Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 52

User:SLBHwildcat 5: Accusations of vandalism towards myself and Zhangj1079

Hi Administrators. I'm bring SLBHwildcat5 to you. As a new editor to the site, they have already entered an edit war with myself and Zhangj1079, removing informational notices, accusing us of "vandalism" in edit summaries (removing notices we've posted, as if they were vandalism), continually blanking their page and have also undone a revert by Zhangj1079 on Child after warning the editor that he wasn't to remove material from the wiki without a good reason. I would ask for your assistance pretty much as soon as possible, since I fear vandal warnings won't cut it with this one, they'll probably get removed like everything else. DaneGeld (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page if they wish. We shouldn't create an edit war with them by continually adding it back to their page. Only (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to dispute that, @Only:. This started as the editor issuing a warning without cause, we tried to explain why it was wrong to do so; they had 3 edits and basically started to go for it as if they understood everything immediately. It was clear that they did not know what they were doing. We tried to provide information, to suggest they go learn how to edit here and write material in simple english, and they just blanked it all and marked our edits as vandalism. And we're in the wrong for creating the edit war? DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what I'm doing. This is like my 10th account. I obviously am smart enough to get away with using that many accounts without being blocked. I admit to running a sockfarm. My other accounts, on this site as well as English Wikipedia, include Eurodyne, Auntof6, Bongwarrior, JayBFive, GoFlamesGo, JohnnyHockey, MarkGiordanoFan5, TeensAreNotChildren, BazBomber, CluebotGN, TheScholar9... I don't even remember all of my accounts. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5

P.S. I am only 14 years old, therefore my ageism edit is obviously a fact. — This unsigned comment was added by SLBHwildcat5 (talk • changes) at 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

 (change conflict)  Whoah there. Are you admitting to sockpuppetry, as well as accusing Eurodyne and Auntof6? This is serious. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I just put back the content on Child that was previously reverted by Zhangj1079, but I used Simple English. I have been reading the notices, but I removed them because I don't think my actions warrented warnings. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5

Zhangj1079's edits didn't warrant a warning either, but you still went ahead and gave him one. I suggest you pull back a little and don't accuse others without good reason. We, neither myself or Zhangj1079 are vandals, and don't appreciate the way you just blew our messages off like they didn't matter. We left them for a reason. DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What about Only's warning? @SLBHwildcat5:? Did your change warrant this warning? Your change was described as not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. This means that your change was opinion, or biased against a side. Was your change neutral? I think not. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 20:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, my edit to Child did not warrant a warning. The ageism edit is obviously a fact, as I am only 14 years old yet I am intelligent enough to handle achieving straight As while running a sockfarm, which includes several administrators.

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have indeffed this user, so we can all stand down now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet, so keep vigilant in case he returns.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, Peterdownunder, as they have stated that their socks include Eurodyne and Auntof6 (extremely unlikely), can I ask whether you are obliged as a CU to verify those users too, even though they're admin, or are we safe to assume SLBH is just trying to kick up a stink? DaneGeld (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a silly question, however there is a range of evidence that a checkuser examines when looking at sock puppet claims, so I am not obliged to verify all claims if there is little or no valid evidence to support them. Without such evidence a check is just "fishing" which I am not allowed to do. In this case, a number of socks have been confirmed and blocked where there was evidence to support a check. Just for the record, admins are treated like any other user, and are not exempt from investigation if there is evidence. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. In fact, there was a recent case on Commons that shocked many people when an established admin was revealed to have been socking. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: For the record, I considered those claims about socks, as well as the claim about age, to be purely disruptive. That was part of why I indeffed the user. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a CheckUser for this case. This looks suspicious, and I think that we should ensure that these admins aren't socking.

Single4Life (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Single4Life

A Quck update here too: Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 edit at different times of the day, because likely they are located at different places in the world; also, both have admin status, so they have a lot to lose. Both have pretty much all the rights used in everyday life: Supposing that one was the sock of the other, what would they gain? - Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 have the same rights. In short: If they were discovered, their loss would be much more than their gain. As they have the same rights, neither has a reason for impersonating the other...--Eptalon (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Knights of the Round Table

This page seems to be a target for vandalism by many unnamed editors. Should it be protected? J991 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Typical rule of thumb for protecting is many different editors vandalizing multiple times a day. That article doesn't really have that much vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fiona Bennett

Dear Wikipedia Admin

I was delighted to see someone had created a page about me and I set about adding some more up-to-date information but this morning, I found it had all been removed. I am struggling to find a way to contact the people who created/added to the page and I wondered if you might be able to help? Thank you in advance, Fiona Bennett. — This unsigned comment was added by WelshMusicMum (talk • changes) at 08:14, 22 September 2017‎.

@WelshMusicMum: This is not the Wikipedia where that happened. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and the changes you mention were on the regular English Wikipedia. You need to ask about this there. Sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock by User:5.150.113.43

Hi administrators. Further to the help I received this morning from Peterdownunder, DJSasso and others, concerning material needing an RD2 on my user and talk pages, I notice one of the IP's blocked for "bad behaviour" and "harassment" has appealed the block, asking for evidence. Before reviewing that request for unblock, could I please ask administrators to view the evidence I gathered together of the edits where they "banned" me from their talk page, and their edit to Danegeld which was abusive to me. The changes are in a pastebin which nobody else can edit, and I have posted it off wiki to prevent any ip's editing my comments. Many thanks for your help, DaneGeld (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the unblock request, and there is sufficient evidence to uphold the block, before I saw this here, so unless another admin reviews it and feels otherwise, the block is still in place. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Adam braidwood

Photo was uploaded by a user without my permission. I am the owner of the original photo. I do not object to its use however prefer i am credited as the photographer. — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 24.244.32.42 (talk • changes) at 06:27, 27 September 2017.

I don't see any recently uploaded photo here. This Wikipedia actually doesn't host most files anyway, so you probably need to pursue this on the site where the upload happened. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing they are talking about English Wikipedia. There is a picture there for someone with that name. I suggest emailing their help at info-en-o@wikimedia.org and they should be able to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism

A lot of vandalism that would normally be reversed by Chenzwbot has been going live on the site. The bot seems to be having issues and Chenzw has been less active than normal, and thus unable to keep an eye on the bot. This note is in case any admins were unaware that the bot has been off more than on lately. Overnight edits may need more scrutiny than usual due to this ongoing issue. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Glitch on WP:AIV

A number of recent edits to WP:AIV seem to be missing. I was checking the status of a report I made and it was gone. Thinking that it had been archived, I checked the history. The most recent entries to that page are about four days old, and the report I was looking for was more recent that that. Purge did not fix the issue. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you saved the report? You can't made an edit to it since the 25th according to your contributions. There are no deleted edits since June on there. I'm not sure how it can be missing. Only (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Checking your contributions, and limiting them to just the WP pages I show your last edit to WP:AIV was on 9/25 seen Here. -- Enfcer (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked for it too. It was an IP vandal report, but I cannot find it in my own contributions either. I'm wondering if something just glitched during the save. The lack of other changes to the AIV page made me assume that something happened there, but the simpler explanation is a glitch affecting one save, not a group of them. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to SALT: Roadman shaq (and variations thereof)

Hi admins. I'd like to request create protection on the article Roadman shaq - repeatedly created and deleted over the last few weeks. Various IPs; someone somewhere must have a vested interest in getting this published, and it's junk. Can we get the ground salted please to stop it coming back? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I salted the current one for three months. What other variations have there been? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Moo cows, Danger snakes and Pikepass shaq, which while not recreated (as far as I know) are all direct copies of the text from Roadman shaq, all QD tagged by myself and still active (and all by the same IP). DaneGeld (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I tagged Moo cows and Roadman Shaq once last week as well. Didn't notice the other one. Moo cows has been deleted nine times since August 15, 2017. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Moo cows and Danger snakes salted for 3 months as well. The other one has been created only once as far as I can see. Of course, there's no guarantee that the vandal(s) won't just move on to a different name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dawn Gibson

Please remove her talk page editing privileges. It's a timesink, just like on English Wikipedia. J991 17:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take it under consideration. However, since only the admins would have to deal with anything there, I say give her a chance to make legitimate unblock requests first. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Can anybody please move page War in Afghanistan (2001–14) to War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) because i can't change the name because just in case of vandalism. Taemdm (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which is the name at en.wiki and which makes sense since it is still ongoing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Look into user Dr. K. abuse of editing moderator powers on Reincarnation article

I was working on adding a mention to Zalmoxis and the article adding citations and I got a message saying I am vandalizing and that my editing privileges will be removed. I think this is a mistake because I was honestly and genuinely trying to add valid knowledge into the article.

Zalmoxis is mentioned as being a pupil of Pythagoras by Herodotus and like Pythagoras taught a form of soul transmigration or metempsychosis and multiple source Roman and Greek over the course of hundreds of years apart attest to this. These are not fringe theories but actual historical mentions from actual historical figures. Zalmoxis is also thought to have died and resurrected after 4 years. I think Zamoxis' connection with Pythagoras and his teachings deserve a passing mention in the article. Note that both Reincarnation and Metempsychosis "See Also" make reference to Zalmoxis article as related reading (added by other users).

I started a talk see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reincarnation

According to Edit Wars article the correct procedure in people who disagree on edits should talk it out in the Talk section which I am completely open to but the user by the name Dr. K. seems to think of himself an authority on the subject and there is nothing to discuss and in fact the tone very condescending and borderline threatening accusing me of perpetuating hoaxes and that I will shoot myself in the foot if I mention this to admins

"Please be my guest but be also advised about WP:BOOMERANG. Best of luck. Dr. K. 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" if I mention this to admins.

"No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)"

I ask an admin to have a look into this issue because I believe this user is claiming a monopoly on knowledge and rejecting people's edits out of personal ideas and he is not an authority on this matter and should be open to discussing ideas that he disagrees with. I would like to make a complaint against this user and this methods of monopolizing people's edits and knowledge on the article.

This is the Simple English Wikipedia, and the discussion taking place is on the English Wikipedia. You can take this to the Administrators' noticeboard on the English wiki. --Eurodyne (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I will do that. Trollworkout (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving request

Can you move Category:French Prime Ministers into Category:Prime Ministers of France like similar categories in the Category:Prime ministers? Wwikix (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Move done, working on updating the contents. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Return of articles

Please place the deleted articles back onto my userspace as you suggested on the talk page! LikeGannets (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) I was told to make this request here and have done so! LikeGannets (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI to admins - this user and User:‎Dopenguins have recreated all pages deleted, I'm guessing with the exact same content. May be the same person on both accounts. --Tbennert (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Both are blocked for sockpuppeting and a third. Will have to go through the pages to see if anything is worth redeleting. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also deleted their versions and in most cases brought over en.wiki versions with an import. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling User: and User talk: pages

Yesterday, I did some patrolling of User: and User talk: pages. There were a couple of things that popped out that I wanted to share for administrators' action (or decision not to act):

Multiple accounts

• MANSI121999 and Jyotii1234 appear to be the same user
• Shivam (Actor) and Shivam Kumar Shrivastava appear to be the same user

Inappropriate user names

• It feels to me like New account help Create would be a confusing user name, in that it looks like some official help account when it is not
• There's a talk page at [[User talk:WhoTheF---Cares11]], an account that was blocked because of its inappropriate user name. How long does that talk page have to stay there before it can be deleted itself? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Talk pages are forever. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• And users are all blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:84.45.238.145

Can someone please review the block on Special:Contributions/84.45.238.145. They are the same person as Special:Contributions/5.158.88.106 and Special:Contributions/86.17.0.200. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Request create protection on a page

Hi, can this page: Nekhbett be indefinitely create protected? It's been created repeatedly in the past for some reason. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been created several times, but not often enough for salting. Even if it had been created often enough, we don't create-protect pages indefinitely. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: That's okay, I understand that policies can be different across wikis. But could you please also take a look at DING DONG THE PREACHERS DEAD and Smartass Books and see if these are created frequently enough to warrant some temporary salting? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I've fully create-protected them for three months. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to Salt: Pickle ricks

Resolved.

I've QD tagged this at least twice, I believe it's been gotten before by someone else and this is only in the space of a few days. Any chance it can be create protected for a bit please? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 22:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Noticing of vandalism at Template:Birth date and age. Wwikix (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't be. That template has been fully protected for over five years. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Age was vandalized (this wasn't protected) but an IP reverted it, so I think this is a non-issue now. J991 16:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now protected it (edit:autoconfirmed); there is no reason an unconfirmed user edits this, except for vandalism purposes. J991: thanks for finding the template. --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit filters

The project could benefit from a few edit filters to reduce disruptive editing. Without getting too much into detail, a filter could disallow the creation of nonsense pages (e.g. "sjoajadojoer") and pages with commonly used attack phrases (e.g. "x is a loser"). Is there interest in putting in these measures? Even for demonstration purposes, we could just tag the edits and see what impact it could have. I have experience using regular expressions with KolbertBot and would gladly collaborate with other editors to improve anti-vandalism filters. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We do have a number of edit filters and a blacklist. Is there a particular edit you saw that didn't get tagged or prevented? Or reverted by our bot?-DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A set of additional edit filters could prevent a good portion of the vandalism. I can't see deleted pages, but I've tagged quite a few that have fit the criteria I mentioned above. A specific filter could be targeted at the revert vandalism that is becoming a frequent occurrence. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest the revert vandalism helps me catch socks but yeah there probably are some more filters we could create. Generally I prefer to be less blocking here because of having less eyes to prevent false positives. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the last thing we want is legitimate edits being caught up in the filters. With that being said, a useful approach could be to have a trial period of around two weeks for filters where the edits are only marked, not prevented.

That way we can come back to see if there are false positives and work on improving them if necessary. Loggerhead Key is a perfect example of page creation vandalism that could be prevented with more effective filtering. It's hard to make a judgement without knowing how effective they could be. I suggest we implement a few test filters for a trial period, come back and review which edits they tagged and come to a community decision on whether they are wanted or not. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sju hav ban proposal needs resolution

User:Sju hav has asked to be unblocked. I feel the ban proposal should be resolved before responding to that. Is there a sufficiently uninvolved admin who will evaluate the ban discussion and say whether there's consensus for the ban? I feel somewhat involved, but I will do it if no one else feels they can. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

12 people commented; of these 9 are in favor of a community ban (as outlined by Chenzw, two thirds of voters), three are in favor of a topic ban (version of PeterdownUnder, or of myself, one third of the voters). Thats for simple counting. 2-3 of the oppose votes are from editors that don't edit often, all of them voted for the original ban Chenzw proposed. Without these votes, it is still 6 for a complete ban, and 3 for a topic ban, so the two thirds for a complete ban does not really change. If the unblock were grated, a topic ban (either Peter's proposal or mine) would need to be set up, and a re-evaluation would need to be done, probably 3-4 months from now (end of 2017/beginning of 2018). If the community ban is upheld, the re-evaluation would be 6 months from now. --Eptalon (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the people have not commented since the topic ban was proposed, so how do we know their opinion hasn't changed? Computer Fizz (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

All I did was count, and summarize. If your opinion changes, and you don't tell us, then your changed opinion is probably not impotant enough... --Eptalon (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I just meant semi-inactive people like me. The entire community's opinion should count, not just the people who are here daily Computer Fizz (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If people want a voice in things, they need to either come here often enough to see what's going on, or set their notifications so they get email or something when there are updates to the pages they're interested in. There's only so much that can be done to get everyone involved. Most significant discussions stay open for at least a week. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest at this point I considered it a done deal due to the numbers mentioned by Eptalon and figured it was pretty moot at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I get a semi

here Computer Fizz (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 18:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I get another semi (cause I'm an idiot

Somehow I did not notice until now that my main userpage is not semi'd, so I would like it to be please. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning From Complex English Wiki

The user Cathry recently got hit with a permanent site ban on Complex English. They got banned on Russian a few years back. As they can speak English this would be their logical next stop. They often acuse administrators of conspiring with already banned wikis and edit war a lot as well. Just thought you should know. TomBarker23 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They've edited here before so we'll keep an eye out. Only (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning concerning user blocked at en.wikipedia

In the spirit of the above, may I please advise you that a user who is currently applying for permission as a patroller on this wiki, Neotarf, is indefinitely banned at the English Wikipedia effective December 1st, 2014. As Djsasso says above, we're not a safe haven for editors who get into trouble, so it's wise to know they've had issues before. I would assume this makes them subject to WP:ONESTRIKE. Many thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Neotarf has been a member of Simple English Wikipedia since early 2015 and has over 4000 edits here. I'm not sure of the point of this thread. Only (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but I am not aware of any problematic edits of Neotarf. Only Neotarf's actions on this wiki should influence the decision to block or ban him here. --Eptalon (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they HAD done anything wrong here. All I did, like TomBarker23 did above, was warn the wiki that a problematic editor from another wiki was working on ours. My understanding of ONESTRIKE is it's a reciprocal blocking policy for users who've been blocked elsewhere, working here, in that if they ever did do anything wrong, they get blocked under it. I didn't say Neotarf was to be blocked or anything. Djsasso said he welcomes anyone telling you that we have editors who've had trouble elsewhere, working here. What did I do wrong? DaneGeld (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between "FYI - this user who just started editing this month on Simple was banned this week on English" and "FYI - this user who's made 4000 edits here on Simple was banned almost three years ago on English." Because of that long tenure here, we would be extremely unlikely to use ONESTRIKE at the edit pattern that got them banned at the other wiki would have more than likely appeared much much earlier in their career here. Only (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to block obvious socks

Hi. Could I make a request to block two users, both obvious socks to the point that I'm not requesting CU. Oct232017lols‎ & Oct232017lulz‎ - lulz first edit was to Female and it was vandalism - I reverted it and warned. lols first edit was to Feminism and I did the same there. Any chance of hitting these two please? DaneGeld (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Future reference, put it on the CU page anyway. All CUs are admins anyway so it will be worked on one way or the other. I ended up finding a large number of socks going back more than a month because of it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity

Hi, I think this page should be protected. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you looking at the edit history. Pop along to WP:RFPP and put an entry there, asking for Temporary Semi-Protection (which stops IP editors working on the article, thus also stops them from vandalising it). DaneGeld (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That is this page. And no I am not inclined to protect it at the moment but I will watch it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Globally banned sock is active again

The globally locked account User:Alec Smithson has been very active here again via his numerous IP sockpuppets. 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. In addition, some of the books he cites are known not to exist. Today I just rewrote and moved this completely spurious version of en:Hastein.

Basically, you can assume that any article here containing the words "Natoli", "Nantouillet", "Nanteuil" "Sperlinga" or "Biotti" and created or edited by an Italian IP will have been by the Alec Smithson's socks and they should all be checked. Ditto articles on obscure Italian artists and art historians. The IPs he uses all resolve to Telecom Italia (or occasionally WIND Telecomunicazioni) and are located in Milan or the towns surrounding it.

There is more background in my previous notices here. See September/October 2016 and March 2017

The following recently created articles here were deleted on English Wikipedia:

• Baron Antonino Natoli, see [1]
• Gio Matteo Natoli, see [2]

There may be more. I'll add them here if/when I find them.

Other problematic articles created by these socks are:

• Naviglio Vettabbia Park (see the comments from the Italian Wikipedia administrator. The article is tagged there as containing "data imaginary, absurd or completely invented")
• Valle dei Monaci (Milan) (I don't believe a word of this one. It is not a UNESCO World Heritage Site as falsely claimed in the article. The article is mostly in Spanish, but it was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia as incomprehensible)

Also pinging Peterdownunder who has dealt with some of these Smithson creations in the past. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

More from this banned user

• Gawain d'Hastein, almost certainly a work of fiction and yet another attempt to link the Natoli family to allegedly famous people.

• Viale Beatrice d'Este a real street in Milan, reasonably well-known, but article has virtually no content and no references.

• Amedeo Natoli, deleted on Italian Wikipedia [3], no support whatsoever for assertion that "he is considered the father of the modern finance insurance industry." The two references are both to a book he wrote in 1934. The contents of the "Bibliography" section are spurious.

I'm frankly curious why Simple WP allows article creation by IPs, i.e unregistered users. This is just asking for trouble. Also, creations by a banned editor after they have been banned are eligible for speedy deletion on English WP, unless they have also been significantly edited by legitimate users. I assume that is not the case here?

Voceditenore (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Because we are Wikipedia, the Encylopedia anyone can edit, so its part of our mission to allow IPs to create articles. And no they are not speediable here unless they qualify for some other speedy reason. People here prefer to capitalize on what edits we can get if they are valid edits. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but in this case you have an "editor", globally banned for long term cross-wiki abuse, using dynamic IPs to evade their block and creating multiple hoaxes and articles which are blatantly inaccurate or linguistically garbled or both. Not sure what there is to capitalize on in this case. I'll just periodically notify his creations here, I guess. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

More articles

• Lierna. Pasted in verbatim from en:Lierna, probably needs simplifying. As per usual, the sock also added a lengthy section on "celebrities" associated with this town. Needless to say, many of them from the Natoli family, and almost all unreferenced. I've completely removed it including the garbled English introduction to the section.
• Natoli dynasty. I have redirected this to Natoli. It was full of fanciful and outright false assertions and attempts to make all the Natoli's seem like they are descended from various European noble families.

Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for Revdel on two threatening edits; not sure if to refer to WMF

Hi. Can I please request Revdel for this edit and this edit due to the content and threat made. Should I refer these to WMF? DaneGeld (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdels done and users indeffed. I don't think we reported previous ones that were almost identical. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Since those edits include personal info, I went ahead an suppressed them. -Barras talk 21:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barras: Hadn't I already done that? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Suppression is one step further than revdel. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: - WP:OS. ;-) -Barras talk 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but same difference except Admins can't see it either. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, got it. "Suppress" could mean either revdel or oversight, hence my confusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Something to remind people about again is not to post here about surpressing/revdeling edits. If you need either done please use either the Admin or OS mailing lists. Posting here brings more eyes to the edits which is the exact opposite of what we want. oversight-wp-simple@lists.wikimedia.org if it qualifies for oversight or simple-admin-l@lists.wikimedia.org if it doesn't. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia censorship

I am a public high school teacher for Houston ISD. I am a strong advocate of academic freedom and I have some real concerns over Wikipedia's treatment of any evidence or idea that contradicts Darwinism in any way. You not only censor scientist who are proponents of Intelligent Design such as Gunter Bechly, but you also have a team of volunteers who censor the very definition of ID from view of Wikipedia readers. This is absolutely fascist and is wrong in so many ways. In response I have warned all 150 students of mine that Wikipedia is a biased source of information even when it comes to more objective fields such as science. As a project I am asking my students to read the definition of Intelligent Design as given by Intelligent Design experts and compare it to the definition that Wikipedia uses. Then for extra credit I have asked my students to see if they can make changes to the definition and once they do make changes to see how fast that change is discredited by Wikipedia.But to be fair, I have not asked my students to stay away from using Wikipedia as a source because I believe in academic freedom. I have asked them instead to be very cautious. — This unsigned comment was added by 166.127.1.196 (talk • changes) at 15:32, October 27, 2017‎ (UTC).

The article on Günter Bechly was deleted from the main English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly), not here on Simple English Wikipedia. There has never been an article about him here. As far as I can see there have been no significant changes to Intelligent design here since 2013, apart from reverting vandalism. I assume this edit made earlier this month to that article was not one of your students, ditto this one to Evolution. At least, I hope not. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The article we have is 8kb long (and has been what you see since about 2009). In 2009, I asked on the talk page of Intelligent design that we need a better article. Since then, there were a few attempts. As a comparison, the article on the main English Wikipedia is slightly over 200k, or about 25 times the size of our article. Wikipedia is not censored, anyone is free to edit here. I would be glad if you could help extend the article. Two issues that may hinder your process: First of all, we try to use simpler language, were possible, and shorter an easier to understand wording - this is not always as easy as it sounds, and secondly, the principles of scientific work also apply here; unsourced statements risk being removed, especially if they are controversial. --Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Do you think it's time to issue protection to Sue Wallace, Harold Goodwin and the rest of these actor articles that are getting vandalized? This block evasion is getting pretty relentless. J991 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I just (re-)protected the ones I saw. Let me know if you see any others. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been avoiding it because it has been making it easier to catch the person doing it because I can see new articles they target each time, if they keep editing the same articles then it makes it easy to pick them off, whereas protecting those makes it harder to see when he targets another article, won't realize its the same guy. He is hitting here and en.wiki. Unfortunately the range block I did expired over the weekend which is part of why it got crazy again this weekend. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw your previous comment about that, but as you say, it got crazy again. Feel free to remove the protection if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No no its all good, like I mentioned before, it was totally up to you. And yeah I figured by now they would get the hint. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bot error

Hello all. There was recently a bug in KolbertBot that added an extra ":" to certain Amazon links. The bug has been fixed in KolbertBot's code but not in affected pages (yet). Would it be possible to have KolbertBot added to the AWB whitelist as to be able to implement the necessary changes? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily added your bot to the AWB list. When you are done the fix let me know so I can remote it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oct302017two

They have a username very similar to some other indeffed vandalism-only accounts - anyone agree that their block ought to be upgraded to indefinite? J991 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what they do after the block runs out. I don't think running a CU/indeffing someone because "the username looks similar" is a good idea. I just removed an edit that was a clear personal attack. Since I haven't seen them yet, the block is still relatively tame. When their behaviour continues after the block runs out, we can try with a longer one. --Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to indef and blocked and another sleeper as part of the massive sock farm from the other day. See Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Request to block obvious socks. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict

Can any open administrator please give me a reason why new editors are not allowed to edit a English Wikipedia page related to the Arab Israeli conflict.

Kahkah2017 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. While not an administrator, can I please ask you link to the page you're referring to please? The Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia are two different sites, and what we do on here does not affect what they do there! Can you clarify which wiki you need, this one or the main English wiki? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Our page Arab–Israeli conflict is not edit protected, you must refer to the English Wikipedia version. Any yes, you are welcome to help improve the page. --Eptalon (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Kahkah2017 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Page “Principe di Venezia”

Hello there!

I’m Dario Ferrini

Crown Prince of Bukovina (Corvus-Gyulai Royal Family); King of The Hydaspes & Shah of Persepolis (Argead Dynasty from Eugenio Magnarin) Member of Habsburg-Lothringen!

Back in March 2017 I claimed the extincted Title “Prince of Venice”, whose now I own Full Legal Rights!

Copy of my claim can be found on Copyright.gov Case #1-4710448981

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58711927@N04/33519022441/in/album-72157688371741164/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58711927@N04/37845891131/in/album-72157681246858070/

Please stop blocking me from editing and updating the page!

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_di_Venezia

For info darioferrini@gmail.com

Regards Dario Ferrini

You are on the wrong Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. The article you mention is on the Italian Wikipedia. Please make your request there. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Jon Bon Jovi

Protection please. Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Eptalon. Only (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspicion of WikiStalking against User:TomBarker23

Please be advised that I have reason to believe that TomBarker23 may be (not definitely) WikiStalking Cathry. I stress that I cannot say if it's deliberate or otherwise. Regardless of anything Cathry has done elsewhere, Tom has left a message on Cathry's userpage informing them that he came here to say "welcome back and good luck" and that we knew about "complex English Wikipedia". That's true, but only because they (a newcomer of 16 days experience) felt the need to come here and tell us. Now, I've asked Tom outright on his talk page, what lead him to do this - I can't automatically assume bad faith, because that's wrong of me, but I have to voice my concern somewhere, because it has raised my hackles. Can anyone talk to me about this or advise me whether to take this further or shut the hell up? Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't really wikistalking to warn another wiki that an editor that had issues on another wiki has shown up on their wiki. In fact I would encourage people to do that. As for the note on their talk page, just letting them know to be careful isn't in itself a bad thing to do either. We aren't a safe haven for editors who like to get in trouble, so knowing they have had issues in the past allows us to be ready faster to handle anything if it comes up here again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not WikiStalking, just I was worried. There are two English Wikipedias, so if somebody gets permanently blocked from one, why not go to the other and edit there? I haven't been near Cathry since the (extremely misguided) talk page edit, and I never intend to be. Sorry for this one, it was my mistake. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

QD|G10 request

Please address promptly. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ZARBOT

the blocked user JoguarBOT has a known alt ZARBOT that was created less than a minute before the block. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Dealt with by DJSasso. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've broken RFD...

Hi. Confession time, I've bust RFD. I pagemoved Mahmood Awan this morning, and then tried to fix the RFD entry for it. It didn't work; I can't undo the page move because all caps page titles are now blacklisted, and that now leaves a page with an RFD template not linked to anything. God only knows what I've done, but it's a bit of a mess and I need help. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed it, with a few moves/(deletion/etc. In general, the idea is to not move a page while an RfD is in progress... --Eptalon (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually hadn't read it properly. I just saw the page with an all caps title and went to the relevant special page to do the move. My bad, won't do that again! Thanks for the cleanup :) DaneGeld (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Massmessage is not working.

Hi. I saw something pop up in my watchlist a little while ago, which said that the Mass message system had tried to deliver two important posts to Wikipedia:Simple talk and failed. I've just queried this with #Wikimedia-tech on IRC, and they've advised me that apparently, according to the Massmessage extension, our Wiki is read only! User:Aguyintobooks has advised me that getting an administrator to reinstall an extension called Massmessage, which should fix the problem. If you're interested, one of the important messages we missed was a change in the Global Ban Policy, so I assume that's come from WMF. DaneGeld (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been told this won't necessarily fix the problem, but Legoktm has contacted me about it since and he is more likely to have the correct solution. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to Salt: Mohammad Ghorbanpour

Per the title, may I please request to salt Mohammad Ghorbanpour on the grounds of persistent recreation, has been QD'd and gone through RFD, created and deleted 5 times now. Many thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone monitoring RFCU?

Hi. Quite a few days ago before I went on vacation, I filed an RFCU against 3 users and an IP address, based on a SPI at Enwp. As far as I can see, despite it being very ducky and at least one of the users and an IP being active (and socks as confirmed elsewhere) nobody has done anything with it. Is there any chance someone can take a look please? Thanksǃ DaneGeld (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as you have been told before, you won't always see a comment back on there. Secondly only one of the accounts are active here thus not socking. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ChenzwBot

Anyone know why ChenzwBot hasn't edited for nearly a month? Unfortunately its owner is inactive too at the moment. J991 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You answered your own question. Will send him a message and see if we can wake him up. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Page protection for Ajit V. Pai?

Got recent vandalism here, and even more in other language versions, more vandalism in the next days is likely. Semi-protection could be useful. --Mfb (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watch list and if I start to see much I will protect. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Donation requests

I used to like to give a few dollars to Wikipedia every year or so during your fundraising campaign. You provide valuable information to practically the whole world. But then I heard about how you stole poor David Slater's monkey photo and then ruined his life with your court case. If suits such as these are how you spend our donations, you certainly won't be getting any more funds from us! C.E. Berglund, Seattle, caellen27 at gmail.com — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 71.212.106.121 (talk • changes) at 06:04, 4 December 2017.

You are of course entitled to donate or not donate, as you choose. Just be aware that your concerns would be better raised at the Wikimedia Foundation instead of on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is the organization that would handle donations. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6 is correct - You would need to contact the WMF about your concerns etc (donate[at]wikimedia.org}, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 14:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi, Could someone revdel this (and the edits after) please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

brilliant thanks Auntof6. –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Big Brother AWT

Is it against policy for an IP to be editing User:Big Brother AWT like it is doing? Also, is the page itself an inappropriate use of a user page? J991 16:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

CSD'd - The article is a hoax - No such programme exists, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's on a user page, so QDing as a hoax doesn't apply. The user removed the QD tag, which I'm going to let stand. You'll have to take this to RfD if you want it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah yeah sorry it's because I'm so used to seeing MFD so just assumed QD was the next best option, I'll send to AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and Auntof6: However, both pages contain age information on non-notable minors, without reliable sources, and not self-created, so are therefore probably BLP vios. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that after I sent it to AFD however as one admin removed the CSD from the mainspace article as "not a hoax" I figured CSD'ing this as "BLPVIO" would also fail with maybe that admin not bothering to look so figured it was best left ignored, if anyone wants to delete it obviously that's absolutely fine, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Spam filter preventing a revert of vandalism

Hi. Could an admin please perform this revert? It's blatant vandalism, and I can't remove it myself. I keep getting an error message stating the following "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter." Thanks. –72 _(talk) 01:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done I restored it without the problem website. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles by socks of globally blocked user "Alec Smithson"

I have today detected two more articles by the socks globally blocked User:Alec Smithson. These were Quartiere Prada (see this version) and Quartiere Bocconi University (district of Milan) (See this version). I have redirected both of these articles. Neither of these places is a district or official "quarter" of Milan. The designation is bogus. As per usual with this user and his socks, they were also written in complex but garbled machine translated English and full of copyright violations. This is just a heads up because these socks are very active here on Simple. Nothing they write can be trusted. For further information see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Elsamni

The page should not be deleted based on A7 notability criteria because this person is very notable as a media personality in his own country. He is a regular guest in TV shows and often in newspapers. He has been chosen by EU to write about his country affairs. He is also a poet who publishes in press and a lecturer in the most reputable university in Egypt. The A6 tag of hoax lacks any evidence and should be considered as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.32.86.6 (talk • contribs) --Eptalon (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As Quick-deletion was opposed, the article has been proposed for regular deletion. You can comment at the RfD page. Creating an account before doing so will add credibility to your arguments, though. --Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It might, but on the other hand, the RfD rules allow for disregarding opinions of users who registered after an RfD was started. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wondering what to do about socks

And no, I don't mean changing mine! I raised just shy of a month ago, the issue of a user who is blocked at enwp, Aminnie, as part of a sock farm. The articles they were trying to get accepted there, all got deleted post-haste as non notable. So after they got blocked, they came here and have been trying to make exactly the same articles on this wiki.

The problem is, I suspect that they also have socks here. I've raised it at RFCU and got told only one account is active here, which is fine, but even so, that doesn't stop IPs (which don't get checked on RFCU). The material they are producing is below standard, and as I suspect English probably isn't their first language (evident from some of the edits in the past), I am inclined to call WP:CIR.

Before I make a fool of myself or do something stupid, someone help me figure out what the right course is here please. Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More activity today, as seen on User talk:Aminnie (which is how I got here) - and on Contributions: the surname Movaghar common to a number of bio pages with questionable notability.* Their lack of Wikidata items, which might indicate notability and possible previous articles accepted on the relevant language WPs (i.e. Farsi and French), smacks of self-promotion or for-pay editing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: *though d:Hossein Khan Movaghar has a stub page also in en.wiki and fa.wiki. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection / create protection

Hi. Could I please request create protection against the article DJ Mixify. Multiple recreations (at least twice a month) since October. 6 creations & deletions by QD in total. Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad username and bad behavior

Favonain Is a Shit Head (talk · contribs) should probably be blocked, if nothing else as an inappropriate username. However, they are clearly socking as well, e.g. Favonain Is A Fuck Tard (talk · contribs), Favonain is a dick 2 (talk · contribs). This has been going on since 2011 at English Wikipedia [4] where this person was indefinitely blocked in 2011 by an administrator with a similar name (Favonian) and has been pursuing a vendetta against him ever since. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC))

All three are globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled, Auntof6. None of those three are global accounts. See Meta global account pages for Favonain Is a Shit Head, Favonain Is A Fuck Tard, and Favonain is a dick 2. So how can they be globally locked? Also, if they were globally locked, that information would appear on their Contributions pages here at Simple, even if they have no existing edits. But, it doesn't. Compare to what you see here and at Meta for accounts which I know to be globally locked: Alec Smithson (Simple), Alec Smithson (Meta); Klein49 (Simple), Klein49 (Meta). Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I was puzzled, too. I normally expect to see the blocking/global locking info on the contributions page as you describe. Like you, I don't see it there, but when I go to the page to block these users, I see the messages (using the first one as an example) "The account Favonain Is a Shit Head is already locked globally." and "Favonain Is a Shit Head is already blocked. Do you want to change the settings?" Maybe someone reading this can explain what's going on. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it when I go to the page to block them but that could be cause you now blocked them locally. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I only blocked one of them locally. Did you check all three? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest this is just a bug, as the block page reports that all of them are glocked. If it's a vulnerability, ie. vandals being able to bypass creating an SUL, it's a pretty severe one that should be looked in to, but I doubt that's the case. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You actually blocked two but one was way back in June. But I do see it on one of them now but not the other two, not sure if I missed that one when I looked last time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Accounts were globally locked and suppressed, that should be the reason why you can't see more info.--HakanIST (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Query: Unauthorized bot active?

Can someone please do a check on the bot User:Active_-_WIKI? It claims that it is an administrator, but does not show up in logs or in the user list as one. I have a feeling this bot may be making an attempt to run unauthorized or without a Bot bit. DaneGeld (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This user is up to something suspicious. Have reverted their change to this page which removed the above query.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for 72 hours to allow further investigation.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would add (a) user is falsely advertising being an administrator, and (b) user does not say who is running the bot, which violates the rules for bots even if they don't have the bot bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this user has any intention of being a bot or administrator. They just seem to be a new user that doesn't understand policy at all, and is adding random templates and userboxes to their user page without understanding what they mean. J991 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. We don't control how the various user page notices are used, so these and many others are often used inappropriately and inaccurately. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it not against policy for users to "impersonate" an administrator, or does that only apply to usernames? DaneGeld (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

For better or for worse I've removed the admin box and have hid the "Approved" notice from their page - No one should add the admin userbox UNLESS they're an admin .... we should actively remove these not actively ignore it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  The user name policy says not to choose a name similar to another user. I don't know of a policy that says not to claim you have rights when you don't really have them, although doing so could get you blocked if it causes a problem. It's easy enough to check what rights someone has. @Davey2010: Please don't edit other users' pages like that, even if you think there's something misleading. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it's common sense .... if you don't have the mop then you shouldn't have the userbox on your userpage because it obviously gives the impression you're an admin - With all due respect no one's going to click on "Verify" are they - They're going to take it at face value, Well yes I will edit their talkpage and remove it because they are not an admin and we should under no circumstances mislead our readers into thinking someone's an admin when they are not. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't police what user boxes people have on their pages, so common sense isn't the standard, and, yes, some people do click on "verify". This could be a user who's setting up their user page and copying stuff from other user pages -- we've had that happen before where a user page ended up with a lot of obviously invalid stuff. If you're going to edit someone else's page, at least do them the courtesy of leaving a message to explain why. Otherwise please leave them alone so we don't have to go through the page's history to see what the user put there themselves. If it gets to the point of censuring the user, we're going to want to see all the issues, and ths kind of change makes that harder. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree newbies do do that which is why it's harder to spot it (and I also agree that we all have better things to do than to patrol everyones userpages) but I still believe if they're spotted then they should be actively removed, I didn't see the point in leaving a message because they're blocked - If this was a normal unblocked editor then yes I would've left a message before removing but anyway the chances of them being unblocked are next to none so seemed a waste of time telling them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and left a note. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would note that impersonating admins is something we have blocked for before so having that template on his page could be grounds to block in combination with other actions a user might take. (speaking in generalities) -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm on Davey's side here. That user box should be removed, whether the user likes it or not. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I'm just saying to wait until there's a final decision on what to do about the user (for example, whether or not to indef), at which time the admin will probably remove any inappropriate things. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack

The last comment at Requests for deletion by an editor named Ymnes is accusing people of being liars, cheaters, and asking them never to come back to Wikipedia. His tone includes racism towards Arabs and Egyptians. He has a single purpose account, after requesting an article for deletion based on a wrong tag of hoax. Please take an action. I prefer to keep myself anonymous to avoid his attacks and strong language. 185.156.173.102 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Racist? Why are you acusing me with another invented lie cq. another personal attack on me? Don't shoot the messenger! Ymnes (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Cq? Is it your way of acting like a native dutch? We all know you are a Russian who lives in Netherlands. And your name is Yaroslav Mikhaylovich Blanter. 79.137.76.41 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

See 216.152.176.170 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No admin is going to block this IP unless it has warning templates, which it doesn't currently. Anyhow, you're supposed to report vandalism to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. J991 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney is back

Our Disney friend is back (or we have another one), this time changing the dates of movie releases. The IP is different, at this time I have blocked the IP for two weeks, but keep watch on any changes to dates on Disney related pages. I would not bother with warnings, and simply block on sight.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Have blocked one of his IPs for one month, but is a mobile IP so probably dynamic. I have also added page protection to the pages for 6 months which might give us a break for a while. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And it is still going on - now blocking on sight for six months, and increasing page protections where needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdownunder (talk • contribs)

Bad Username

Have just encountered a user who is spelling an obscene phrase using Hangul. The user, "ㅈㅣㄹㄹ ㅜㅐㅌ ㄷㅇㄷㅈ" (Kiss the cock) vandalised McDonalds and included their username in the edit. What do we do with these? I assume to report here since I don't know anywhere else to report a bad username. Thanks DaneGeld (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reports for bad usernames should be reported here as WP:UAA redirects this noticeboard. The user has been blocked indefinitely by Djsasso. --Eurodyne (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

AFD closure 4 days overdue

Hi. I was just wondering if any of the administrators (maybe someone not involved in the shenanigans going on there) was free to take a look at the Abdulrahman Elsamni RFD please? It was due to be closed around 9AM UTC almost 4 days ago, and it's still sitting there. I'm aware it's a rat's nest but it needs looking at please. Cheers. DaneGeld (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm recusing myself because I initiated the request, but I'm sure another admin will get to it. It's not unusual for RfDs to go several days or more beyond the indicated date, even when they're not as messy as this one. Remember that we're all volunteers here and very little is truly urgent. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your situation completely. I would imagine that given the chance, most people on here would recuse themselves from tidying that lot up! I can't begin to imagine how long it will take and with the Christmas holiday in full swing, well...let's just leave it hang. Family first :) Have a good Christmas. DaneGeld (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

7 days is only a minimum, deletions often stay up longer. No need to post here everytime they go long. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this a bad username?

Asssseatwer (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) contains the string "ass" which could make the username mean "ass s seat wer". Probably so since the account is used for vandalism. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, indefinitely blocked.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobel prize vandal

The Noble Prize vandal is still active, usually adding "davidabdelmohsen" to the articles. All the edits are coming from Egypt, so I have range blocked the IPs for another 3 months.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection: Semi-protected (Temporary)

Could I please request Temporary Semi-protection on Kookaburra, it appears that a number of IP edits (potentially from the same pool) are engaged in a revert war with User:ErikvanB. Could we get the article restricted to registered users only for a bit until we can figure out what's what? Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page; autoconfirmed is needed for editing. The protection will expire two weeks from now. We should re-assess the issue mid-january--Eptalon (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reminder about end-of-year RfDs that result in deletion

Any RfD that is initiated in 2017 but closed as a deletion in 2018 will require special handling when deleting the page. This is because the usual delete reason for deletion by RfD automatically builds the RfD page name using the current year. Since the page names for these RfDs will include the year 2017, the automatic reason will be incorrect.

Instead of using the automatically generated reason, we will need to enter the reason manually. Just copy the RfD page name, paste it into the manual reason box, and put square brackets around it so that there's a convenient link in case it's needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, four RfDs are left unclosed; Of these, 2-3 are relatively clear cases. Even though this will shorten the discussion, I propose that all current RfDs are closed in 2017. That way, handling remains simpler. --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Baring that, its probably not that big a deal if a link is broken, especially since you could just create a redirect avoiding the whole problem. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're OK for this year. Any new requests will be dated 2018. Thanks to User:Eptalon for closing many of the outstanding requests. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about Revision Deletion

Is it possible to just hide part of a particular revision of a page, or does the whole revision get removed? I'm asking because I'd like to get an edit summary on Acceleration due to gravity hidden under RD2 (I'm not even sure if that qualifies, but it's the closest I can get) for use of offensive language. Any thoughts on if it's possible to leave the revision and just remove the edit summary? DaneGeld (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have hidden the edit summary, of the resp. revision. As you said, the languagage was inappropriate--Eptalon (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: FYI, revdel gives a choice of hiding the edit summary, the revision text, or both. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: Actually, revdel gives a choice of hiding the edit summary, the revision text, the identity of the editor, or any combination thereof. :) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so there's a third option. DaneGeld wasn't asking about that, so I answered about the things he/she was asking about. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

To be honest that edit summary wasn't really revdel worthy, swears while being not polite are not grossly offensive which is the requirement. Grossly offensive was intended to mean things like hate speech. The particular swear that was used would fall under "ordinary rudeness" which is specifically mentioned as not being able to be RD2'd. -DJSasso (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection

Due to repeated vandalism/attacks by a globally locked long-term abuser, I hereby request that my user page be semi-protected for 2-3 weeks. Thank you. —Glendales 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Two more articles by socks of globally blocked user "Alec Smithson"

Today I drastically cut back Meteomont from this complex but garbled version. It now matches the article on English WP (en:Meteomont). The sock has also created Ton Fan. This needs attention. It is a comples but garbled machine translation, half in French. I'm not sure that it is even noteworthy or a true art movement. Nothing that this editor or his socks writes can be trusted as true. For further information see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid to say, in this case @Voceditenore:- it can be trusted. The Ton Fan art movement is very, very real and has a very large following in Central Asia and across the world. Ton Fan is characterized by abstract art, proponents like Hsiao Chin, Chen Tao Ming and others made it what it is today, and it's been around since 1956. Hsiao Chin is still alive as are most of the others. DaneGeld (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, DaneGeld. However, something needs to done about the text of this article. It is not in Simple English and is almost entirely a machine translation from the original French WP version with some additions in English that look very much like they were pasted in verbatim from some other source. I strongly suggest to anyone attempting to fix up this article, that they base it on this version of the French Wikipedia article which was not created by Smithson or his socks. Best Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Article deleted and user blocked. Anyone wishing to write an article about Ton Fan in Simple English is welcome.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Peter. As I say, the subject is absolutely genuine, so I'll put the article on Ton Fan together and put it out here as soon as possible. DaneGeld (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Concern about IP:119.30.38.147

This IP:119.30.38.147 wrote abusive, insulting bad words on my talk page. IP wrote in Bengali but in English script! For understanding, I can explain some phrase, like: fucker, stupid etc, and s/he feels awful to look me! Also given the threat to change my personal style/getup!! All about abusive personal harassment and extremely flout to my personal life. I have concern and also ask for hiding this edit history and take necessary steps to that kind of stupidity. It is all over the personal issues where he mentioned Jimmy Wales and the other Wikipedian Nahid Sultan too. Another IP address created an article about myself where all the information gathered from the personal website, social sites, IMDb link etc and which is kind of Copyvio and too much harassment. S/he also wrote the same thing on my English Wikipedia talk page. Moheen Reeyad (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted three edits to the page. I do not think oversight is necessary; few admins here understand the languages of the Indian subcontinent (except perhaps English or Portuguese). As the editor in question does not edit here much, I don't believe blocking would be appropriate, esp. not without proper warnings. To get the resp. edits removed from your talk page at EnWP, you should address the admins there. (at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or one of its subpages). --Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jupiter (mythology)

Please semi-protect due to a high level of complex changes, addition of challengeable material without sources, and other disruptive edits. —Glendales 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have edit protected the page for a day.--Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection for Porcelain

Hello, Porcelain might need a protection, also a fix as some of the vandalism were mixed up through time. Also, I believe ORES should be enabled here.--HakanIST (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Already reverted back to to the last good version. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

BeginnerBot

This user appears to be a bot unauthorized anywhere which is adding hyperlinks in quantity where wikilinks would suffice.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as unapproved bot. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FurryBeast

I'm suspicious about User:FurryBeast. Not only are they possibly committing a WP:ONESTRIKE violation (they have been disruptive and they are indeffed on en) but their actions also suggest that they might be a sock, possibly of User:Jason Dude Smith. Any thoughts on this? J991 16:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Both FurryBeast (talk · contribs) and Jason Dude Smith (talk · contribs) have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia today. CheckUser confirms that both are socks of long-term nuisance editor JaySmith2018. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed as socking here plus some sleepers. I was going to block him earlier but I couldn't remember the other name Jason Dude Smith. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection for Doreen Mantle

The page Doreen Mantle is getting constantly vandalized by these block evading IPs of Dopenguins. I think protection would be helpful here (and possibly could be applied to the other affected articles as well). J991 19:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a reason I am not doing that which I would rather not get into here per en:WP:BEANS. There isn't a rush to revert these edits so don't stress to much about them. I revert them as I see them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad username

Riannanhasamassivepussy999 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Disruptive, maybe a personal attack? 129.67.119.169 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling enwiki admins

I know we have an admin or two here who is also an admin on enwiki. Could one such person please check the following two new articles here to see if they are the same as those that were deleted on enwiki:

• Paranormal City
• Signs (Paranormal City song)

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The first one is mostly the same but not identical, there are sections that don't exist on the en version that do on ours. If you want the source let me know and I can email it to you to compare. The second one is closer to being the same but not identical. It too has atleast once section that isn't in the other. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Doreen Mantle (again)

This is kind of related to the above thread about protection, but since I'm not asking for it and that's nearly 5 days old, I thought I'd start a new one. Doreen Mantle, as pointed out is being messed around with by block evaders. Even now, after being supposedly put back to a version pre-vandalism, it's still wrong. There are discrepancies between our version and the one on the English Wikipedia - she apparently IS South African born, which we keep undoing, although we can't decide where - EN says Cape Town, we say Johannesburg. Perhaps if we put our article right, Dopenguins will leave it alone. DaneGeld (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: Why is it that you haven't left any warning messages for Dopenguins? If you expect the admins to do something about this, you could at least do your part and warn the user that there's a problem with their edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: - I haven't left warning messages for the editor concerned because I've not been in a position to catch them physically editing. I'm doing my part by coming to speak to other editors where there's been a discussion or comments about the editor, and making suggestions about what we could do. (Redacted my next statement) DaneGeld (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC) EDITED: 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It comes across as you complaining that we aren't doing anything about it is what I think she isn't saying. If you don't think the admins are aware of this editor then that is crazy. It is just one of many socks that have come over the years. We are dealing with it. If you haven't read it before you should take a look at en:WP:RBI. Basically the more you talk about it the worse you make it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted my statement: Have read RBI and fully understand why I'm not helping fix this by banging on about it.) DaneGeld (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

She was just asking what you were doing about the situation before you complained about the admins. It was a fair question, but if you want to act like a child and take your ball and go home that is fine as well. We are all volunteers here. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted this comment - having read RBI I know I am now in the wrong, completely, and being a spoiled ass will do nothing to help it.) DaneGeld (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The en version is also in a state of constant flux because they are doing it there too. All edits from a blocked editor get reverted, good or not. If you know a the correct version go ahead and fix it, that being said I wouldn't count on the en version as being the correct version as we have been fighting him there as well and some of their changes there just haven't been reverted because others have edited inbetween making edits harder to undo. I would also note it isn't just that article they are targeting, its 10s of others so changing one to their perferred version won't stop them, it is actually likely to encourage which is why all blocked editors edits are reverted good or not. Most of the pages they have been targetting have been protected at the moment. As mentioned above this one hasn't been for reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting page semi-protection of User:PlyrStar93

I would like to request my user page semi-protected indefinitely as user request within own user space / persistent vandalism. Thanks in advance. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

It's high time that this page: (T·E·H·L·R) Ten Commandments, be semi-protected from anon editors making meaningless, random, or incorrect changes (it has been a common target since the year began), and that we improve the article to make sure we are stating the facts and not violating WP:NPOV. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked some of the edits from this month. Most don't seem to be vandalism, just simplifying the wording or maybe changing between translations of the commandments. It would probably be good to have a source for the list, and use the wording as given by the source. Any of the standard, widely-used, English-language Bible versions could be the source. Maybe we should have it in Wikisource instead of in the article. For now, I've semi-protected the page for a month, just to stop the churn. The discussion about improving belongs on the article talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a link tothe official version at the Vatian (^Catechism of the Catholic Church') to the article's talk page; I guess if we find Lutheran, Anglican, etc. versions, we can add them there. I guess in the end there will be 5-7 common English translations, with only slight differences. --Eptalon (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to pick one that is based on Jewish tradition, even though it won't be as inherently common as the most common Christian versions. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, though. At some point, it would be better to refer to the text in Wikisource than include a lot of versions here. Wikisource has the commandments in several versions (in Exodus chapter 20): King James, basic English, and others. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)