Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 53

Request to Salt: Create protection on Mongezi Matthews

Hopefully you'll be able to help me. Following multiple recreations (all of which have either been deleted as A1 or A4), could I please request salting on Mongezi Matthews to prevent further occurrences please. Many thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I'll usually salt after three times. This has been deleted four times, so I have salted it for three months. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

protection for Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

There is consistent vandalism on this page from IPs, mostly adding a bad word used by some locally to refer to this person. MohamedTalk 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Protected for one month, at lowest level, could be increased if necessary --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for North Korea

High level of vandalism lately, both IP and user. 1.02 editor (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First level of protection (autoconfirmed), to expire in two weeks. --Eptalon (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people after the Cold War

We recently decided to delete this template, as it was unclear who qualifies for inclusion. IP's usually from the range 120.29.78. try to bring this template back, also under different names. I currently think this is one person, and admins who see activity in this direction should block the editor, as well as delete (and create protect) the template. I have battled with the editor yesterdaay, and AuntOf6 did today. --Eptalon (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happened again today: IP 120.29.78.130. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning vandals

Can an editor be blocked if they repeatedly fail to leave warning templates to vandals after they revert their bad edits? I ask because User:Jim.henderson has almost never warned vandals, and is continuing to not warn them even after at least three reminders. Thanks, J991 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, this is possible; note however, that this depends a lot on the case: In a case where I see 10 edits of a user, all of which are vandalism/graffitti, I must assume that the user has (at that moment) little interest in contributing regular content. Vandals want attention, which drains our already limited resources. Those people with the rollback flag are free to roll back an edit; in the case of User Jim Henderson, I have not seen any problematic reverts yet. --Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that you have to warn so no, you cannot be blocked for not warning. I only warn in certain situations, if it looks to me like a one off and they aren't likely going to make another edit I don't warn. As mentioned by Eptalon, vandals are often after attention so there are situations where not warning is sometimes the preferred way to go about it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out it is also only some admins who require multiple warnings to block. This is not a requirement per any guideline or policy. A user can be blocked with no warnings, 1 warning, 2 warnings. There is no requirement for any number of warnings. This section is an unfortunate side effect of some admins being way too strict on requiring 3. If a user is obviously not here for good edits, block them, period. Don't say opps we have to wait for a few more vandalizing edits so I can warn them enough times and block.-DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I was slightly worried. As it happens, the question arose at a particularly busy time for me (Wikibusiness, not real life) so with the choice of spending more time to make warnings, or less time to make fewer reverts, or no change, I chose fewer reverts. Eventually I shall again allot more time to SIMPLE, but again probably mostly for more reverts. I am glad others are alert and thoughtful and minding matters which I am letting slide. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dylan Cerbone 2018

User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 has made no edits except to their user page, which they have continually fussed over. Is a block for "not here to make an encyclopedia" justified? Maybe a stiff warning. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has literally only been here two days, he could be working on something he intends to move to mainspace. You are jumping the gun just a bit. We give alot of leeway in editing userspace.-DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That being said I now realize he is talking about pooping and garbage on it so its not the most useful stuff. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior from this anonymous editor

74.105.247.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is doing good work on articles, but has recently been stalking my talk page with vandal warning messages when I try to sign comments on Auntof6 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. He also made a number of personal attacks, both on my talk page and on the VIP page. Just now the user said I was harrasing his/her talk page when I only tried to remind him/her to sign posts. I am not sure what should be done to calm this user down. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked the user for 31 hours, for disruptive editing. I would not object if another admin wanted to make it longer. He may have made some good article edits, but I only saw bad ones, and they do not make the disruption acceptable. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel of other languages?

Hi. When dealing with a vandal, I found that they used an insult deemed grossly offending in another language. Would this be eligible for revdel? hiàn 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just point it out, maybe with a diff. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[1]; I would have sent the link to the admins mailing list, but I had issues. hiàn 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything offensive in that. What do you see as offensive? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary roughly translates to "F*** your ancestors to the eighteenth generation", a phrase that is considered extremely offensive in the Chinese language. Sorry for the lack of explanation. hiàn 03:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I revdel'd just the edit summary. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzoberry has been created seven times; it may need creation protection. J991 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was... -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-author

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I think that the deletion of this template might have been a mistake. Am I not correct on this? Let me know. {{Template:Db-author}} (Template:Db-author) seems to be a legitimate page that's used for tagging G7's. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it was just a vandalism page with nonsense. We use Template:Qd-author for G7s. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso - Aww dang it! That's right... I keep mixing up the "Db" and "Qd" between en-wiki and here. Thanks for reminding me. So... I kinda dun goof'd something :-). Template:Db-author was re-created (again) as vandalism. I moved that page to Template:Db-author1 so that I could add the "legit template" into Db-author... and, of course, without realizing that I was just making things worse because I recalled the wrong template title out of instinct. My apologies in advance for the screw-up; that was my fault and I feel bad :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough mistake to make. But I decided just to redirect it to the proper one since there is bound to be others that think that way as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is he now went and deleted the correct one... which I have restored. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very suspicious activity. Redirected pages in article space to user space, and from user space to article space. Moved some pages to another name, then immediately back again. See move log. Mainly focused on Zee Tv, as well as User:Zee Tv. Vermont | reply here 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user is either vandalising or is not able to edit properly. I have deleted his more idiotic redirects, and think at minimum he should not be allowed to make any redirects. I think he has also edited as IP ‎user:47.29.117.226.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to his message on my talk page it looks like he was attempting to move one mainspace article to another and somehow ended up making redirects to user pages, multiple other mainspace articles, his user page, and others. Looks like a case of WP:CIR. Vermont | reply here 11:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am dealing with this. I believe it might be a prolific socker from en if it is who I think it is. I am going through some CU stuff right now.....he has used alot of IPs and I have already found a number of other accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that this IP has made personal attacks on their talk page while blocked. J991 16:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already dealt with. They are blocked. If it gets excessive I will remove talk page access. But it is nowhere near needing that yet. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to rollback any more edits to their talk page per WP:DENY. Vermont | reply here 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revision delete the two edits by 109.154.240.63, which were copied and pasted from sunnah.org. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Enfcer (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LTA on our wiki

See the following links:

[2][3][4]

Looks like an LTA on en-wiki. Signs edit summaries, political conspiracies, multiple IP's. Vermont | reply here 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is he doing on en that is an issue. (Just asking before I read a novel worth of information) And is what he is doing here actually wrong? Because we don't automatically block if they are blocked there. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the SPI on en-wiki that I linked (first link) and Chrissymad's IP's of him (second link). My third link are the IP's he used to spam the same text across multiple pages. In short, it's political conspiracy theory spam. Vermont | reply here 23:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-admin comment) - I'm pretty sure this guy has been blocked on here before under varying IPs. I've reported him a few times and he's been blocked as an LTA. I think Auntof6 has dealt with them on my behalf before. DaneGeld (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Only and Eurodyne: as they have blocked those particular IPs on sight before. hiàn 00:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well one of those IPs was already blocked, and one was blocked by me before, the others had never been blocked previously so not quite true, I was just asking what the situation was because there was no context just a bunch of links to elsewhere and some of the edits I looked at hadn't looked bad, didn't realize they were putting the same thing everywhere, that was the kind of information I was looking for. Justing linking to en reports, especially ones with that much junk on them, isn't particularly easy to parse on the fly. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reverting Cutler on en for a while (the oldest edit I can remember finding from him was sometime in 2016 I think). Not sure why they've started to focus here. I'm not sure what anti-vandal tools are available here, but there are a couple of consistent aspects of their message. There's generally a link to a specific honorstates page and several common strings (case numbers). Options that may work would be to block the specific link on honorstates or consider an edit filter that looks for several of those common strings. Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following up from my talk page, yeah, I vaguely remember him editing around here before my hiatus, and even then I don't recall such high activity. I have been meaning to create an edit filter to combat this, and have managed to get a relatively basic version up for now (filter 70). Chenzw  Talk  00:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thyjyj: Inappropriate username. The username is a completely disruptive username. Psl85 Talk 11:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it inappropriate? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is not inappropriate. I is not needed to be blocked Psl85 Talk 11:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly make up your mind before you start accusing random editors. Chenzw  Talk  11:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

94.197.120.26

Hello! 94.197.120.26 (talk) is creating many unnecessary pages, and the IP should be blocked from editing from making unnecessary pages. Psl85 Talk 17:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. The IP is now vandalizing their own talk page. The IP should NOW be blocked from editing, and revoke also talk page access for this IP. Psl85 Talk 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting us to the vandalism. However where you first listed it in wp:VIP is correct. You do not need to list it here also. As we are a smaller wiki, we do have active Admin's but we are not on all the time. We will get to VIP as soon as we can. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moon

Hello. The article Moon is getting vandalized, or there is being bad contend addition by two IP users within a short time. Please can somewone semi-protect this page? Psl85 Talk 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think blocking the range of IPs that have committed the most recent vandalism would be enough for now. The admins probably wouldn't see this as enough for page protection at this time. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect this page?

Hello. This page is getting vandalized very lot in the last weeks. Please can somewone semi-protect this page. Psl85 Talk 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us a link to the page? -Barras talk 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Administrators' noticeboard requesting I to semi-protect. Psl85 Talk 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP's are people too. There's a reason this isn't semi-protected already. Vermont | reply here 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, semi-protect only this page if there is many vandalism, or edit warring by IP users. Psl85 Talk 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That probably won't happen. Even though it might be vandalized, it's an administrative page, and it needs to be available to IP users. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addimg to Auntof6's comment; this is AN. Half of us have it on our watchlist. Vandalism is removed within minutes, and we cannot silence the voice of a significant part of our editing force over such a small issue as a few IP's vandalising the Administrators Noticeboard. Vermont | reply here 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I recommend keeping this and other administrative pages on watchlists. ChenzwBot has been reverting a lot of the bad changes on this page, but not everything. In one case, there were two bad edits in a row by different IPs and the bot reverted only the second one. I'm not sure exactly why (didn't see the first one in time? didn't want to revert the first one back to its own previous change?), but human eyes were needed to catch that. That's where having it on watchlists helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor, can I recommend you spend more time editing and getting used to how things work around here before making demands of the administrators? Kansan (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page (as well as ST) is on a list which the bot internally calls the "angry revert list". Pages on that list are exempted from the bot's own 1RR logic (the goal here is to avoid locking the bot into an edit war with another new editor over something classified as vandalism). In the above case, it seems that the first IP's edit did not score sufficiently high enough to meet the (manually-configured) threshold for vandalism. The longer-term solution would be to add these edits for training, which I will do once I sort out the issues with the ancient revscoring library the bot is currently using. Chenzw  Talk  00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an admin

I NEED to become an administrator. NerdyLady (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NerdyLady: Why? You haven't done anything here that indicates a need for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a sock puppet of the Jason Smith dude who has been socking a tonne. They are just being disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock of Psl85's account

Earlier today, in a moment of incredibly questionable judgement, the above user added their account password to their user page, thus effectively compromising the account. Per WMF-wide policy, the account has been locked globally, as, I should emphasize, a temporary measure until the owner is contacted. In this case, the account holder has not enabled email, so Special:EmailUser is effectively useless, and from what I see, there seems to be no effective way to prove ownership since the password has been left out in the open for so long. It is my take that while this user has been problematic on this wiki, the global lock itself should not be seen as a ban of any sort (even de facto), otherwise it would be an abuse of due process. Thoughts? Chenzw  Talk  12:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a global lock is justified at this time. While the email user function may be of no use, local CheckUsers can confirm if a different IP is being used to access the account and determine whether the account has been compromised, or if the user has made a serious error in judgement. --Eurodyne (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He made an alternative account, which can be used to CU it and Psl85 to confirm their identity. Vermont | reply here 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected the user page because it was vandalized. If the account resumes being used, it can be unprotected, but IIRC full protection doesn't prevent the page owner from editing a user page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot create my userpage

Hello. My new account (Psl631) is very crappy, when i changing pages, I appear logged out, and trying to create a user page for my new account, can somewone help me with this, and move my subpages for my old account to my new? Psl631 12:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just make new pages, and copy the content from the old pages? Technically, you are a different user, so I'm not comfortable doing what you ask. Copying the content isn't that hard to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

First, please see User talk:Chrissymad#Philadelphia Eagles for a related discussion.

Is there any way to remove or mitigate the indication that this edit was vandalism? It was not vandalism, and I'd like to keep the record clean if possible. I know that I once accidentally reverted an edit as vandalism when it wasn't: I fixed it by undoing my revert with an edit summary that stated that the revert was accidental and the edit wasn't vandalism. However, that doesn't seem to be an option here, so I'm looking for other possibilities. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an edit made by a bot that adds a reflist template... just leave it alone. If you had just let yourself not worry about it and moved on, absolutely nobody would have seen that edit revision as "vandalism" nor would anybody even probably look at it ever... now that you've asked about it on a user talk page and now here... you're just adding attention to something that was never going to get attention or even a glance by anybody in the first place. If you haven't read about the Streisand effect, I highly recommend that you give it a read... because this is pretty much what you're doing to it now... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review of administrative actions

I'd like to formally request a review of Auntof6's (notified here) administrative actions specifically as it pertains to revision-deletions. I ask that an uninvolved steward/crat or other functionary on Simple wiki please review their revision deletions.

This is based on the discussion here. This is absolutely in violation of every policy regarding revision deletion and I am deeply concerned that this user profoundly misunderstands this policy. Additionally, despite my very clear and concise objection, this user has taken it upon themselves to more or less threaten the deletion, as stated here. Aside from this, I'll note that there have been several questionable RD's of basic vandalism that certainly do not meet Simple's own RD policy. See for example: the revisions here which I would argue hardly qualifies under R2. "fuck the U.S. gun laws" is stupid vandalism certainly but it is way over the top to RD that.

More concerning than that, however is the RD of these contributions. While I obviously didn't see all of them, several were just the user blanking the article and adding some silly nonsense "Daniel M. ist ein Lappen" which certainly is not revdelable per the current policy. I can think of several additional examples of this, but I must ask what purpose does RD'ing stupid and silly vandalism serve?

Additional examples: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.187.245.22 Wikipedia is gay, always eat yor greens is stupid vandalism and not at all RD'able.

The greater concern here is even after pointing out that their attempt to RD my edit summary was against policy, they've persisted but there are several dozen past actions that indicate to me that Auntof6 does not understand or does not care about this policy. I'm sure no one is going to complain about stupid vandalism being RD'd but if minor infractions and completely non-offensive es warrant AO6 abusing this tool, one has to wonder what other content has been deleted because "I don't like it." Chrissymad (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that while the bot added a reflist, the only refs were part of the vandalism itself, which is an incoherent diatribe from a global LTA and had literally nothing to do with the subject. The article did not contain sources prior to the vandalism. Chrissymad (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A related thread also happens to exist above, but I will consolidate my replies under this thread to keep everything in one place.
  • Philadelphia Eagles: I agree that revdel would be an inappropriate way to handle the situation; in fact, I am not even sure if it falls under "Non-contentious housekeeping" because I don't even see any need for housekeeping. I find it quite unlikely that anyone will think of Auntof6 as a vandal solely because of the contents of an edit summary. In this case, the revdel operation did not happen.
  • Gun: the added content, apart from the fact that it was not "against a person, group or organisation" (per RD2), was also a "mere factual statement". The edit summary was, in my view, a mere expression of opinion by the vandal (no matter how misguided).
  • United States: I agree that RD2 has questionable relevance to the content being hidden.
  • Edits by 12.187.245.22 on List of Egyptian gods and goddesses: I accept that the content may be considered "grossly insulting", but I don't think they were against any "person, group or organisation" in particular, not to mention that it is my view that we should not be attempting to hide undesirable material simply because minors may happen to make up a larger part of this wiki's audience.
  • Edits by 109.90.186.255 on Martin Luther King, Jr.: some revisions may be judged to fall under RD2 (which I will not dispute); however, some were clearly not.
I am leaving the revdel operations untouched until another administrator has looked at them. Per previous community consensus at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 69#Additions of user rights (-sysop) (and formalised at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrat), bureaucrats are empowered to remove the sysop flag only after a successful deRfA, in cases permitted by Wikipedia:Inactive administrators, or in "certain emergency situations". AN should not be used as a platform in lieu of a desysop request. Chenzw  Talk  02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There may be issues with some of my changes, but please be civil and do not assume you know why I made them. I have never deleted or revdel'd anything simply because I did not like it. In fact, there have been times when I declined requests to revdel things that nobody liked because I knew that policy didn't support it. However, one thing I can see that I did wrong was to assume that the brief descriptions of revdel reasons that appear in the dropdown box were sufficient explanation of each criterion: I see now that they are not. For example, option #2 in the dropdown box says only "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". It does not have the text "against a person, group or organisation". I will review the entire policy before I do any more deleting or revdelling.
As for my posts on your talk page, I did not intend what I said to be a threat, but rather a statement that I wanted to appeal to a higher power to review. When I was threatened with reprisal if I requested revdel, I did not request it. Instead, I merely asked if there were any other remedy. If the answer were no, that would have been the end of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were not threatened with reprisals, you were informed that your continued failure to respect the revdel policy would result in a request to remove your administrator permission. I would strongly suggest you read through the revdel policy repeatedly and at length, before revisiting all of your revdels and fixing those which are in contravention of the policy. Nick (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 Your response here really is concerning. Administrators are not above scrutiny and rather than take responsibility for your actions (note: I'm not saying accepting blame) you're attempting to turn it around on other people. The issue here isn't the description of revdel at all - that's clear, plain and obvious. The issue is your misinterpretation of a very concise, clear policy. Whether it's intentional or not, doesn't really matter as it means you're either ignorant of policy or willfully ignoring it, which I'd say is malicious and since I apparently need to clarify, I'm not accusing you of ill intent, however I am saying there are only two reasons for something of this nature and the other is a lack of competency. I also would request that you refrain from saying that I've been uncivil going forward but also that you provide diffs to substantiate the claim you've made above.
Your claim that you didn't then go attempt to request RD and essentially forum shop, is 100% an outright lie. You were presented with policy by not one, but three separate editors and decided that you would attempt to get someone else to revdel instead. See this diff:Reply to both: it would be to suppress only the edit summary, not the change. It could be done under option 5, as "Non-contentious housekeeping". I'm going to request it even though you object, but I will note this discussion. If the other admins say no, so be it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)" (emphasis, mine.)
I'll also note for the record that this was not a request for desysop, but a check of administrative actions as I thought it would be more appropriate to get an explanation, now that I've gotten what amounts to a "no I didn't!" "But x did y!" response, I'm seriously rethinking it. Chrissymad (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think everyone involved needs to step back and breath a little. Chenzw opinions above are pretty accurate on how I see the actions as well. Most admins here are well aware that I think revdel is used way to easily here. But its done so by almost all the admins here. There is clearly a less strict interpretation of the policy here than en.wiki. I obviously, as I have stated many times in the past, think it should be used considerably less here than it is, to the point where I often think it should only be used if you can't find an OS and it must be hidden immediately. That being said, I do think Chrissymad went way over the top here and was indeed uncivil as they were the last time they showed up and started editing here and getting quite nasty with admins here. A simply discussion with the admin them self could have cleared this all up if people had kept cooler heads. There was no need to come here and start bashing as was done. We get it, you have never liked Auntof6 but to continually come here bashing them is not at all productive, and this time like last time it appears you went and got people who almost never edit here to come here and join in like you did last time as well. That is plain harassment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso So now when I ask for review of an administrators actions, it's on me? Please provide specific diffs of me being uncivil. I asked a question and asked for a review as the community cannot (generally) see revdel'd content and administrative actions are absolutely subject to the communities input. I have not been uncivil once and I did not ask a single person to come here. I expect you'll be able to provide evidence of your accusations in the form of diffs as otherwise you are certainly casting aspersions. All I've asked of anyone is what the policy regarding revision deletion is and nothing more. A discussion could have cleared it up, however as I noted, Auntof6 decided to do their own thing and continue on in violation of policy. I have not attacked anyone and to say so with no proof shows your judgement is also questionable.
Your interpretation of bashing is, well, wrong. Asking a question in a civil manner and for a review of actions is not bashing. Questioning a decision is not uncivil. It is not bashing and it is not nasty. Admins are not exempt from scrutiny and scrutiny is often unpleasant when someone points out mistakes but it's life and it's part of a collaborative environment. Demonizing people (as you have done here) for doing so, however, is not conducive to such an environment. Chrissymad (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't ask a question in a civil manner, that is the point. The way you asked for input is anything but civil. Admins most definitely are subject to scrutiny, however to use your word as it applies perfectly to how you have worded things, demonizing them is not cool. You seem to think things are black and white, they are either willfully breaking rules, or they are totally incompetent. But there is middle ground. You can question someones actions, without declaring them incompetent or abusive immediately. If you want to know the policy on revision deletion and that is it, then no she as the community tends to treat it did not violate the policy. I do not agree that is how the policy should be treated, but the kinds of revisions you have pointed to have consistently been supported and even asked for by the community repeatedly. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso I will ask this one last time, provide specific diffs and quotes of my uncivil language in this thread or on my talk page. As I said to Chenzw, I did not ask for a desysop, I asked, civilly, for a review, concisely and clearly and gave plenty of opportunity for a discussion, which is what this was until you turned it into an unfounded indictment of my character. Chrissymad (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in how you've reached the conclusion that identifying and attempting to discuss the significant and widespread deficiencies in Auntof6 administrative actions can be considered harassment. That reads as nothing more than a blatant attempt deflect attention from the widespread administrative misconduct you've admitted Auntof6 is a party to here on Simple English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very big difference in trying to discuss something and the type of language they used in their original post here. They clearly went on the offensive and make some pretty extraordinary claims insinuating that the Auntof6 was hiding stuff just because they didn't like it. I do not agree its administrative misconduct, I believe I just wouldn't have made those decisions, as I noted in my comment, this wiki is considerably more lenient on what it is willing to have revdel'd. I have a difference of opinion on how to handle it, but I wouldn't remotely call it misconduct. Getting other people to come here from other wiki's with other standards to attack a user here, which is what this very much is, is most definitely harassment which is why I said for everyone to step back and take a breath and discuss it calmly instead of using inflammatory language. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly went on the offensive and make some pretty extraordinary claims insinuating that the Auntof6 was hiding stuff just because they didn't like it. is correct. That's because it's exactly what Auntof6 asked for. The damn discussion is in the section above this one and Auntof6 explicitly asks Is there any way to remove or mitigate the indication that this edit was vandalism? It was not vandalism, and I'd like to keep the record clean if possible.. Chrissymad is absolutely 100% correct in their initial post, please apologise for the claim that they "went on the offensive" and "made some extraordinary claims" because that's downright incorrect and is perilously close to being a personal attack. Nick (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't at all what she asked for. She asked how to correct a mistake. Chrissymad is implying that they are going around hiding content that they don't like. There is a very big difference. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented above would suggest Chrissymad is correct, that Auntof6 is going around hiding content that they don't like. The only other option is that Auntof6 doesn't understand the revdel policy sufficiently well to be an administrator here on Simple. The fact that Auntof6 asked to delete an edit summary they have clearly indicated they dislike, talking about "keep[ing] the record clean if possible". I think you own Chrissymad an apology and I think you need to cease defending Auntof6. Nick (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asking if there is a correct way to fix something is exactly what we would want an Admin to do if they are not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That only occurred after two administrators from English Wikipedia informed Auntof6 that hiding edit summaries which didn't meet with her approval was very much against the revdel policy. The problematic edits concerning their understanding of the policy are at [5][6]. They're not suggesting asking for advice at this stage, they're asking for an uninvolved admin to break the revdel policy based on their own faulty understanding of the revdel policy, which is where our concern comes from, and from where Chrissymad is drawing the initial conclusion that Auntof6 is deleting edits based not on the policy but on either personal preference (or a faulty understanding of policy). Your defence of Auntof6 either ignoring policy or failing to understand it adequately does yourself a great dis-service. I would suggest instead of arguing, you look into Auntof6's past revdels and recitify the issues raised here. Nick (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are asking for an uninvolved admin for a 2nd opinion. Do you think if they were asking another admin to break policy for them they would ask if it was ok if they did so? Come on now, assume just a little bit of good faith. They may very well not know the policy well enough, but continually hammering away that they are trying to break policy is over the top. They did exactly what we would expect them to do, go ask another admin for their input. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, they're telling Chrissymad that they're going to ask another administrator to undertake the deletion based on their own flawed understanding of the revdel policy. It's in black and white at [7][8]. Nick (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They specifically say that if the other admin doesn't agree then they are cool with it. That to me sounds like they are looking for the opinion of another admin. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after our intervention. It shouldn't take administrators from English Wikipedia and Commons to have to come over and explain the revdel policy to an administrator on a sister project. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet. I hope, at the end of this, we get Simple respecting the revdel policy in the same way English does. Nick (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso etting other people to come here from other wiki's with other standards to attack a user here, which is what this very much is, is most definitely harassment which is why I said for everyone to step back and take a breath and discuss it calmly instead of using inflammatory language. A few problems with this: 1.) Please provide the diffs where I have been uncivil and/or attacked Auntof6 2.) Please provide proof that I have canvassed before continuing to make such accusations 3.) Provide proof of inflammatory language. We're not in kindergarten and there is no nicer way to ask for review than what I have. 4.) Please provide proof and diffs of where I used other wiki policies to bring this to AN. I linked and quoted simple's very own deletion policy. Proof. and for the final and last time, provide proof of where I have harassed this user.
ec but I find it funny that you're saying I implied they were maliciously hiding content when I specifically said otherwise but also that you've now continued on accusing me of canvassing, abuse, incivility and harassment without a single diff. Chrissymad (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso Okay, per Asking if there is a correct way to fix something is exactly what we would want an Admin to do if they are not sure. if a non-sysop asking civilly, to review administrative actions in cases of suspected misuse, be it intentional or due to a lack of understanding a clearly laid out policy is not appropriate here, but a sysop asking to violate deletion policy (literally, as I've linked you) is a-okay in this forum, where do I take it? Meta RFC? Chrissymad (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of something you wanted a diff of, they didn't ask to violate deletion policy, they asked if there was a valid way to do it. You are totally trying to make it sound as bad as you possibly can and totally not assuming good faith even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso I provided a diff here, specifically. I note you still have not provided diffs of these incidents of harassment, incivility or attacks on my part. Nor have you answered a single one of my questions. Have you read the discussion on my talk page or are you basing this entirely on the thread above this one? Since Simple does not have an arbitration committee, is it safe to assume this should be dealt with by Stewards on Meta? Chrissymad (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"one has to wonder what other content has been deleted because "I don't like it."" is what I am referring to in this particular discussion, you have since done more like the comment above about asking to violate deletion policy. She asked if you had an issue with her asking another admin. Apparently you take that as being to break policy for her as opposed to a second opinion. The harassment is that you have twice now showed up at this wiki and gotten upset at her only to immediately have people who don't edit at this wiki show up out of the blue to also jump on her. That to me seems like harassment. Happening once is coincidence, twice appears like canvassing. As for your comment about Arbcom, no it doesn't go to Meta. Everything is handled by the community in cases like this, either on Simple Talk or on this board. For actually removing we have a De-Rfa. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, assume just a little bit of good faith. They may very well not know the policy well enough, but continually hammering away that they are trying to break policy is over the top. They did exactly what we would expect them to do, go ask another admin for their input - and I did exactly what the community should do. I asked a question about an action (several, supported by diffs) that was in violation of policy as it is written currently. I can assume good faith and still question administrative tool use. If you don't like that, I don't know what to tell you but it's not an indication of incivility. I also still expect you'll be providing diffs of your claims in the near future. Regarding your last point, an administrator of such tenure should be expected to know and uphold basic policies. Ignorance of policy is not an excuse for anyone, whether they are a 'Crat or a new user. Chrissymad (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I think this matter is being stretched far too ahead. First of all calm down. You are making it personal by accusing one another. Yes, there might be some mistakes done by some users but taking it personally and looking their 1 mistakes above their hundreds of helpful contributions was never our policy. I think by going words by words into someones comment and understanding what they mean in wrong way won't lead us to a conclusion.

Can't we just discuss it like this,

Example
Chrissymad you say- "AU6 the edits you just made were against the policy stated here. Will you reconsider your actions??" Or something like that.
And AU6 says- "Oh! That I did was because of this reason. Or may say you are correct, sorry I made mistakes thanks for reminding" or something like that.
What I mean to say is the disagreement is reasonable but wikipedia is not our job we edit it because we like to do so. So please instead of making it seem child's quarrel let's help each other to know one another's mistake and not take it personally. I just said what I had to seeing this long discussion some sentences might there be complex but sorry in advance. Thanks. Regards.-BRP ever 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly I have to break this down more:
As far as your claim of harassment, again, proof. You do not get to make these claims based only on your perception. Provide diffs, same goes for canvassing, but have you stopped to think that perhaps a user with nearly 500k edits globally has probably gotten the attention of a few xwiki users? You keep talking about AGF but you've done nothing but berate and accuse me and Nick misbehavior. And as far as Meta is concerned, your insinuation and continued allegations are not a matter for only this community as a certain level of decorum is expected from sysops and crats globally. Chrissymad (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am rather concerned with the direction that this is going:

  • Most admins here are well aware that I think revdel is used way to easily here. But its done so by almost all the admins here. - if this is indeed the case, then it raises more questions. Do we want to accept that:
    • Administrators (even including myself) have been violating deletion policy via their (improper) revdel actions, and this is somehow not being (at least) flagged for discussion,
    • or somehow there was a shift in community consensus/norms such that the revdel actions are now (even if tacitly) accepted by the community, without any corresponding amendment to existing policy pages,
      • (from but the kinds of revisions you have pointed to have consistently been supported and even asked for by the community repeatedly)
    • or everyone has been misinterpreting revdel policy?

The first two interpretations seem to point to groupthink, and in my view it can be partially attributed to the fact that a large proportion of active editors (the community) also happen to be administrators. I am not saying that I am not complicit in this nor am I attempting to excuse this behaviour, but it is something that should be considered, and if an editor points out that we are violating established policy, then such an accusation should be taken seriously. The fact that there was a coincidental influx of editors from other wikis complaining about this doesn't seem relevant to me, because it is a valid complaint that was raised, and how does it matter whether an established editor on this wiki, or an editor from another wiki, made the initial complaint of policy violations?

And here are some more replies to a few issues that have been brought up here:

  • There is clearly a less strict interpretation of the policy here than en.wiki. - this would be consistent with my third suggested possibility, which I am not sure if it's really supposed to happen, given that the language used in our revdel policy came from EN.
  • they're asking for an uninvolved admin to break the revdel policy based on their own faulty understanding of the revdel policy - unfortunately, from my own reading of User talk:Chrissymad, I would concur with Nick's assessment, given that Auntof6's clarification in this thread showed up only after the fact. This means there was a breakdown in communication (of intentions) somewhere on that user talk page. Also, it was my impression that administrators enforce policy, which is in turn determined by community consensus. If multiple members of the community happen to object to a particular decision on policy grounds (which did happen in that thread), which outcome do we think is more plausible?
    • These multiple members of the community misinterpreted policy and therefore we should ask another administrator to (re-)interpret the policy.
    • It was indeed in violation of established policy.
  • they didn't ask to violate deletion policy, they asked if there was a valid way to do it - no matter how I read the message in question, I can't imagine any way that it could be a matter of asking if there was a valid way (to remove the edit summary). Policy makes it extremely clear that revdel is not to be used to hide mistakes. The deletion of an edit summary because it was a mistake of the original editor is, by definition, violation of policy.
  • That to me sounds like they are looking for the opinion of another admin. ... Yes, after our intervention. It shouldn't take administrators from English Wikipedia and Commons to have to come over and explain the revdel policy to an administrator on a sister project. - indeed, administrators on other wikis do not get to claim special authority on policy interpretation on this wiki, and I don't think they have the right to act as "another admin" in this context. Of course, they are perfectly entitled to point out policy violations (which is indeed happening here).
    • Revdel, unlike oversight, is not under the purview of a WMF-wide policy. It is well within the rights of this wiki to make its own changes to the local revdel policy as long as it does not conflict with existing global policy, such as m:Founding principles.

Now, I am not saying that violation of policies by sysops necessitates a desysop, so for the sake of simplicity of the argument let's assume that a desysop is not the intended outcome of this whole discussion. In lieu of that, there is a need to, at least, clarify consensus on the revdel matter, and ensure that policy is updated to reflect changes in community consensus (if any). And although this goes without saying, everyone should re-familiarise themselves with existing policy from time to time. I vaguely remember a similar issue revolving around the wording of the QD A4 reason in the deletion dropdown list (which was later addressed). Dropdown lists in the MediaWiki interface should not be considered authoritative when it comes to policy. Chenzw  Talk  11:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out, as a steward who has been made aware of this discussion but holds no opinion on the actions of local individuals, that administrators not following and enforcing policy are effectively going against the consensus of the community (who at some stage would have enacted the policy).
However, change in consensus often occurs, so I advise that the local community ensures that the revision deletion policy, as written, matches the current consensus. I feel there is perhaps a significant gap between what is written policy and what is actioned policy, which may have gone some way to cause this situation.
I'd like to thank Chenzw for keeping a level head and working through this meticulously and with the best interests of the project clearly at heart - this personifies the expected behaviour of our bureaucrats. If there's anything at all I can do to be of service, please feel free to let me know - TNT 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start off, I'd like to make clear that I am not here to defend Chrissymad, Auntof6, or anyone involved for that matter. I am simply here to voice my opinion to contribute to the community consensus. Regarding Chrissymad's comments, and her possibly harassment-like accusations towards Auntof6, I agree that Chrissymad has the right to bring up a discussion regarding the actions of an administrator and that it does not read as though her comments were written to be uncivil or a personal attack. We are a community-driven project, and although Chrissymad edits mainly on the English Wikipedia it does not denote that she is not entitled to bring up what she sees as policy violations. Regarding the legality of the aforementioned actions of Auntof6, we have a reputation of having more relaxed rules here than the English Wikipedia, which I maintain we need to try and be rid of. The size of our community, being minuscule relative to the English Wikipedia, unfortunately seems to result in changing of community consensus with simply 5 or 6 users agreeing to a change, whether their consensus be in spirit or in writing. This is what TheresNoTime refers to as actioned policy, as opposed to written policy, which I fully agree with as being a factor in the issues that prompted this discussion. From watching this conversation over the last few days, it has turned from a discussion of Auntof6's administrative actions to a cross-wiki drama. This is needless. I'd support a discussion regarding updating of the revision deletion policy, but I am definitely opposed to continuing this as a heated debate. Vermont | reply here 00:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear I didn't actually have issue with Chrissymad being from en.wiki (especially since I am an en.wiki editor/admin). The issue was more that Nick who had not had an edit here in 10 years (the ones more recent than that are imports) showed up to a very out of the way discussion on a small out of the way wiki very quickly which was concerning as possible canvassing, clearly someone had told him it was happening here which would be cross-wiki canvassing. Normally I would have shrugged it off except it happened a previous time where if I remember correctly one of those people had actually said they were asked to come and help here. As a small wiki we have to be hyper vigilant to cross-wiki canvassing because it has happened a few times where people from another wiki try to gather people to come here and overwhelm local consensus with editors who never actually edit here. It is why we have actual policies for things like you can't !vote in an RfA if you weren't registered on this wiki before the RfA started etc. People often don't realize that except for a few major overarching things, policies differ from wiki to wiki. TheresNoTime is right, it is likely a difference between written and actioned policy and a discussion on that is more than welcome, as I have stated very many times we delete here way to easily, both revdel and speedy. I am sure many people are sick of me saying, "If its not oversightable, its not revdelable" (which isn't strictly true but a good rule of thumb). I should also note, having more relaxed rules than en.wiki isn't necessarily a bad thing, en.wiki has become overburdened by bureaucracy that would be very hampering to a smaller wiki like ours which though many years old is still only in its infancy. As for the heated debate, I think that ended 2 days ago. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about bureaucracy. If we maintained a strict bureaucracy built in rock-solid policy we would have issues gaining new editors (more than we already have), and it would be hard to regulate this hypothetical bureaucracy with such a small editing force already working on other things. And to note, I realized how late I was to the party so I changed the wording in my comment right after I wrote it from "continue this heated debate" to "continue this as a heated debate". Regarding revision deletion policy, I have little experienxe in this area and will spectate the continuance of this conversation. Thanks, and happy editing :-) Vermont | reply here 11:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see Djsasso's point here. Given how small our community is, there is a very real possibility of crosswiki canvassing leading to a situation where "the community that decided on policy" is not the same as "the community that actually actively edits here". With that said this thread hasn't actually evolved into a policy-making/deciding thread yet, and from what I see Nick only showed up to point out policy violations. When the issue of revdel is brought up to the community for comment, I trust that the closing administrator will take relative account age and activity into consideration. I intend to start a new discussion on ST soon (while linking to this thread as background info), inviting members of the community to weigh in on our current revdel policies. Chenzw  Talk  13:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Admins are requested to semi protect this page Malala Yousafzai since ips are doing vandal changes there.-BRP ever 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to put this on hold for now; this seems to be an isolated incident, but I will be on the lookout for a worsening of the situation. Chenzw  Talk  11:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine. Thanks!-BRP ever 12:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

User:Jack Gaines is vandalizing Alan Jackson and other articles. The user has already been permanently blocked on regular Wikpedia for similar vandalism. TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like blatant vandalism to me, more like subtle incorrect additions. Now, adding a list of associated acts that competes length-wise with the article itself isn't constructive, but it's not something I would consider "vandalism". Remember, WP:AGF. Vermont | reply here 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they are a global LTA causing havoc across several wiki's primarily to BLPs. I've requested glock. Chrissymad (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: They have been global blocked and have a long term history of inserting this vandalism on Wikipedia and setlist.fm. It's definitely not an WP:AGF thing. They've been doing this for years and have had a ton of sockpuppet accounts blocked on en.wikipedia for adding the same misinformation. TenPoundHammer (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were just globally blocked. Thank you for bringing this up TenPoundHammer, and thank you Chrissymad for reporting it to the stewards. When going through the accounts, I noticed an extensive history of problems that I did not when just checking the edits. Subtle BLP vandalism is a problem that, sadly, frequently goes unnoticed. Vermont | reply here 23:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not vandalizing or adding incorrect information, I'm telling it like it is. Isn't the point of Wikipedia supposed to be a source of correct knowledge. In the end, Alan Jackson remains as a total disgrace to country music. It's like finding steak at a vegetarian restaurant. #AlanJacksonKilledCountry --Angela Criss (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you have a bias in this topic. I will be reverting your edit as it is defamatory and unsourced. Especially in BLP's, we must be careful with adding controversial information. Vermont | reply here 13:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source. --Angela Criss (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A mere list of covers implies nothing. Chenzw  Talk  14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: The user in question vandalized that setlist as well. TenPoundHammer (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policies created

Just an FYI but I created Wikipedia:High-risk templates and Wikipedia:Link rot based on English. I'm certain those policies are the same here but I think it's worth having administrators here have a once-over to reflect actual policy here. In particular, if they want to expand upon high-risk (since it shows up automatically during protection), it's probably better to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your High rish templates policy, I am of the opinion that semi-protection is sufficient in mostly every case (main page as the exception), as even in high use templates like Twinkle notifications there can be issues. Regarding the page you created on link rot, it could use some changing to conform to simple English, as some of the words used may sound odd to non-native English speakers. Specifically this bit: "Generally, do not delete something just because the URL to the source does not work any longer." I'm sure you see how the use of the words "source" and "longer" could be easily misinterpreted by a non-native English speaker. Although we assume that our editors have a certain degree of proficiency in English, a Wikipedia-space page on link rot would likely gather substantialf viewership from our IP editors that may stumble upon it in their editing. Note that I am not an administrator, I just noticed a few issues I'd like to comment on. I may be wrong on this, but should this not be posted on simple talk as well, to seek community consensus for new policies? Vermont | reply here 01:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The high risk I've copied but it seems to be used as full protection. The other one, feel free to rewrite. I didn't think of these as new polices. High risk showed up as a red link on a number of page protections automatically and link rot shows up everywhere Template:dead link is used which is quite a lot. If someone thinks the main talk page is better, feel free to post there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article demotion

We have a proposed demotion from VGA. It has four comments from experienced people, all pointing in the same direction. Someone uninvolved could reasonably take action. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Closed as demoted.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation at Ho Kan

This article was created by a sock of the globally blocked User:Alec Smithson (hoaxes and serious copyright violations). More background here. The page was a verbatim copy of this website. I have removed the copyvio and re-written as a stub with a proper reference. On English Wikipedia, we usually revision delete the copyvio. I'm not sure if you do that here. Just letting you know in case you do. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: Thanks. We can under RD#4 other Valid Deletion reason, since we can QD for Copyvio, we can on this also. -- Enfcer (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hi, Could someone protect the following pages for the next 5 months to a year please:

3

An LTA keeps vandalising them and this has gone on for quite some time and so if protected it might stop them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of these seem to meet our criteria for semi-protection (vandalism so frequent that it's hard to keep up with, which usually means repeatedly getting re-vandalized as soon as vandalism is removed). Most of these have only two or three edits in the last couple of days, with none for some time before that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create templates for requesting page protection

Hello. Can we use templates for requesting page protection instead of plain text? The only things for asking to request page protection is:

  • i would use a message box with a padlock icon
  • i would use a reason, comments and page parameter which easily shows the page, comments about the protection, and protection reason.
  • i will add a category where the template will put the page into the category.

Please also support those templates with Twinkle? --Psl631 Talk Contributions 21:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an administrator (and this is AN) I will contribute my thoughts to the discussion. To put it simply, templates are useless to use on a noticeboard such as this. If I remember correctly, you discussed this with Auntof6 recently, and you were asked not to make and use templates. I remembered incorrectly. Vermont (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather to use templates rather than plain text. If others use plain text, can I create and use templates. Is this OK?--Psl631 Talk Contributions 06:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can create any templates you want in your own userspace. As far as using them on this page or other maintenance pages, for me that depends on how they work. If they leave plain text on the page, it might be OK. If they result in text that is formatted somehow, then I'd want to see how it's formatted. Any templates in userspace that are used this way should be substituted. You also shouldn't expect everyone to use them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Can I create my own templates to use for requesting page protection on this noticeboard, and they can be subst: ed in this page, and others can use plain text. Is that OK? --Psl631 Talk Contributions 07:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully. I said it might be OK. I'd want to see exactly what would be left on the page before saying whether I think it would be OK. Also, I'm only speaking for myself; others might have other input. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please learn to indent correctly. When you reply to someone, your reply should be indented one level more than what you're replying to. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need such templates yet. We don't request for page protection very often and it's easy to request it here like we usually do. It's what I think but thanks for the idea. Regards-BRP ever 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Psl631 is asking only about templates for their own use, not general use, so it wouldn't affect anyone else. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 and BRPever: Ok, when I request page protection, I will very rather request using a template than plain text and links. The template (if it will be created) will contain a page, reason and a comments parameter. Then can an admin set accepted or declined below the template. When can the templates be created?

Comments: Please ping me if the request was accepted or notify me on my talk page. --Psl631 Talk Contributions 08:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Psl631:, If it is for your own use you can create it under own userspace.-BRP ever 09:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Psl631: On your semi protection request template you say, "Please do NOT remove this template from this page." Are you planning on inserting this template onto the top of articles you request protection for, or just on WP:AN? Vermont (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: I planned to use that template on the target article's talk page and on this noticeboard. The template I just created was vandalized by an IP editor by adding a bad image. I reverted the edit. --Psl631 Talk Contributions 10:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that we would not want that template anywhere. The format is not what we want on WP:AN, and we don't need a template on the target article's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article move request

Hi, Could an admin move Kundali bhagya back to Kundali Bhagya and could an admin delete the redirects, Some editor moved this and the AFD for some bizarre reason, I've moved the AFD back but can't move this page back, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think I cleaned everything up. I also move-protected the RFD page. Let me know if I missed something. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant thanks Auntof6, Nope I think that's everything thank you :), –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

block request

Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B104:1305:A18A:6EC5:18B1:1925 Please block this IP address. vandalism --Rxy (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already posted at WP:VIP. This IP is engaging in libelous edits on high-visibility BLP's and articles. Vermont (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Special:Contribs/2600:1000:b10e:a150:281d:a83d:7407:5337 . feel free to modify or unblock it if necessary. Thanks! --Rxy (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A local block? Bold move...stewards don't usually do that on wikis with active administrators. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an xwiki LTA that made a bunch of accounts last night and used them to vandalize on this wiki. Vermont (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I get why it was blocked, but if it was a xwiki thing, usually its a xwiki lock and not a local block. I just can't remember the last time I saw a steward make a local block. Saw one do a CU here recently too. Just figured in both cases it was new stewards. No big deal was just surprised. -DJSasso (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Usually" so. Do you think this is "usual" status after look at created accounts of Special:Contribs/Mastervandyrandy, Special:Contribs/Randallvanderal Special:Contribs/2600:1000:b10e:a150:281d:a83d:7407:5337 and that evasion of Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B104:1305:A18A:6EC5:18B1:1925 ? In urgent cases are stewards may take an actions. e.g. Special:Redirect/logid/1131332, Special:Redirect/logid/1093285, m:Special:Redirect/logid/2427082. This time is really no available local admins. I don't want to take a global block when vandalism occured in one wiki only (except Open Proxy or case of foreseen to spread at another wiki). --Rxy (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC) modify wrong copy and paste.--Rxy (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they certainly can. I didn't look to see how many accounts were created, just the one you blocked locally which only made two edits so I didn't see the urgency so was surprised. And you only posted a couple minutes before I did, which to me meant there was an admin around, however, looking now at the block log though it appears you did the block hours before you posted which I didn't realize when I commented. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry related articles

Geometry related articles which were delete earlier have been recreated with the redirect to polygon and polygon hold no information about these subjects. So I think it's best to delete them. There are many to mark it for QD so requesting it here. Thanks-BRP ever 05:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the earlier deletes was that the articles were unsimplified from enwiki. If they're recreated as redirects, I don't see a problem. Maybe you could go through RFD with these if you think redirects shouldn't be kept. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you see in the history of some of those deleted articles you may find that some of them were created as redirects and were later modified into copies of enwiki. And if the reason was that I do not have problem with keeping those redirects with the closely related pages. I was just a little bit confused about those earlier and newer version. Thanks-BRP ever 06:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as a bad username?

Hi. I wonder if I could seek administrator opinion on a user I have found in RC, User:Gangbang42056. In accordance with policy, I will make the user aware that I have raised a request here. I want to query whether the username concerned, whilst not specifically covered in WP:USERNAME, could be seen as unacceptable due to the sexual meaning of the word "Gangbang". Could I get some input on whether it's acceptable or not please? Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: User notified - here. DaneGeld (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have obviously lead a very cloistered life. I knew it was a sexual reference, but Google has just opened my eyes as to what it actually is. I didn't even need to bring this to you, it's obviously offensive and covered by the Username policy! My mind will never be the same again... ^.^ DaneGeld (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator observation)Yes, but... it's not enough to block immediately on. Considering their only edit is vandalism, and it happened 4 hours ago, I recommend to just leave it be. Also, regarding DaneGeld's comment about searching it on Google. It does have two meanings, at least where I come from. Someone who is a member of a criminal organization, i.e. a gang, is commonly described by that term. In using it for that purpose, there is no sexual implication. Vermont (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right there are 2 meanings but this troll clearly doesn't mean the gang related term and that's pretty obvious by their vandal edit - this user has a similar name however A) that user's added streetgang stuff to their userpage and B) Hasn't vandalised anywhere hence the leeway given there, When you've dealt with trolls and vandals for a good 4-5 years you can generally see differences between a legit editor and a troll/vandal, Ofcourse if an admin disagrees then cool I shant lose sleep over it however I'm 110% sure it's a troll/vandal, If they want to edit constructively then they can always resign up and a nicer name (No good asking them to ask what they mean by this word as they'll just read this discussion ....). –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have blocked the user for having a bad user name: not because of the sexual implication, but because of the implication of violence. Even if the user didn't have anything negative in mind, people seeing the user name probably would. The user can appeal this if they want. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Thank you for your clarification, WP:USERNAME wasn't all that clear with their, "Here are ways to avoid offending people...Do not choose something that may be offensive." :-) Vermont (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

The user has already been blocked, but can someone please look into the threats being posted here? This guy's been hounding en.wikipdia, simple.wikipedia, and the Spanish and French ones for months, with increasingly volatile threats toward Alan Jackson. He has stalked me on both Twitter and Facebook with more of the same. This insane diatribe he's just posted has me convinced that he's seriously out for blood. Global blocking hasn't worked, and I don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole with his socks across three different wikipedias that I barely edit. Is there any way we or any other Wikipedia can track this guy down and stop him forever? Maybe alert his ISP or something? TenPoundHammer (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked that account here. I don't have the necessary authorization to verify socks or check IP addresses, but maybe some of our admins who do have it will be able to help. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I would suggest contacting the WMF. They have response teams and protocols in place for threats of harm and like actions. I have reported a half dozen or so. They can not tell you there outcome but will take appropriate action. --Enfcer (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That user created another account and left another comment on User talk:TenPoundHammer. I reported it to VIP and I'll sit around and rollback it's edits. Vermont (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look in a few minutes. I meant to get looking at it earlier but I have had a busy morning. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I also found it adding threats to it's own talk page and pinging TenPoundHammer. If you read closely the text looks serious.-BRP ever 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect Google

Psl631 TALK Contribs 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason why not is as follows: semi-protection only prevents edits by unregistered users, and by accounts that have not been autoconfirmed or confirmed. All the recent vandalism on the page is by a single user registered under various names (that's an inference, but I'm sure it's right). As far as I can see, the page has not been especially targeted by many unregistered users. You could argue that his accounts had not been confirmed, Still, personally, I'm not going to do it. Others will make their own minds up in due course. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross: It is a cross wiki LTA known as Hoggardhigh. Vermont (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Yok Kek Nguan" vandals

Three anon editors from IPs registered to the US have been repeatedly vandalizing (T·E·H·L·RSudan by changing the president to "Yok Kek Nguan" and vice-president to "Paul Mawein Ajang". I don't think blocking the IPs would stop this so maybe protection would be an alternative. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do that, are we sure that they don't have a new president and vice president? I don't know where to check that for Sudan. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely not. Two news stories: [9] and [10]. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've semi-protected for three months. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that (T·E·H·L·RSouth Sudan and more recently, (T·E·H·L·RUnited Nations have been the target too, so I have range-blocked 192.234.160.244/30 for 2 weeks. Chenzw  Talk  01:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have an "IP-hopper" on these pages. See the revision history for the vandalizing IP addresses. All of them have done the same thing and this for needs an investigation.««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vandals are back. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision Deletion Request

See Special:Contributions/K-Pop_Hater_on_Wheëls. A few of those edits could use revision deletion due to their offensive content, per the second bullet in WP:RD. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them,and for most, I don't see material that needs to be revision deleted; yes. Some of these edits use language that may be offensive, on the other hand, I expect people to be able to cope with offensive language. Note that English is not my mother tongue, so I leave it up to native-speaking admins to acr, if they feel like it. --Eptalon (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You suppressed the most offensive one. The others aren't really screaming "revdel" to me (except the one on K-pop), but it's not for me to decide, which is why I linked the Special:Contribs page rather than specific diffs. Vermont (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also suppressed (revdel, still visible to admins) the K-Pop entry you linked. As for the others, let's see what the native speakers think. --Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

Hey, I only note that the article Buddhism have got vandalized by many IP editors, an range of IPs by 2 IPs and they blank the article, replacing content with insult and otherwise vandalize the article. Please can somewone add a temporarily semi-protection to the article? -- Psl631 TALK Contribs 18:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now edit-protected (for a month; you need autoconfirmed flag to edit). --Eptalon (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]