Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion. You may use requests for rollback to request rollback.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Kennedy

Resolved.

Just curious. Someone mentioned a while ago that I could talk to someone... 'devs' or something... about reinserting an email address into my old account User:Kennedy to enable me to go through 'forgotten password' to re-enable my access. For the life of me I can't remember who said it, or if it is possible or who I should talk to. Anyone know if it is possible? Normandy 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% but I think maybe that you could ask a system administrator. Not sure if they can do it or not, but they're the closest people I can think of that may be able to do it. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ok with this. No person should bypass normal security measures. Nomandy, this is not towards you, only the idea. Jon@talk:~$ 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They have been known to do it for people that lose their passwords but I am not sure who they are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"They" are the system administrators. -195.194.111.196 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that...I meant a specific name. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jon; why? Its my account. Normandy 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The password recovery option was designed to be a 100% gurentee that the person retrieving a new password is the actual owner. Without any kind of public/private key authentication, or some kind of cert pki, something to verify you are who you say you are. I won't accept verification from another untrusted party. I don't think the sysadmins should either.

It is a questionable security practice all together. Jon@talk:~$ 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe I am not Kennedy? Normandy 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to get this done, only a trusted person needs to verify that the account is really yours, which shouldn't be much of a problem in your case. -Barras (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Do you know how I would go about it? Who do I speak to? Normandy 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If the logs are still there, any checkuser should be able to verify both accounts were created from the same IP, or perhaps class C subnet (i.e. same company network). Once this is done, I guess any person with shell access should be able to reset your password to one of your choice. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• A checkuser with results of good confidence would lighten my concern. I can ask a dev to look into the request after that. Would a CU be willing to conduct an investigation? Jon@talk:~$ 13:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • For clarity; I am happy for a CU to do so. Normandy 13:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will leave it for Eptalon to do since he knows what it is he is looking for. I am not sure how to look for that info that far back to when the account was created. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved. -Barras (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It is indeed. *cough* Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pages from user Racepacket's user space

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

---

• Summary: Racepacket blocked indef (but not community banned) for violating his one-strike. The block may be overturned following further community discussion. I would like to point out that the user's ArbCom enforced block on EN ends in June 2012, so that may also be a suitable time for us to review this block. Chenzw  Talk  15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged several pages for quick deletion that were moved from User:Racepacket's user space. I tagged them because I see little or no change from the enwiki versions of the articles. It might be better to move them back to userspace rather than delete, so I wanted to bring this up here before someone just deletes them. If there's a procedure to request moving back to user space, please let me know what it is. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Dative case & AirTran Airways articles there was almost zero simplification. I assume that to likely be the case with the others as well. No real point in moving to user space unless the user intends to put in a serious effort simplifying. -DJSasso (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been an on-going situation. I have gone back over many of his articles and done cleanup, simplifying, linking, recategorizing, etc but it is hard to keep up with the new articles. Only minor work and pruning is usually done. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah he was warned by the community for it previously and if I remember correctly almost blocked/banned for it when he promised to stop doing it and to work with another user to avoid doing it. If nothing has changed we may have to revist the previous discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to DJSasso for notifying me of this discussion. I will provide diffs to show the work that I have done on each article. I have been very open to feedback and am not doing this maliciously. I read each article carefully and have seen the changes made by 70.184.171.16 and viewed them as suggestions for mistakes to avoid going forward. So, I am very surprised by the indirect / confrontational approach taken on expressing any concerns about my efforts. I will hold off on creating new articles. I will make comments on the articles flagged by Auntof6. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of the changes that I have made: [1]. (My diffs seem to be deleted as fast as I can post them.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've gone back as far in the move log as I'm going to for now. Please know that my tagging the articles is just one editor's opinion. Also know that I was not targeting Racepacket specifically: I was looking at articles creating by being moved from userspace, because those bypass the patrol process. It just happens that Racepacket does a lot of moving from userspace. I also do not think Racepacket was being malicious. If the admins disagree with the QD tags, they are free to decline deletion and I would be fine with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We should note that the reason that I move the articles after creating them in user space is that it is an ongoing restriction on my editing. I am also having other editors move templates over from English Wikipedia rather than doing so myself. Again, any comparison between the Simple English articles and those on English Wikipedia should be made by a comparison back to English Wikipedia and not between different versions on Simple English Wikipedia. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my comparisons have been between the English Simple English Wikipedias. I also knew about your restriction on creating articles, and I did not think you were deliberately trying to bypass the patrol process. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems the review process is not working if these largely unsimplified copies are still going through. Previously, and before that, and again. This problem has been going on for quite a while with little improvement or change. Gotanda (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Update: And now here. The editor just doesn't listen. Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Could User:Gotanda please give us an example of a concern about an article that he has raised over the past month that has been ignored? I do not see how he claims this is the result of "not listening". Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent one. (within one month request is arbitrary and I've been busy with other things besides cleaning up after you). I removed extensive copy and paste from Windsor, Vermont. You complained to User:Barras but he supported the change and told you not to copy. You said you understood. Yet, the same behavior of copying and pasting from En continues unchanged. 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Windsor, Vermont was reviewed by User:Peterdownunder and simplified before we moved it to article space. I did listen to Barras and did not include famous resident lists in any further city articles. I read each article very carefully and make changes regarding grammar and vocabulary as necessary. I don't change sentences that are already simple for the sake of change. One of the interesting items that you deleted in Windsor, Vermont was the "Further reading" section that listed two sources. I still do not understand why you would delete references as being "complex." Citation forms do not follow grammar rules and do not involve vocabulary. They are valuable to readers and should be included in articles when practical. I am puzzled as to why you use emotion-loaded terms like "cleaning up after you." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I use the phrase "cleaning up after you" because it is a clear and simple description. You copy from En, then others have to clean up the complex mess left behind. Not emotional, simply accurate. Gotanda (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is what our readers expect of Simple English Wikipedia. Are we serving them with important information in a form that they can use and understand? Including lists, such as "Further reading" help our readers even if they are identical to English Wikipedia. It seems to me that leaving them in is less work than making a big issue about whether they should be taken out. The analysis of how to best serve our readers should not involve emotion or expressions of personal umbrage like "cleaning up after you." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in answer to your first question there, "Are we serving them important information in a form they can use and understand" , that answer in this case is clearly No. These articles are not in Simple English or even close to it. You would not consider posting an article in this condition to the French or Spanish wikipedia, but for here you ignore or simply do not understand what Simple English is. Simple English is not just "well that seems easy to understand to me". It is a created language with its own vocabulary and grammar restrictions. If a word is not in that vocabulary, it almost always must be linked/explained/reworded. Without extensive work, most articles in English are as unacceptable here as they would be on any other language because this is not English. A SE article should not have a reading level of 9-12th ( to post graduate) grade. Seventh grade (US) students (max) should get a clear understanding of everything in the article and the supplied links to other articles needed. Anyone with more than the most basic ESL training should have little issues understanding this. At times, I've needed to spend 30 minutes looking up multiple terms just to try and understand what a specific point in your article is about before being able to translate it and I have a college education, extensive military training/experience and a decade+ of experience after that. You posted that you took a look at the IP cleanups of your articles, but then the next article needs just as much work. The articles yesterday were still in need of something as basic as categories we actually have on this wiki and removal of {{main}} tags to articles we do not have. A simple preview of what is going to be red shows things that need to be there (links and such) and templates, other articles and categories we simply do not have and in most cases will not have for an unknown amount of time.

It is only acceptable to present a page that is identical to the English version in the case that the English version happens to be in Simple English. It does happen at times (some lists, small stubs and disambigs) but it is rare. If we are just presenting the same page as them, we might as well be them. It is unacceptable to present a page that has not been validly (at least attempted to be) translated into the language of this wiki. --Creol(talk) 07:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The key point in this discussion is that repeatedly, many many times over, RP has brought over whole pages (or large chunks) and failed to simplify them. Sometimes he has done nothing at all, but even when he says (in effect) "I made many changes", those changes are essentially trivial and do not improve the situation. He has never really accepted our basic remit on this wiki, and has continued with exactly the same behaviour I complained about in respect of his chemistry pages. I agee strongly with Creol's last paragraph. That is exactly how we should think. I believe RP should be permanently banned from bringing material over from enWP. Enough is enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My approach has been to look at the articles in two parts: (1) the text and (2) the lists, citations, quotations, and tables. With the text, I put the text into short simple sentences with active voice. I then make sure that each word is appropriate. With the second group, grammar is not as relevant and I cannot control the vocabulary in quotations or reference titles. I do translate the text and consider what the reader needs to know and what is less important. I then look at each sentence. I check vocabulary and put the first occurance of technical terms in red. I make sure that each article has at least one blue category, and leave some, more precise red categories so that if three or more articles get that category, I (or another editor) can make them blue. I try to link to wikt: if the definition better fits than the Simple English Wikipedia. (For example wikt:toxic in many cases is better than toxic. When I see a word or phrase occuring in red links many times, I create an article to make it blue. A lot of subject areas are difficult to explain and challenge a novice reader. So, I have put my energies into building a explaination for the reader. I start with the lead paragraph. I add more detail in subsequent sections, recognizing that readers are free to stop reading after the lead. I have seen some mistakes after-the-fact (for example from reading Creol's edits or Peterdownunder's reviews). I continue to go through a learning process, and a lot of this is judgment that is shape through feedback. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A separate problem is what actions to take on recent changes patrol. User:Gotanda cites to Thermosetting polymer which was created by User:Iain.garioch. I thought that the article missed the key point that these substances could be heated and moulded once, but not repeatedly. So, I brought the material from English Wikipedia because it did a better job of capturing the idea than what Iain wrote. I did not give it the multiple passes that I give my own articles, but I thought that it was a better solution than quick deleting the article. Gotanda then deleted the official (IUPAC) definition and the valid examples of thermosetting polymers. (Iain had also included most of these examples in his version.) The question is whether to try to fix articles with bad/false information or to just tag them or to propose them for deletion? I welcome your feedback. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

I've been trying to stay out of this, because my opinion was expressed by making the QD requests in the first place. However, this is now taking up a lot of people's time. Would an admin be willing to userfy the articles in question? Racepacket seems to be rushing to make the articles acceptable, but the changes being made, while helpful and appropriate, are mostly trivial. In user space, they could be worked on without urgency and without so many people needing to be involved. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback and consensus is helpful. I'm a bit surprized that so many articles and time went by without more feedback from people with concerns. Perhaps we should wait a few more days for more admins to weigh in. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised when I saw all these -- you had been doing much better for quite a while. I don't think multiple admins are required -- any admin can act, and my question stands. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already given you reasons why you should userfy them, Racepacket, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to see that you haven't already done it. Osiris (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it does not appear that userfying works. It has been tried and that was the editing restriction after Racepacket was unblocked by NonvocalScream after an irc discussion. The issue is copying and not simplifying. That issue has been ongoing. As Creol wrote above. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and Racepacket's edits are generally not simple--certainly not simple in any of these current cases up for QD. How many times do we have to go through this for a user already banned on En for one year partly for disruptive editing? Gotanda (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gotanda is misrepresenting what happened on En Wikipedia. That I respectfully tried to mediate a dispute between a graduate student and a teenager from India who was being cyberbullied and questioned her relying upon her intimate friend to give her favorable GA reviews is not "disruptive editing." She claimed that I was "harrassing" her about her misconduct. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the issues here. Your using this argument does suggest that you are motivated by things other than a concern for simple articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen, Gotana. The fact we keep allowing this to occur is time consuming on our parts. That Racepacket has no clue that his articles are not simple is a major concern here. Only (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Userfication is just a solution for the articles in the QD category, not for Racepacket's editing. Another option is just to clip the articles to stubs of one or two sentences. We can't just leave them sitting in there until he gets around to fixing them. Osiris (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the options here, I see three: Importing restrictions, blocking (mainly as a warning getting the message across that this isnt acceptable) and everyone else just fill in and repair the damage. As #1 is a bit much, #2 is overkill at this point and #3 serves no one, might I suggest a #4 (based in #1): A restriction against creating new articles (based on existing material ie. enwp) or moving articles from the user space to the main space. He can still create articles in the user space and clean them up as he choeses, but is restricted from moving them into the main space - He must get someone else to validate that the changes were sufficient and move the article themselves for him. This causes someone else to both validate the changes (semi-mentoring) and accept signing off on the articles creation. If the problem does not get corrected, finding people willing to assist gets harder and harder until it just doesn't happen any more (ie someone else gets yelled at for putting unacceptable articles into the mainspace which should cause others to be more picky about if the article is relatively acceptable). He can still create the content he wants (in the user space), but is in effect patrolled about making new articles until such a time that those patrolling him sign off that the work is within the scope here. All current content (listed on his user page already) gets a quick admin review - if it needs tagged as Complex, it gets moved back to the userspace (and the redirects deleted - hence the admin review). 70.184.171.16 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have blocked Racepacket for 24 hours for a libellous edit summary contributed to this thread. This time period chosen simply because I am aware that, having met the editor who was being slandered, I am possibly involved (although certainly not, as Racepacket suggests in his unblock req, a "friend"), and because he does need to contribute to this thread to resolve the original problem here. I would however suggest that in the light of his enwiki ban and history here, this behaviour would otherwise warrant a stronger action than that taken. Your mileage may vary; BRD applies. sonia♫ 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah at this point I think he has probably used up his one-strike. So could most easily be sent packing rather than trying to fix the unfixable. I should note the now hidden edit summary alone would be enough for me to say he violated his one strike. That was a grossly degrading personal attack that was waaaay over the line. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: this has been reported to the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia here as this is a violation of an arbitration remedy. While of course the enwp ArbCom has no remit on Simple, this could bring some consequences at enwp. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I was sitting back and watching this from afar as I didn't really have an opinion. Much of his work is good, and I hadn't honestly noticed the 'bad'. I didn't see the edit summary but by the descriptions I can hazard a guess. It goes back to PAs... as with further up this page. Normandy 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Two things. The articles had sat there long enough. I have deleted them. Anyone that wants to fix them let me know and I will undelete one at a time for you to fix in your user space. The second thing is that since there were no obvious objections I am extending Racepackets block to indef for violating his one-strike by directly doing exactly what he is banned from en for. I am open to reversing it if someone can give a reason why we should and then we can put it to the community. But I don't think there will be much objection which is why I am taking the action. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Protection

There seems to have been an attack on Electronic Arts‎. With no immediately available administrator, it was asked of the m:stewards to step in, as this considered an emergency. I semi-protected the page for 12 hours, and I am leaving this note here for there to be a record for local administrators. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I also blocked 207.6.50.74 for 3 hours for similar reasons. -- Avi (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Redaction needed

I'm sorry. My IP adress was revealed when I created the article United States Navy SEALs without logging on. Could someone withhold my IP adress, please? Shakinglord (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Noticed there are a number of broken redirects struck out, but they've been there for ages. I thought it was ones already done but actually on closer inspection they are IW redirects such as [2] [3] [4] [5] usw. Not wanting to QD, do we just change to a soft redirect template? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd just leave em but you could change it to the soft direct template if they bother you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AWB access

Requesting access here for use of AWB. I was originally removed from the list when admin's did not need to be listed there so now I'm not authorized. Plan on dealing with a couple minor annoyances (film -> movie, ==External Links==, American - United States|American) --Creol(talk) 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, happy editing. sonia♫ 08:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 200+ film->movie down, 700 more to look at then the other groups.. oi this is fun stuff here. --Creol(talk) 12:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Youareretarded

Resolved. Blocked by Tdxiang. -Orashmatash (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if Youareretarded (talk · contribs)'s username is acceptable... --Bmusician 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Translated" pages from en-wiki

User:Shakinglord has been creating a number of pages with the edit summary "make page translated from english wiki. Hope it works out". For example, Underground Railroad. Is this sufficient attribution, or does a link and revision number to the en-wiki version need to be included in the edit summary too? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Best practice would be to add this template to the articles talk page: {{Enwp based | url= (add full address here) }}. The full address should be obtained by using the permanent link from the left side tool box. This will put the full page and version address into the address bar in the browser window which is then copied and pasted into the template. See Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology for an example of how it works.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I'll start adding attributions to my articles immediatley. Shakinglord (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PacificWarrior101

• ‎PacificWarrior101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This new user appears to be adding incorrect information or fringe ideas to various articles relating to ethnic groups. His edits have caused problems on here and enwp. He appears to have had a disagreement with several editors over there, and has now brought the disputed content to add here instead. Osiris (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be occupied with articles relating to the South East Pacfic, espicially the Malays. Perhaps a topic ban should be enacted. Shakinglord (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything that warrants a block currently, but he does need to look into citing references to substantiate his claims. Chenzw  Talk  16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are for long-term offenders, and agree with Chenzw that there's nothing to warrant a block. The problems with his edits have evidently been explained to him by several users on enwp. Adding the disputed information here instead is not appropriate. Osiris (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry....i've added MANY sources to many posts lacking citations in Southeast Asia. ive cleaned up some unnecessarry crap on Nalays as well. i explain myself on my talk page PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Redaction Needed

One of my freinds apparently thought it was funny to post my first name on my talk page. Could that be redacted and the vandal(s) (so far just User: BigDaddyCactus, but i'm sure there will be more) blocked? I know this guy personally and I know he will not contribute to Wikipedia. Shakinglord (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a warning. On the non simple English wikipeida, Shakinglord has a history of claiming actions of friends which appear to be untrue. You may want to see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord/Archive before spending a lot of time with them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No comment on that, but there isn't anything of substance in the post by BigDaddyCactus so there shouldn't be a problem in redacting it as a precaution. Osiris (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah no problem with that. Was really suggesting you may want to investigate further and consider blocking Shakinglord and anyone else involved as well as removing the content. Seems clear their stories are hard to believe with the history, as you agree here. But choose my words carefully. Did not want to come across as someone from another wiki telling you to block someone else solely because of their activity in my wiki. Or make claims or suggestions which I would need to defend. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for continuing the same behaviour which got him banned on en which was sockpuppeting. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, a bunch of his socks have just turned up on en-wiki as well. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Geez. Shakinglord appears to be a troll, starting threads about himself and baiting people into investigating his own bad behaviour. Who's time is that worthless? Osiris (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I feel it might be a good idea for an admin to take a run through the list of 203 users with the rollback tool. Several are retired, long gone and even banned.

Also, as it keeps getting missed, this needs closing. Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this awhile ago and it was felt it wasn't a tool we should remove if people go inactive. It causes no danger. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, understood. And the other issue is still unresolved? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am involved so I can't do anything about it. But I am guessing there isn't enough discussion to really make a call on it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if we're closing it as no consensus it would be good for an admin to do so. Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

Could someone please protect the following pages?

• Valmiki (and its redirect Valmiki Ramayana)
• Kabir‎

They've been protected on enwp because of disruptive editing, so the perp has come over here instead. Persistent copyright violations. No point in blocking the IPs, since it seems to jump every few hours. Osiris (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Chenzw  Talk  11:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Thanks. Going to sleep now. Osiris (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AWB access

Can I please be added to the registered users list for AWB? At the moment, I need it for fixing coordinate formatting here and replacing deprecated parameters here and here. Osiris (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added you, however the request page for this is here. -Barras talk 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

! The talk page! Duh! Looked everywhere but. Thanks, Barras. Osiris (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Flood flag

Could someone give me the flood flag? I'm clearing out a maintenance category and fear I've been flooding RC. -- An example diff -- Osiris (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dome, please post a message when you are done. --Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Osiris (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to admins: Osiris is finished flooding. Osiris (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Flood flag broken

Hello fellow admins,

please note that the 'flood permission' (flag) does not hide edits of the respective user in the recent changes log. A workaround is using the bot flag. I have not yet reported an error, awaiting independent confirmation of this problem. --Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's my fault. Am I supposed to log out of AWB and then back in again after receiving the flood flag? I made 2 non-AWB edits on Firefox (a QD tag with twinkle) and they didn't show, but all the AWB edits did. After you gave me the bot flag, the AWB edits continued to show up. Until I logged out of AWB and then back in; now it's working fine. Osiris (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse a non-admin for answering, but yes, the flood flag takes effect the next time you log in after it is set. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! *slap self* My bad. Osiris (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, It is an AWB issue, you have to set it before you log into AWB otherwise you have to log out and back in for it to work. It is a long known issue. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This problem occurs because MediaWiki requires "&bot=1" passed in order for an edit to be recognised as a bot edit, even if an account is flagged. AWB retrieves your user information once upon login and caches it for the rest of the session, thus it will not recognise the new bot/flood (flood does work) status halfway through the AWB session. Chenzw  Talk  12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Karen Rose Perez Roque‎

This user needs to be made aware of the policies on privacy and user pages. The page has gone beyond WP:UP#NOT; the names of her family members should definitely be deleted. Osiris (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed and deleted the inappropriate revisions and left the user a note. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Orashmatash, although I think you missed some revisions. Osiris (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed. Deleted those also. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Or not. That should be it fixed now. Let me know if there are any others. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

She's done it again, both on her userpage and on her talk page cymru.lass ^(talk)⁄_(changes) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure its not actually her. I removed it again...if she puts it back give her a final warning...then I say block. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable username?

Resolved.

New user User:Fjuck off -- OK or not? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. -Orashmatash (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

QD

Anyone know why Militarism 1 world war isn't showing up in the list of QD'd pages? It was QD tagged on 6 Feb 12 by Tegel but isn't coming up on the cat:

Any ideas? Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be some obscure bug (or an issue with our QD template). Purging the cache didn't help. Chenzw  Talk  16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is likely a cache issue, there is more than one place where you have to purge sometimes if things don't get updated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought was purging the cache too. Just hope there aren't others. DJ, did you manage to get it showing on the tree by purging another page? Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Chenzw had already deleted it so it was too late. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Flood flag

Requesting flood flag to clear out a maintenance category. Osiris (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you are going to use AWB, I suggest you log out (if you have already logged in to AWB) and then log in to AWB. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Finished flooding. Banebdjed (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates to protect

If someone has some extra time, the following all have {{pp-template}} on them, so I assume they need to be protected indefinitely.

Template:Convert/basic/calc Template:Convert/basic/factor Template:Convert/Cal/USoz Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAoffDxSoff Template:Convert/ihp Template:Convert/kJ/g Template:Convert/m3/d

Template:Convert/mi ft Template:Convert/mph km/h Template:Convert/N.m Template:Convert/nmi mi Template:Convert/nmi mi ft Template:Convert/oilbbl/d

Template:Convert/PS Template:Convert/shp Template:Convert/t ST Template:Convert/valdisp/and/commas Template:Convert/valdisp/frac Template:Convert/valdisp/unit/abbr

They are not protected by the cascading protection on Template:Convert. Osiris (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, I think. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoosh! ;) Thanks! Osiris (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)