

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbianism_in_erotica

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian_kiss_episode

--— This unsigned comment was added by Wikihistory (talk • changes) at 20:55, 8 July 2017‎.

I think if you checked the pages you would see that were protected several weeks ago.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

working for Simple English Wikipedia

I've been on Simple English Wikipedia for near seven years. I wanna become an administrator sometime between August 2017 and June or July 2018. I wanna help the Simple English Wikipedia in more ways than one. However, right now, I've gotta work on five articles, three I userfied myself, and two that got userfied by somebody else (I ain't gonna mention their name). The problem, though, is I don't know exactly which words in those five articles are complex. I need help simplifying these articles, and if I don't have help, I cannot simplify these articles that I created between May and July of this year. Can someone help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@September 1988: Is there a particular reason you addressed this to the admins? I don't see anything here that specifically requires an admin. As far as helping with the articles, please be patient. You asked me for help with three of them less than half a day ago. I userfied the other two even more recently than that. People here can't be expected to immediately have time to help you with five articles. I'll look at at least a couple of them now, and I'll address some other issues on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Import template

Hi, Apologies if this in the wrong place,
Could an admin import this template from EN please?,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Enfcer (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Enfcer much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010 I think I got all the sub templates that go with it also. Let us know if I missed any, and one of us will get it added. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much!, Nope I think all works fine so thanks for doing that - much appreciated :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Can he do that?

Hi. Hope you can help. A user (Stevietheman) deleted most of the contents of our organization's wiki, The Western Kentucky Botanical Garden." He said in his comments it was too brochure-ish. Is this something he has the right to do? Can I block him from doing it again? Our article was stub and incorrect. I simply added up to date information for anyone who might want to visit. Please advise and thanks. I'm currently trying to revert to the old page. Thanks! — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:fcc8:ae85:fd00:fda1:cede:99d1:c19f (talk • changes) at 20:15, 11 July 2017‎.

You are on the wrong Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. The changes you mention were on the "regular" English Wikipedia. You need to ask for help there. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing Auntof6 said. Additionally, yes he can make those edits and you cannot block him from doing so. I agree with Stevietheman, though; your edits were not what's expected from an article and it did read like a brochure. Only (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs a block

Specifically, User:Doyouimplyacalp?srfsrs. I blocked him on en-wiki, and he came here to tell me something unsavory, which y'all could maybe rev-delete. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. By the way, the usual place to report vandalism here is WP:VIP. That helps us keep all the reports in one place. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

flood flag please

Can I please get a flood flag for an approved AWB task? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tbennert: Please be specific. Exactly what will you be doing, how many changes will there be, and how long will you need the flag? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be making the changes you approved at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for municipalities. I have no idea how many changes there will be, if I could count them I wouldn't need AWB or a flood flag. It is possible I don't technically need the flag but I cannot be sure. I do not know how long it will be, and I may do it in a few batches. I won't make any other changes. Once done I will request the flag removed. Thank you.--Tbennert (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, with expiration of one day in case we forget. To activate, you need to log off and back on. You'll need to do the same when the flag is removed.

Note: it's really helpful to the admins if you can specify the task and duration with your request. The info won't remain on the page you linked forever, and it's helpful for us to know if we're going to need to stay up late or something to turn the flag off -- we're in all different time zones after all! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Tbennert: I've removed the flag since you seem to have stopped editing. Please be sure to log off and back on, and let me know if you'd like any help resolving those duplicate links. If you need the flag again, just leave another note here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like to know how to get AWB to count the number of pages that you'll be changing, I can tell you how I've done that in the past. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser insight still needed

MiloDenn removed the discussion about checkuser insight when he removed his unblock request. I want to make sure that the need for checkuser input doesn't go forgotten because of the removal of the conversation. To summarize, two vandals/impersonators, User:MiloDinn and User:Caleburn, were blocked. Seven minutes after the MiloDinn block, User:MiloDenn requested an unblock saying he was caught in an autoblock caused by the block of MiloDinn. He said he knew who the vandals were and that they share the same proxy server network. User:Peterdownunder has stated that he looked at some of the checkuser data but is seeking a second opinion. @Eptalon, Bsadowski1, and Djsasso: could you take a look at the issue and offer a second opinion?

MiloDenn is back to editing normally, but I am very concerned that someone is sharing a proxy server with two vandal accounts and is editing within minutes of those vandals. Only (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes - this would be good. I would like to clear my name as soon as possible. Also @Only: I would appreciate it if you could just chill a bit - this is Wikipedia not a criminal investigation! I am entirely happy to cooperate, but can we do so calmly please. Yours as ever, MiloDenn (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how I've been anything but calm. Only (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I am fairly stressed at the moment. I didn't really want to share this but basically I have really bad depression, and at the moment in particular it is really bad (hence why I am on here, as it relieves some of the stress). I would really appreciate it if you could tell me what is going on as soon as possible, just because this is one of the few things that I still have and I really want to know soon. Thanks, and apologies, MiloDenn (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Only I think the question also needs to be asked why the proxy isn't blocked and IPBE requested? Chrissymad (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point I am not seeing a proxy, though that could just mean its not a public one, which means it isn't something we would block. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I just was alerted to this as I was heading to bed. I want to give it a good look through so I will take a look in the morning when I have a more clear head. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, was on vacation so not online all day like usual. -DJSasso (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@MiloDenn:, I would like some more information on who you say did this and why you think they are using the same proxy as you. In other words do you have a friend that is sharing a proxy with you personally? Or are you using a public listed proxy? Feel free to send it as an email for privacy reasons. On first glace it seems silly that someone trying to sock would impersonate themselves, but it wouldn't be the first time it has happened. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: In talking with MiloDenn the proxy is moot as they are in the same house so would have the same IP anyway. It is definitely a situation that could be seen as blaming some mythical person who also lives in the house. That being said I am inclined to believe him, as he would have to be incredibly stupid to impersonate himself to cause mischief. I am however leaving it up to the admins who started this case to decide on whether or not to block the user. There is no checkuser information that would help with this case. He admits freely that they are in the same location so the fact that their IPs etc match is not surprising. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello all, here is my take on it: What I see are a few different IP adresses; these IP adresses are used by MiloDenn, and the two blocked users, there are also a few edits as IP. The IPs are operated by a hosting company, so they could be shared. My take on it: the two users causing mischief have been blocked, and there doesn't seem to have been more problems. This wiki being short in manpower, I think, we don't need to do more than we already have. If we notice that there's vandalism/mischief for the IPs, we might require the users operating from there to log in. Plus perhaps add a block exemption for the legitimate user.--Eptalon (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So to summarize: Unblock Milo Denn; if there is more trouble block the offending user(s), and disallow anon editing from the IP addresses in question. And yes, the vandalism from my IP addesss was the unicorn sitting next to me... :)--Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You are a little late to the party, he is already unblocked and editing. Even tried to do an RfA. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Import template

Hi, Could an admin import this template from EN please ?, Templates in this template may also need to be created or imported tho, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... --Enfcer (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Davey2010 Looks like just the main template on this one :). Let me know if there is more. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks Enfcer :), –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for help here made at English Wikipedia

Could an admin here please take a look at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Looking for someone with admin rights on Simple English and or Commons? Help needed here was made there. Od Mishehu (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Replied there that IP has been blocked here for 72 hours. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

118.148.154.106's edits

This IP, 118.148.154.106, has created several articles. These articles usually compare different topics, for example, Australia and New Zealand, and to me, the articles seem quite unnecessary. Could an admin look over these articles, and if necessary, delete them?

I also apologise, I don't know the talk page guidelines for the Simple English Wikipedia. (I edit regularly on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) Zhangj1079 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zhangj1079: Thanks, articles have been deleted. What talk page guidelines would you like to know about? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Assuming etiquette is the same as the English Wikipedia, is Simple English required in talk pages? (yes?) Zhangj1079 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say required, but I would say heavily encouraged. We try to be in everything we say and do here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

TohaomgBot

After discussion on User talk:TohaomgBot I had an impression that admin Djsasso is interested only in finding excuses to block my bot (first he blocked it after only six edits, then blocked it again after I asked if we can omit the trial period, because every other wiki did). I would like to know what other admins think about this. --Tohaomg (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who blocked it the first time. Since you did not take the time to find out what our policies were from the bot page first, and you are already blocked on Commons for not going through there Approval process, it show that you do not follow policies, or think they do not apply to you. Each project is different, and because some decided to not make you go through a trial, that is their prerogative, but we always have a trial period, to ensure proper functionality. -- Enfcer (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will go through trial period, but was it that hard to write "No, we can't omit it, it is compulsory" instead of "You dared to discuss my decision, you are blocked"? --Tohaomg (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write that. I didn't block you, I denied your bot. Your trying to use here before getting approval, and then your flippant comment about not needing a trial, and now I see commons also blocked you leads me to a very comfortable decision not to approve your bot. Next time I suggest finding out what the procedures on a wiki are before you just do your own thing. Bot operators need to be some of the most trusted editors on a wiki because they can cause a lot of damage quickly if they go rogue or even through plain ineptitude. Showing you couldn't take the time to find out the proper procedures, and then trying to side step them when given a second chance to show that your bot works causes there to be a problem with trust. It is already hard enough to evaluate a user who doesn't edit here locally. So when our only interaction comes across so poorly we are always going to err on the side of caution and not approve. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

English-language projects (en.wikipedia, simple.wikipedia, commons) have developed an enormous bureaucracy (commons has astronomic size bureaucracy, so I preferred my bot being blocked there to dealing with this bureaucracy) when you need to ask administrators permission for your every step, which then causes administrators to develop Napoleon complex in their minds. Any other non-english project (including the top-20 of them) have everything easy and understandable, I nearly never faced there difficulties (for some of them even not knowing their language), as I do in english-language projects. Administrators there are happy to help and always assume good-faith, unlike in english-language projects. If I, being an experienced user, broke the leg in your rules, new users will do it for sure. This will, or already did, force new users to abandon editing which will make your project stagnate in the future. Think about it. --Tohaomg (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Tohaomg, there are quite a few things that are different on this Wikipedia, as compared with English Wikipedia or others. We usually don't give rights until a user has done a fair amount of work here and presumably become familiar with some of those differences and with this project's practices and procedures. In view of that, I think it's quite reasonable to require trials when bot flags are requested. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to deny a bot based only on the operator's lack of experience here: when I checked a few minutes ago, you had only 13 edits here, plus half a dozen or so by the bot.

Personally, based only on your comment saying that you didn't think you needed a trial, I think I would have just said you should do one anyway. Maybe asking to waive the trial, with an actual question, would have come across better than saying you thought it wasn't necessary: it's hard to perceive "tone of voice" online, so the way you responded could be perceived as argumentative, or "flippant".

Your best path forward might be to do some work here under your non-bot account, including but not exclusively the type of work you want to do with the bot. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archive

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sammycanter82

Sammycanter82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked on en.wikipedia for adding nonsense, decamped here to do more of the same [1]. Vandalism only account. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely, thanks for reporting! Please make any further reports at our equivalent of AIV. :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Slvarma reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: )

Page: Nair
User being reported: Slvarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for 3rr

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Conversation regarding how to go about editing this article

Comments:
User continues to edit war after being thoroughly explained how to go about getting consensus. Chrissymad (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User has been indeffed by Caliburn. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Chrissymad reported by User:Slvarma (Result: )

The user Chrissymad is doing revert on every valid edits in the name of vandalism. The user can't provide any proof of vandalism. The user is obstructing the right to update the article. Please check the history edits of Nair page, if any vandalism found please block me, i strongly believe Chrissymad is a sock puppet or meat puppet.Slvarma

Slvarma If you'd like to continue casting aspersions and making claims of sock puppetry, I'd like to invite you to file a report at WP:SPI with your evidence. Thanks. Chrissymad (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If an article is being discussed for deletion, then the tag on the article has to be truthful.

At this time, at [2], a page (that is up for deletion) says that:
"A discussion page has not been created yet! Because of this, the page won't get deleted as no one knows it is up for deletion. Click here to create a discussion page!". In a indirect way, I have found that there is now an ongoing deletion discussion.
I am removing the deletion tag: One can not have an ongoing deletion discussion, while the article to be deleted says that the deletion discussions, has not been started.
Please keep an eye out on the complex that is being discussed. (Good faith aside, one can not rule out that "wikipedia:don't try to make a point" and "don't disturb wikipedia", are being violated by my opponent in the discussions.)
Of course, I expect that someone will put a corrected deletion tag, in place. That's fine. Sju hav (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion page does and did exist, at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Category:Lists of scientists by nationality. Sometimes there's a cache issue that prevents the RfD notice from showing the correct message. Purging the cache of the page with the notice fixes that problem. Even if your cache doesn't show the link correctly, the discussion is there. Now that you have the link, you can see the page and go there to give your opinion if you want. If this kind of thing happens again, please don't remove an RfD tag yourself. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Block review Purplebackpack89

I warn him to Unblock Purplebackpack89 from the Incorrigible socks yet if he want him to unblock and unban Purplebackpack89 as well --209.249.5.130 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

To closing admin at ongoing deletion discussion: Vandalism

Does wikipedia have adequate policies - and implementation of such - to prevent IP's editing comments made by wikipedian's?
Please check this out [3]. Sju hav (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

All is well for now: Moments ago, a wikipedian reverted the vandalism. Sju hav (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Yes, that was me. There is no way to control what part of a page can be edited, so this kind of thing would be handled by the usual revert process. I have added the page to my watchlist so that I will see any edits to the page. You might want to do the same.

I see that the same IP editor has also vandalized a page in your userspace. If you want, that page can be semi-protected so that IP editors cannot change it. That can be done with any page in your userspace except your talk page. If you would like that done, just leave a note here saying which pages you would like protected. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism from Postemobile S.p.A. static IPs

This is becoming all too common where an IP hopper has been attacking our website by writing pure nonsense and offensive words, such as "b****", especially on project pages like WP:Simple talk. Please do a search for "Postemobile S.p.A." in the user talk namespace to see all the affected IPs and investigate whether this could be a case of WP:LTA. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi,
My article about Human geography was deleted today. What would be needed so that I can get a copy of that article on a user page? I am thinkig about working further on the article. Thanks. Sju hav (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I will restore it for you. Stand by. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's now at User:Sju hav/Human geography. When you're ready for it to go back to mainspace, either ask an admin to move it, or move it yourself and ask an admin to delete the cross-namespace redirect that will be created. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My article was not "a redirect"; Restoring the article or getting a copy

Hello! I have written a stand-alone article Sami people of Norway, which has been deleted. (Some text from the article came, from other articles on wikipedia.)

The justification for deleting the article, stands as "07:31, 23 August 2017 ... deleted page Sami people of Norway (we already have Sami people, and this wouldn't be a good redirect)".

It is not a redirect. It is a different article (or a stub), that goes more in-depth about the subject of the Sami people in Norway; more in depth regarding Norway, than the article Sami people. (There are at least three different "national timelines" (in Finland, Sweden, Russian and Norway) about when herds could not be brought across various national borders; when Finland, Sweden, and Norway each pushed their state religion onto the various Sami ethnic groups. (One can argue if there are more groups than one.)

Please restore the article, or tell me how I can get a copy of the article. Cheers! 90.149.60.57 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Google has a buffered version of the article [4]. There one can see that it is a different article, and not a redirect. 90.149.60.57 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the page for now, so you can work on it. I did however note that a lot of content is shared between Sami people and Sami people of Norway. This was the reason why the page was deleted. I would recommend working on the latter as to make it sufficiently distinct from the former, perhaps moving more specialised detail from Sami people to Sami people of Norway. Cheers, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:HowToGetBanned4

Special:Contribs/HowToGetBanned4 could use some deletion. Please do not click its links just in case. Thank you, MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Pages deleted. User is globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

87.217.121.235's page creations

This IP, 87.217.121.235, has been creating several pages that consist of only infoboxes. After being warned by DaneGeld earlier today, the IP continued to create these pages, and I gave him an only warning (which I thought might have been too harsh). Could an administrator please look into these pages, and if necessary delete them? Thank you in advance. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the articles. The only warning wasn't called for. Only warnings should almost never be used. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright thanks. Good to know. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Those pages were created before I asked the user to stop, at 22.29 UTC. I gave the user the chance to go back and write something on the articles, or I would ask for them to be deleted. You started the QD process about 1 hour later, but as far as I am aware, they didn't write anymore new pages after I asked them to stop. DaneGeld (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:URL

Hi there, I've started a discussion on the usage of the {{URL}} template and how it relates to the recent activity with KolbertBot and the migration to HTTPS. Please feel free to join the discussion here. Thank you! :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

RFD 5 days past closure

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Category:Lists of scientists by nationality and assess whether consensus can be determined now or if it should be extended? It was due to close 5 days ago on the 12th. Pinging @Peterdownunder, Caliburn, Chenzw, Enfcer, and Djsasso: you're the admins who have closed RFDs in the last month or so who aren't involved in this RFD. Thanks, Only (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any clear consensus, and discussion looks to be still active, with little sign of slowing down, so I'm extending by 5 days, from now, if everyone's okay with that. :) Regards, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Caliburn: any chance you (or another admin) could assess? It's well past the extended date. Only (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Could someone try to evaluate and close this now? Some of the lists now have a reasonable number of blue links now, and I'm OK with keeping those. The others, if any, I leave to the discretion of the closing admin. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone over the lists, and some of them are actively being worked on. I have left a comment that can be used in a week to assess which of them to delete. --Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have now closed it; basic idea: At least 4 blue links to scientits means the List gets kept; the other lists get re-grouped into a few "super lists", in the hope to get at least 4 blue links (to scientists); after that the individual list of scientists form ... can be deleted. I think that is the best decision to keep the info, and yet avoi short lists with only red-links. Note that also we are missing countries (we have guyana, but are missing Suriname; French Guayana is part of France). I might have forgotten to place the archive template on it. --Eptalon (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eptalon. Let us know if you need help making those changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion possible?

:Hi!

"My" article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists, based only on the wiki-English article about the one person mentioned; an article that has no independent sources.

I can not see anything in the English article that makes me sure that she is wiki-notable.

I am not concerned about "losing points" or whatever, in the current "category deletion discussion";

I have already lost a few points by creating an article,

and not catching on before now, that there seemingly are no independent sources.

If possible, I would like the article speedily deleted. (And if later someone finds notable sources (indicating notability), then I will gladly restart the article.) Regards! Sju hav (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am making another article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists - this time with two "red-link scientists" who arguably are clearly wiki-notable.

(I thought about the improvements, after I suggested deletion.) Sju hav (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge University

Please WP:REVDEL the copyright infringing revision of Knowledge University under WP:RD1. The content was copied from various pages on the University's website. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad usernames?

Are these usernames unacceptable: Gay Yong Hernandez and Poojasaha1981? I think the first one's OK actually, but I'm suspicious about the second, especially as the user vandalized. J991 12:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pooja is a common Indian name, and the first one sounds a bit Singaporean to me. And I can't see any vandalism, only a mistaken attempt to add a link to English wikipedia. Did the second user create some bad pages as well? 78.149.17.179 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are real names, so there's no need to take action here. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One arguably small disagreement following other disagreements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved. The administrator's reversion of the "arguably non-invasive edits" upheld. Editors are urged to resolve disagreements on their own talk pages before escalating this to a community noticeboard. Chenzw  Talk  16:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found a page, that does not seem to be a user page, but a project page. One administrator has more or less made claims about who owns the page; at least she (or he) has reverted my arguably non-invasive edits.

I am somewhat curious if the administrator corps, will land on that she is entirely correct, and that I am entirely wrong (in the particular case);

with the rest of the corps closing one's eye, to that matter.

For the record, on the talk page for the project, I have said that my (non-invasive) change, was my only expected change.

At present I have at least one (other) disagreement with the administrator: Not least, that she has made a statement about me on another Wikipedia, that was unfavorable and arguably not substantiated. Be that as it may - that might be a backdrop. (She has not repeated the accusations about my edits on Simple English wiki, for now.)

• Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/Notable Female Scientists Sju hav (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point of this thread. You had a disagreement with an admin. Disagreements happen. There's nothing that other admins need to do here. Only (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As the ambassador who worked with the schools project team, while it maybe a "non-invasive" edit, it is also an entirely pointless edit. House keeping on a completed project page is just a waste of your time, please find something that needs fixing.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@user:Peterdownunder: You were ambassador for some school projects: Has that given you any insight into how (you might think) my edit is unreasonable? Sju hav (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The administrator linked to (or showcased) the article (again?) on 9 September 2017 at "Simple Talk". (It is arguably not valid to argue that the "school project" is a forgotten project, or argue along those lines.)

Perhaps not a strong argument, but she made edits to that poject page, some months ago. (So she might not be a neutral observer. Not that I am saying that it is clear that she is claiming ownership to the project page.)

I would like for administrators to conclude if my edit was reasonable or unreasonable.

Regarding user:Peterdownunder's unsolicited advice about which reasonable edits, I should not be doing on Wikipedia: It is none of his business, when (or if) I choose to do reasonable edits. Sju hav (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about when you say I made statements about you on another Wikipedia? I don't remember even looking at anything related to you anywhere but here, much less saying anything.

As for the school project, it is not forgotten, but it is finished. I did edit that page earlier this year: I was helping with the then-active project, and the project owner asked for help to fix a typo I had noticed in the page name.

I advise you to drop this. One administrator (me) has advised you to leave the page alone, and two others have declined to support your point of view. Find something to do that actually helps the wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. As far as you claiming (on my talk page) that I have been rude to User:Peterdownunder on this page, then I disagree. (However, I did give him an opinion in Simple English, about an unsolicited opinion of his.)

Are you ruling out that you might have some challenges in the "Have Good Faith" department and the "try to be polite/civil" department?

Case in point: "Find something to do that actually helps the wiki".

If you are able to lose your grip on the mentioned project page, how will that hurt wikipedia?

I would recommend that you consider to let others view if you are a neutral person, in respect to that project page. Sju hav (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: One challenge I might have, is to differentiate between your opinions and those of another wikipedian from "Simple English".

I stand corrected on one point: You did not run your mouth off about me, on another wikipedia. Sju hav (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not "run my mouth off" about you; I stated facts and my opinions on your disposition as an editor in my position as an admin on both Wikipedia projects. You're coming very close to exhausting patience around here and finding yourself blocked per our reciprocal block policy. Only (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I started this thread about what I view as a mistake by an administrator, on a project page.

About she being the one that I have a disagreement with, on another wikipedia (about my edits in general, on Simplewiki), I have recanted.

Please feel free to start a thread about things that have nothing to do with the mentioned project page,

or about things that have nothing to do with one or more wikipedians, allegedly being impolite or non-relevant in the discussion on this page. Sju hav (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"What was said on another wikipedia, does not belong in this thread" YOU are the one who brought up what was said on the ENglish Wikipedia TWICE. Are you so dense that you cannot see that? If you bring something to a noticeboard, you need to expect that YOUR behavior will be examined in the discussion on the noticeboard, especially if you demonstrate those behaviors in that thread. Seriously, you're exhausting to deal with. Only (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Possible POV material

I would like to request that an admin review the recent changes being posted by an IP user (92.12.204.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), such as the recent changes to Brunei, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone, and others. A common thread is the addition of the following text (or variations of it) to the articles: "It is smaller than the Pakistani-administered Disputed territory of the Free state (government) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir respectively." It may technically be correct that the various countries are smaller than Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but it's not really relevant. The additional text feels like an attempt at introducing POV material into the various articles, but I'm not familiar enough with the politics of the region to be sure. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't helpful. I recommend reverting (but probably not rolling back) these changes and leaving a level-1 vandalism warning with no specific article mentioned and with text added to explain the specific issue. (The level-1 warning doesn't mention vandalism, it just says that the changes weren't helpful.) If the changes continue after that, we can revisit. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice this when I posted above, but the user is three or four days out of a 3-month block for long-term abuse, and that was imposed only a week after coming off of a shorter block. Nonetheless, I'm adding the warning now, and will start reverting the articles. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done The material has been reverted and a generic level one warning (with additional comments) has been applied to the IP talkpage. There remain some articles written by this IP user that should be reviewed, preferably by someone familiar with the politics of the area. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I remember correctly, a IP from that range had issues with taking a pro-Pakistan stance in the past; So far, we were not able to communicate meaningfully with the editor(s?) in question. So reverting and leaving a warning was probably a good reaction. --Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Attractor321's changes.

Hello. I'm bringing the user Attractor321 to the Administrators for assistance in relation to their editing behaviour. The editor seems to have no concept of how to write articles in Simple English. Two of their articles have already been moved by administrators into userspace, because they were seen to be far too complex to have in this Wikipedia. The user is now editing another article (Potential energy), and is in the process of making it just as complex as the others that were moved. I do not want to move into issuing warnings, because I am assuming good faith - it is obvious that they want to write - but with both Auntof6 and myself having tried to speak to them about it and having no response, I do not know what else to do. Any input from the administrators is welcomed. DaneGeld (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I just had to userfy one article and re-userfy another. I also removed the complex changes from two or three articles. I have asked Attractor321 not to move the userfied pages to mainspace without getting another editor to check them first. He/she currently has 5 userfied articles. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on his/her edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Disney vandal is back

As the previous blocks and page protections have now expired, the Disney vandal has returned. I have blocked IP:73.190.250.162 but will expect to see more problems. Typical vandalism includes changing the dates, and adding wrong names to the credits. I will consider semi protecting all related pages again if necessary.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but might it be time to consider permanently semi-protecting some of our most frequently vandalized pages? The pages referred to here might be candidates, and I'm sure we could find other candidates. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I could support such a proposal with the caveat that we need a process where an IP could request that the article be unlocked for good cause. Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia) is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Since creating an account is free and simple to boot, I think we can meet that requirement while still generally requiring an account in order to edit certain articles that have a history of frequent vandalism by IP editors. That said, we need to be mindful that people in some countries don't have freedom of speech, and they need to remain as anonymous as possible in order to keep their government from punishing them for what they write. Creating an account is akin to creating an editing history that can be used against them in some future proceeding. This would serve as a disincentive to edit for folks in those circumstances, and violates the ideal of "anyone can edit." Perhaps a notice on such pages (or at least on their talk pages) that the article is indefinitely semi-protected, that editors with accounts may edit it, and that IP editors may request an article to be unlocked by contacting an administrator. An administrator could then unprotect the article for a period of time. Said admin would be responsible for checking the edits and re-protecting it after the editing is done. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We already can do that, it is just that we have almost no pages that get the kind of vandalism where that is needed. The main article that was vandalized by the IP above hadn't been edited in over a year yet alone vandalized for example. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)