Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 46

Brandon Richardson

This is back, yet again. Jim Michael (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Page appeared similar to at least 1 of previous deletes. Deleted as G4 from the previous RFD on it. Also auto-confirmed salted the 3 titles for a couple of weeks, that were previously used for this article. -- Enfcer (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted the title. This user has been persistently recreating the same page since 2012. It's unlikely that he'll stop anytime soon. The community has repeatedly decided that the subject is not notable enough. If the subject meets notability guidelines at some point in time, then we can remove the entry if needed. --Glaisher (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

using registration to post personal details?

Could people look at User:Rizan by Sextuplets, User:Doni and xhaxela plus 9 and User talk:Doni and xhaxela plus 9. It seems to me to be an improper use of registration and/or user pages. Macdonald-ross (talk)

Said users blocked by Glaisher as sockpuppets of an indefinitely blocked user. If you see any similar accounts pop up, I'd recommend blocking as sockpuppets and referring to a checkuser. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Alsatian (dog) and Bullmastiff have been targeted by indefinite blocked User:Looneyboy6 and his block evading IPs for about 2 months now. Does this constant disruption warrant a page protection? Thanks--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Very few bad edits to those pages spread over a fairly significant time span so there is no need to protect. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection of Wikipedia

The article Wikipedia has had some persistent vandalism lately. I would like to request page protection for this page. Thanks. A² 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not what I would call persistent, and the recent vandal is now indeff'd. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection of Vandalism

Many users and IPs think it is funny to "vandalize" Vandalism I would like to request page protection for this page. Thanks. A² 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Generally speaking, pages are only protected if the vandalism is persistent, i.e. it is constantly vandalised. That page really does not receive much vandalism, so protection is unnecessary. I would recommend that you have a read over the protection policy. Thanks, -Mh7kJ (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Error with TWINKLE

When I try to revert an edit on a page it gives me : Grabbing data of earlier revisions: The wiki is currently in read-only mode . Why is that? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an error with Twinkle. A message like that appears when the database is locked by the developers for maintenance work.--Glaisher (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User conduct: Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

This user is a disruptive user on the Simple English Wikipedia, modifying pages. The user may be blocked. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

NO THIS IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT A SOCK PUPPET!!

I mean, you are a disruptive user. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Thanks for the report. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another user conduct: My birthday is September 16th

This user recently added a comment saying "Hey baby, I love you!", which was placed on Wikipedia:Rules, that comment is completely not acceptable for an encyclopedia, so I placed the QD A1 notice on the page. See this revision. The user may also be blocked. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

QD:G12 for lack of attribution

Are you all ready to start quickly deleting transwikied articles for lack of attribution? Although we haven't done that before (at least not that I've seen), they seem to qualify. I think it might be worth a notice at Simple Talk before we start routinely doing this. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the difficulty comes from those articles with a very short introduction followed by a long table and/or long, complex infoboxes. The introduction by itself (if simply phrased) would not attract attention, but the table and/or infobox are the result of long hard work in the other wiki. A number of cases have been proposed for QD, and it has been difficult to decide on them. One thing is certain: if we decide to delete them (and we probably should) then we will lose a lot of new articles! But on the other hand, there's no real point in having them as they are. They are not simplified. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

To me, an infobox isn't a factor in whether an individual article is complex. If we think an infobox is too complex, that's an issue with the infobox template, not the article that uses it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say infoboxes and tables are generally not complex even if they are long and full of detail as long as the wording itself is simple. Also I don't know if infoboxes on individual pages themselves meet the requirement for needed to be attributed as they are just a list of facts that don't show originality of thought. The actual template itself however would. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I really think we admins need to be consistent about this, and right now we're not. I see at least one admin deleting on these grounds due to lack of attribution, and another admin declining such QDs. It's not fair to the editors to be inconsistent like that. Would all the admins please weigh in here? The only comments so far have been about being unsimplified, which is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether attribution is given. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, well the letter of the law is quite simple: everything on an English wiki page is copyright. Everything except material from Commons. Even infoboxes have taken human work, sometimes a great deal of it. So if you ask, yes, theoretically we are obliged to delete it if it is not attributed or so changed that copyright is not at issue. Our real problem is the gap between the "anyone can edit" policy, and the realities of the world. So our policy should be to delete all pages which use material more or less unchanged from any published sources except those which are known to be not under copyright.

There is an option which we might consider. Since most of the unattributed material comes from unregistered IPs, we could prevent them from starting new pages. With registered users, we could insist they learn how to attribute as well as simplify. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Re your sentence "So our policy should be to delete all pages which use material more or less unchanged from any published sources except those which are known to be not under copyright.": that's right for many sources, but not Wikipedia. Text on Wikipedia is copyrighted, but the licenses everyone agrees to when they edit here specifically allow for verbatim use of content. Remember that copyrights do not mean that a work cannot be used: they mean you need permission to use it. With non-Wikipedia sources, we usually don't know what the copyright holder would allow, so we don't allow any use without evidence that it has been authorized. Wikipedia's licenses allow its content to be used very freely, as long as credit (which we call "attribution") is given to the source. Therefore, the issue is attribution, regardless of whether something from English Wikipedia is copied exactly. When attribution is given, the only reason to change text from Wikipedia is to make it simple, if it isn't already simple enough.

I now agree with this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As for infoboxes, I'm not sure whether you're talking about the templates themselves, or the information they display. If the former, then I'd agree they should be treated the same as articles. If the latter, then probably not. Infoboxes mostly give basic facts -- a name, a location, population figures, various dates, etc. I don't see anything copyrightable about that.

Ah, I think this is covered by your 'verbatim' point. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant here is that there's no intellectual property when you just give a list of data, which is what infoboxes are used for. The underlying template code is a different matter. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is, in principle, copyright in data, though in practice many data are in the public domain. Here's one very simplified source: [1]. Here's another: [2]. We are covered on the basic factual data in the public domain, but use of tables, charts and other devices invented on En wiki do require attribution because they are not trivial. Today I copied over a chart from En onto our Mohs scale of mineral hardness, and put an attribution onto the talk page. I think this is required. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The chart you copied was not just data. It was also formatting and an individual way of presenting the data. I was only talking about using infobox templates. They are different: they let you plug values into a predefined format. The types of values we typically plug into them are not copyrightable (a person's name, geographical coordinates, etc.). If the format itself is copyrightable, that is an issue for the template, not for articles that use it.

But we need to get back to the point of this discussion. Either we are going to quickly delete transwikied pages that have no attribution, or we are not. So far you, Mac, are the only admin who has responded to that point. No admin would have to delete such pages, but we cannot have some admins deleting them and others removing the qd tags (at least not without fixing the problem). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as whether most unattributed material comes from IP editors, I'd want specific statistics on that. Wikipedia has consistently refused to discriminate against IP editors, and I wouldn't want to see us do that discriminate against them. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am with Auntof6 on this. The requirement for copyright is originality of thought. A simple listing of data is not copyrightable in and of itself. The template itself (ie the formating) is and the attribution for that would be on the template page not the individual articles. Infoboxes are completely fair game to copy over. As are in most cases table which are laid out in a manor which would be expected of them. I forget the exact legal wording off the top of my head but basically anything that is done in a manor that many people could be expected to lay that data out if they all did it without knowledge of anyone else doing it is not copyrightable. An example (thought not of a table). But a sentence like "An apple is a fruit." or "Paris is the capital city of France." are not copyright eligible. As for the table you copied over, you don't even need a template from that. As long as you put in your edit history that you copied it from the english wiki article then you are covered by the attribution requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We have many hundreds of unsourced articles - some are copied from other Wikipedias, some are shortened and/or simplified versions of them. Are they all going to be put up for deletion, including non-controversial articles such as those about settlements? Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We probably have tens of thousands to be honest, for years the only requirement was that you simplified. At that point we considered it a different article without the need to attribute. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Many articles consist of a simplified version of the lead of the en article. Do these count as transwikied? How about the many articles here which have the infobox (but not the body of the article) from the en article copied to here? Do they count as transwikied because part of the article (the ibox) has been moved without simplification? Jim Michael (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The backlog is a secondary issue. I think the above discussion establishes clearly that simplification is a separate issue from attribution, and so (I think) should be a separate item on the list of QD reasons. Aunt and DJ seem to say that if an article takes plain fact data from an En wiki article it does not need attribution because copyright does not come into it. Otherwise, everything else does need attribution. As someone who often makes decisions on the QD items, I am keen to hear what others think. I don't plan to make borderline deletes until I find out where the borderline is! Aunt gives a broad hint that many admins have not voiced an opinion so far. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As what Auntof6 and Dj have mentioned, content is eligible for copyright protection only if it exceeds a certain threshold of originality, where "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author". Mere facts are not copyrightable, which instead are more likely to fall under fair use (and should be cited). Template code itself should be copyrightable because they are the result of a creative process from the author(s) of the template. For articles, I believe that when we deal with articles copied from EN (without attribution), we would need to evaluate whether significant effort has been put into the simplification of the article text. If there is so, I suspect it probably qualifies as fair use and will not require attribution of the EN version. Perhaps someone else more knowledgeable in law would like to verify. Chenzw  Talk  16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Two cents after a quick read (let me know if I'm way off base and I'll leave it in more capable hands). We did previously have Category:Pages requiring attribution that a few editors and I spent quite a while clearing out ages ago. If I'm not mistaken, we went ahead and added the attribution and tried to simplify and change pages where we could. Would it not be worth the time to fix the pages/infoboxes instead of deleting them?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What lies behind the discussion is the thousands of pages (mostly biographies) put up with an introduction and infobox from En wiki and nothing else. Sometimes a few words are changed, but essentially they are short copy-pastes. Leaving the backlog to one side, any admin working through new changes or new pages will be faced with deciding whether to delete or not. They come up all the time in Requests for QD or Requests for Deletion. I think we are homing in on something like "if an unattributed page has more than straight facts (including infobox) it is to be deleted if the extra content is a copy-paste". Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That leaves undetermined how much changing/simplifying needs to be done in order to avoid it being deleted due to being regarded a copy-paste. There are many articles here that are of that type. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We're not discussing the copy/paste issue (A3), we're discussing the copyright/attribution issue (G12). Those are two separate QD options. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Have we determined they are two different subjects yet? While there seems to be a general agreement to that effect at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, we haven't heard from that many editors. Also, the conversation seems to have bogged down somewhat. Can anyone say we have consensus yet? As for deleting pages for G12 versus placing the attribution there yourself, where are we at? New users aren't so much a problem, as we can place the {{subst:uw-encopyright}} template and do the first few attributions until they get started. Actually, this isn't even a hard sell as the users are protecting themselves as well sewiki against copyright infringement. But what do we do with the chronic cases who simply ignore repeated warnings? Can we get some direction in how to deal with them? Some qualifying pages nominated for G12 are deleted while others are quashed (the inconsistency Auntof6 mentioned). I don't see a pattern yet. If we must attribute, even for those who don't feel like it, isn't that like the guy at the end of a parade with the shovel and bucket (after all the horses have passed by)? And, if we delete pages, isn't that more like a rejection slip? Go back; fix the problem; try again. Most editors here have had pages rejected and bounce right back to produce better pages. It might not hurt to mention something to that effect when we QD a page. It might encourage them to try again. Rus793 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

They are two different subjects. You can bring over an article word-for-word with attribution, but not simplify it enough: that's A3. You can bring over a simplified version, but not give attribution: that's G12. Of course, you could have both in the same article, but they are separate things. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Rus, "sewiki" is the Northern Sami Wikipedia. You could refer to Simple English Wikipedia as "simplewiki" or just "here". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me try again. Your position has been that A3 and G12 are two different subjects. On July 22 (your talk page) you said the same thing and added "I agree that the wording could be clearer." You brought the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy based, at least in part, on that conversation. There, one of the things you said was "I see his point that A3 can be interpreted as meaning a copyright issue." Do you think we're at a point of agreement that they should remain separate issues? I know that's not exactly one of the two questions under discussion, but it's clearly implied by comments under both sections. I know there are only a handful of editors participating in the question, but do you think we have a consensus at least on keeping these separate?

Northern Sami Wikipedia, huh? I didn't even know there was one. Thanks for the tip, that was a nice way to put it. Rus793 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking me if there's a consensus to keep them separate implies that someone has suggested combining them. I haven't seen such a suggestion. The fact that they are two different QD options says that they weren't intended to be the same. If you think G12 and A3 should be combined, I definitely disagree. We need to be able to delete pages for each of the issues separately. The QD criteria are each about specific, individual issues. I'd really like to keep this discussion about just the copyright/no attribution issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think we agree that basic factual intros and infoboxes are not subject to deletion on grounds of lack of attribution. Although I know there have been edit wars about infoboxes -- and therefore not all their content is simple data -- nevertheless I accept the general view as stated. If we do decide to apply A3 more vigorously than at present, then it might be wise if we thought about how to tell new users what they should do. I am struck by how many start editing here without reading any of our guides. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Some articles here consist only of a basic intro and an infobox, some of which are unsourced; some of those are BLPs. Are they not eligible for deletion if the information is simple, true and neutral? Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary

OK, there has been a lot of discussion. We have to be consistent, one way or the other, or it's not fair to the editors. Could we have each of us admins just add our name to one of the lists below: support deleting transwikied pages on G12 grounds because of lack of attribution, oppose it, or undecided. Whatever we decide might eventually be overruled by a higher authority, but for now we can at least decide which way we will be consistent. I know that Voting is evil, but right now it might be the best we can do.

No discussion in this section, please: that should go above. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support:

• Macdonald-ross (talk)

Oppose:

Undecided:

• Auntof6
• I am not really sure what we are !voting on....are we voting on whether we keep or remove that speedy reason? -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not on whether to keep it, but whether to use it to delete transwikied articles when attribution is not given. There have been QD nominations on grounds of copyright violation where the issue was absence of attribution. Some admins have processed those, and some have declined them: we need to be consistent about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I think its up to the admin depending on what their reasoning for declining is. I generally decline most if not all of them and just put the attribution on them. But that is because I am more likely to want to save articles if they are easy to save than delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Look, I can't close this, but it seems to me we have to get on with business on the RfD page. Looks like it's a "no consensus". I'm unhappy at the number of admins that did not take part in a discussion which clearly needed other views.
    What will happen? Admins will use their judgement, as before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edittools not working

I've been trying to help another user who has a Scandinavian keyboard that lacks the [ ] and { } keys. In Settings, I'd like to be able to turn on Edittools, which is listed in the Gadgets menu under Editing Gadgets. It doesn't work, though. I've entered a comment on a seemingly related issue in bugzilla, but suspect that the problem is related to this project, and not to wikimedia generally. https://commons.wikimedia.org has exactly what we'd want, listed there as "Old Edittools". Can someone fix this or point me in the right direction to find help? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Take a look I think you will find it there and working. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this happening right now? 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:249C:1A20:814A:E14E (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The gadget "Edittools - Show the special characters toolbar on edit screens." which was listed on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets consisted of just a CSS rule to unhide the list of buttons which is defined on MediaWiki:Edittools. That list is hidden by default since a change to MediaWiki:Common.css in 2013.
• Simple Wikipedia has no JavaScript code installed to allow users to use a selection box with groups of edittools (instead of the default plain list).
  • Copying commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-OldEdittools.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-OldEdittools.js will not work, because the real code which provides the functionality is on commons:MediaWiki:Edittools.js (which is loaded from commons:MediaWiki:Common.js).
  • And the English Wikipedia version was already ported into a real gadget, whose parts can be found at en:Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.

Helder 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the replies. Replying to @Djsasso: and anon:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:249C:1A20:814A:E14E: I see that it is now called Old Edittools here in simple.wikipedia, but it doesn't work for me. Could there possibly be some other option or gadget that I need to turn off or on that is interfering? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault....when I verified I totally looked at the wrong thing. I was thinking the special characters for some reason. Attempting to fix right now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've rolled back to what we had yesterday for now. Going to have to look further into this. Not sure why the css isn't working. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution not working

Recent developments, a no consensus vote on using G12 for lack of attribution and three test cases submitted for RfD, have shown we don't have an effective policy in place. In discussions, it's been suggested an editor can place attribution on a page for another editor, but I'm no longer sure this is the case. By placing the attribution on a talk page (or in an edit comment), you might justify keeping the article (frequently unsourced stubs), but the originator still violated copyright law by not placing the attribution there themselves. For example, you can pay someone else's fine for speeding, but they still are responsible for the offense (and the points against their license) themselves. They may also have created a violation of our agreement with WMF. A serial copyright infringer is unquestionably a liability to this wiki. Allowing this to continue also undermines efforts to get new users to comply with attribution on transwikied pages. Why would they comply if it gets ignored or someone else does it for them (sometimes) and there is no penalty? Then, why follow any other rules here?

The 2007 [Resolution:Licensing policy], begins with the statement: "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." In the resolution itself, it does not offer an alternative to deletion of files uploaded under an unacceptable license (acceptable licenses, including free content licenses are defined under the section Free content licenses). Unless I'm wrong, our Exemption doctrine policy is still in development. If so, is a provision for another editor to step in and attribute an uploaded file under CC BY-SA 3.0 even an option? Or would this be a case of circumventing the WMF licensing policy?

In WMF's Terms of Use, two provisions would seem to apply to this situation. First, under § 7 c. Importing text: "You agree that, if you import text under a CC BY-SA license that requires attribution, you must credit the author(s) in a reasonable fashion. Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text. The attribution requirements are sometimes too intrusive for particular circumstances (regardless of the license), and there may be instances where the Wikimedia community decides that imported text cannot be used for that reason." It doesn't say you or someone else, it says "you". Secondly, under § 8. DMCA Compliance: "The Wikimedia Foundation wants to ensure that the content that we host can be re-used by other users without fear of liability and that it is not infringing the proprietary rights of others. In fairness to our users, as well as to other creators and copyright holders, our policy is to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the formalities of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Pursuant to the DMCA, we will terminate, in appropriate circumstances, users and account holders of our system and network who are repeat infringers."

For an example, one editor alone has something like 175 unattributed articles (spot checking indicates most are transwikied articles) and refuses to comply. After some reading at WMF and enwiki's copyright policy, I'm not convinced it is permissible for another editor to attribute for someone who fails to do it themselves. Also, if an editor takes the responsibility upon themselves to attribute one or two articles for an infringing editor, aren't they then responsible for all the non-attributed articles the infringer created? I'm perfectly willing to encourage new editors to attribute and, before I looked into this at the WMF, to attribute for them as an example. Attributing for someone who refuses to do it themselves (if deemed permissible) might save some stubs, but at the same time seems to be encouraging the user to ignore policy. This is a small wiki and nothing goes unnoticed here for very long. We seem to be between a rock and a hard place (current practice versus the policies of WMF and Simplewiki). Why would a patroller even nominate a page for deletion (for lack of attribution) if in many cases it will be declined? Why would a patroller place a warning message on a new user's talk page if they don't know if an administrator will support them, or make them (and the policy) look foolish? Is there any way we can get some kind of agreement on what this wiki will do about this problem? Rus793 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some of the issues are whether Attribution is a full copyright violation, or a licensing violation. Copying a page from another wiki, providing the article is properly sourced is an attribution issue, not a copyright issue. Now how to handle it. While deletion is probably the best solution, since I do agree that attribution is the responsibility of the article creator, I do not think it should be a quick delete, but think we shouldn't have to wait for an RfD to go through either. Not to muddy the waters there at all. I know we do not like making more bureaucracy but, I think we should have a process in place much like Wikinews or En.Wiki with a proposed deletion. Wikinews has one for copy violations, that says article can be deleted after one day if there is no re-write without the violation. We can have the same thing but the grounds would be attribution. Attribution is more along the lines of plagiarizing, and should still be deleted but only after fair warning ie. user talk page notification, and time to fix 24 hours like Wikinews seems fair. Re-Writes should first be blanked, and commented in change summary re-write in progress, so it does not get immediately reverted, otherwise deleted after 24 hours. The re-write causes another issue though. What to do with the first draft that is in violation. Do we revision delete it so it is no longer visible, or since it is no longer the main page leave it and do nothing. If we revision delete it, then we will need a new policy and RevDel reason # for it. Then we have the issues of repeat violators. After how many do we consider disrupting editing, and start imposing sanctions. The whole issue of attribution has many different things that it effects, but we need to address these issues. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is completely permissible for another editor to do it because its our wiki that in the end has to have the attribution. Once the wiki here has attribution it isn't unattributed. And it certainly isn't a copyright violation as the licensing requirements have been met. Yes, the original editor is required to attribute, and if they continually refuse to do so then the way to resolve the issue is to block them for violating the terms of use. However, someone else adding the attribution resolves the main purpose of the attribution "The Wikimedia Foundation wants to ensure that the content that we host can be re-used by other users without fear of liability and that it is not infringing the proprietary rights of others" Once it is there regardless of who placed it there then the potential problem of liability is gone because attribution has been given to the original source. As mentioned by Enfcer once the attribution is there the licensing issue is gone because we have indicated where the original source of the material is. All we require for attribution is that it is there. Once there it then resolves the licensing problems and we are fully compliant. And that being said a very large number of articles you have been tagging as issue, have not actually been issues. "Why would a patroller place a warning message on a new user's talk page if they don't know if an administrator will support them, or make them (and the policy) look foolish?" I don't think an admin wouldn't support you in warning a user that wasn't attributing properly. That is a far cry from an admin taking the productive approach and fixing the article instead of serial tagging it. "Why would a patroller even nominate a page for deletion (for lack of attribution) if in many cases it will be declined?" A patroller shouldn't just nominate articles for deletion, especially on this wiki, if a patroller can fix the article they should do so before nominating unless it is so far beyond help that it would take too much time. In the case of attribution, it can usually be fixed in the same amount of time as tagging it for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I should note, since I noticed you incorrectly warning people today that a simple note that says "Copied from English Wikipedia" is enough to satisfy attribution. The page you are pointing them to is just giving templated examples on how you can do it. It is not required that you use the template or that you link to a specific version. Per the terms of use "it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary". The templates here were actually originally created for people to use when they forgot to do it in their initial edit summary since you cannot go back and edit your edit summary. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the context of the "CC-BY-SA" license, not attributing is a copyright violation. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia holds the copyrights; those are actually held by the original editors of the copied article (a copyvio harms Wikipedia's ability to redistribute as well as taints any article linked to the copyright violation). For that reason attribution has to be linked to the authors of an article. That is accomplished by an attribution statement in either the edit summary or by using one of the attribution templates in the copied article's talk page. Both instruct that the attribution template have the article name at the other wiki and the version number. The version number in effect credits all the authors up the time it was transwikied.

The instruction to use a template in the talk page is is in Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. That template, in turn, is referred to by the notice Template:Uw-encopyright found in Wikipedia:User talk page warnings. The instructions to attribute in the edit comment is in the guideline Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Which set of instructions I stay with depend on which set the new editor was first contacted with. If I or another editor gave a warning/notice regarding attribution, then for consistency, I remained with that set of instructions—the two you said were wrong. If I or another editor first contacted the new editor with the warning Template:Uw-encopypaste, which includes the guideline How to copy from another Wikipedia, I continue with that instruction. This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier. We have two different sets of instructions and so far, I've been given three different opinions by three administrators. So no matter what I do in this situation, someone thinks I'm doing it wrong. All I am trying to do is get new editors to start attributing their transwikied articles. Rus793 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect in thinking that the article isn't linked to the authors of the article if you just say English Wikipedia, all that we need to do is link to where the author can be seen. As such indicating that it was imported from English Wikipedia indicates the source we received it from which then credits the editors responsible for the edits. You can see examples of this all over the internet and television whenever they reuse portions of wiki articles. If you look at the instructions of those templates they specifically mention that the version number is only recommended, not required. Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution just lists some ways in which the attribution can be achieved, they are not the only way it can be achieved. They are just examples. As per the terms of service, you just need to link in a reasonable fashion, if someone says they got it from English Wikipedia that is reasonable as the exact authors can be found from that. I agree the absolute best way to do it is with version numbers, but it is not wrong to just point them to the page on English Wikipedia. Getting new editors to attribute isn't a bad goal by any means, but throwing everything up for deletion when it can easily be fixed is biting new editors. Problem repeat offenders is a separate issue and can easily be dealt with by posting here and an admin can look into it and block if necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban appeal by Aaqib

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.

---

Unbanned. Consensus is that Aaqib has learned from his mistakes in the time that he has been banned; the ban has therefore served its purpose and can now be removed. Aaqib is reminded that further behaviour of the type which occurred before the ban may result in the ban being reimposed. I will monitor his edits for the next few months to ensure there are no further problems and I invite other administrators to do the same. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Aaqib (talk · message · contribs · page moves · deleted contribs · edit summaries · count · logs · block log · block user · email)

Hi all, the above editor wishes to appeal his indef ban (which was imposed in July last year). I am not quite sure how much of the present community still remembers this case; relevant links which I can find are below:

• User talk:Aaqib
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_43#Proposed community ban for Aaqib

--Chenzw  Talk  02:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Appeal transcluded from Aaqib's talk page

User:Chenzw, User:Osiris: ANY ADMIN: Chenzw stated that I can appeal my ban a year ago. I am requesting ban appeal. I feel like returning and would like to show to my fellow colegeus that I have changed. I have missed this place much, editing here, in community discussions. In reality, I was here when I was young... Now. I am mature, hopefully... I went through English classes now... Earned trusted rights at a website I went when I was banned. Hopefully, an admin can hold up a discussion. And I wish to return under a new account, named "Jezz55". Thank you all so much ~Aaqib User:TDKR Chicago 101 - can you please reach an active administrator to hold up a discussion? --Cheers, Aaqib 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) User:Glaisher - ^^^ --Cheers, Aaqib 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) User:Auntof6 User:Macdonnalross --Cheers, Aaqib 22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Comment: I don't think it was appropriate for you to blank your talk page before starting this ban appeal. It gives the impression that you are trying to hide previous discussions and makes it harder for people to look at the history that led to your ban. That prejudices me, at least, against your appeal. I realize I can go to the page history, but it still gives a bad impression. As far as the appeal itself, nothing in what you wrote above tells me why we should trust you now. Maybe you could give us examples of what you did wrong before and what you would do differently now. It would also be in your favor if you would put back the sections you deleted from the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I've noticed that he has improved considerably in the past few months by seeing his interactions with other users on IRC and other wikis, though he still has much to learn (like everyone else). I would very much appreciate it if you can list down all the socks which you've used so that those can be reviewed. The first step is to start being honest. Also you should probably not start using another account even if this ban is lifted; you should probably use User:Goldenburg111 which you currently use at other wikis. Of course, it's up to you. As Auntof6 has stated above, please give us some examples of what you did wrong before and how you would act now in such circumstances. Also per, declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect should not be removed. I'm very much willing to support this ban appeal if you can convince me that you've changed and that if you are unblocked you would not repeat the same actions that lead to your ban. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "I've noticed that he has improved considerably in the past few months by seeing his interactions with other users on IRC and other wikis" - User:Glashier Yes, I have. I have been a member of the SWMT for about a few months, reverting vandalsm, and spam. I also joined this wiki named "Vikidia", in which I have been contributing to reverting vandalism and contributing to Sri Lankan Related articles. (http://en.vikidia.org/wiki/User:Goldenburg111) - I wish to return to the Simple English Wikipedia to continue my contributions to Sri Lankan articles, if my ban appeal is successful. What I have done wrong, and what I will do if I am unban 1. Ignoring people's warnings You cannot really blame me on this: Since I was young, and I couldn't really understand the warnings. Since now I am 1 year older and now having more important roles in my house and real life. I think I can fairly take a warning seriously, and comprehend it. Rather than reading, being insulted, and insulting the user who gave me a warning. 2. Immature comments Not necessarily grossly immature (such as "suck my d***) but immature comments such as "I gave so many awards. I really am crying now. Goodbye. (Never commenting again". And also a little discussion about one edit summary, I used "what the heck". The IP I reverted then said "heck" was a bad word and should not be used. So this shows that instead of making stupid comments such as "I am really am crying now" (the grammar is wrong anyways), I would rather be more mature, such as pointing what I did wrong. And instead of saying "what the heck" in an edit summary, I would rather give a more constructive summary, rather telling the user what he did wrong and why I am reverting it. 3. My obsessions with user rights "you almost immediately requested rollback" --User:TCN7JM: Well, that obsession is over, now I learned that rights are for responsible users who have enough experience to handle such responsibilities. Plus, my report which has been created to track all my rights request has been closed about 3 months ago. 4. Grammar Some people thought that my grammar was horrible, which meant that I couldn't communicate well. I could, but I was just young and too immature. When I left, I communicated good with users, right? Yup. So that meant I fixed up my grammar, going to English Classes too ~Thank you. --Cheers, Aaqib 20:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes

• Well, I'm well disposed to allowing this user to return. His English may still have problems, but his attitude is good. Also, we have been IMO lenient towards one or two other problematic users, and we need to be even-handed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support unban - when I proposed this ban last year, it was with the hope that he can take the time to reflect and gain some experience elsewhere. I don't think there's an immediate problem with lifting the ban - after all, like what Macdonald-ross said, reapplying the ban is always an option, if something untoward happens. Chenzw  Talk  12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but you should really stick with Goldenburg111 globally. Also on the understanding that the ban will be reapplied if there are further issues (per Glaisher). --Rschen7754 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Hello, all. I've not been active for a while here on Simple so I obviously was not apart of the ban discussion last year. However, I did read through the ban discussion and a few diffs, and thought long and hard. And with that, I feel I can contribute to this discussion. I feel we should lift the ban. The editor is showing signs of being more mature and more easily understood. He claims to be able to listen to instructions now. So I feel we can assume good faith and allow him back, especially with the ban so easily re-applied. However, I would impose, and forgive me if I don't know if this is automatic or not, a 6-month period where one edit out of line results in an automatic re-ban. I believe he should also be assigned a mentor for those 6 months. I see no need for topic bans. Thanks for reading. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 11:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock/unban I've seen this user make a number of usefull contributions on many different wikis.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Always one for allowing second chances. I think the Aaqib understands the issues with the ban being put in place so it has surely served its purpose. I'd advocate a period of 'probation' and, if problems re-occur, then steps can always be taken to mitigate that. And at the moment we undoubtably need people willing to work on content. Goblin 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ TCN7JM!
• Support unban, with the understanding that he knows people will be watching his edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Other comments

• A key issue is listening to what administrators and experienced editors say, and working within our guidelines. Anyone returning from a long ban who just continues as before would be most likely banned indefinitely. He can expect be watched pretty closely for a while, of course. We expect returning users to be careful that their work is done in a proper manner. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2014 (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.

Request for history merge

I would be most obliged if somebody could carry out a history merge of the following two pages:

• User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox3 to Template:Infobox Underground stock.
• User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox3/doc to Template:Infobox Underground stock/doc.

Many thanks. Goblin 19:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ!

I should add that, initially, the history merge will break seven infoboxes currently in use - specifically by displaying only the title and image. This is because I have left out existing parameters for simplicity, rather than offering deprecated options. As the template is currently only invoked seven times I thought it would be easier to fix each of those rather than offer backwards compatibility. I will perform these changes once the merge has been carried out. :-) Goblin 19:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

I have made some edits to the existing template to ensure that this is not the case, and am updating the articles now to use the new values. Should make a smoother transition in case I am offline when this is processed. Goblin 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

Bump. Goblin 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

This has been  Done by Chenzw (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - many thanks. Goblin 03:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

school group

Hi I would like to set up a group of several usernames for use with some Japanese university students who are taking an English writing class . I will probably need 15-20 names. I can't see anywhere instructions on how to do this. I would be grateful for any help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirodaicommunication (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Hirodaicommunication. I will try to find some information for you about this. In the meantime, it might help to read these two pages, if you haven't already read them:

• Wikipedia:Schools/Projects
• Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide

When does your class start? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hirodaicommunication! We might be able to work together on this if you like. I guess you are at Hiroshima University. Is that right? If you click on my name in this reply, you can find my contact information. Email me directly if you like. Good luck, ELTted (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ELTted. I'm sure you can help more than I can, since you've been through this before. Let me know if you need any admin assistance. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ELTted and Auntof6. I am going to email ELTted directly to get more help. Yes, I teach part-time at Hiroshima University and it is with two classes there I want to use SEWP. Actually, I think it was a presentation given by ELTted about using SEWP with students that inspired me to try this. Thanks!![[Hirodaicommunication (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)]]

WP:CHU

Resolved. Username changes to be handled on Meta from now

Local renaming has been turned off for SUL finalization, therefore crats don't have the ability to rename users from now. We probably need to make some changes to WP:CHU, so I've edited the contents and closed the pending requests. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I keep planning to archive and clean up this page...but been busy this week. Though technically I could have taken care of the pending requests since I am a Global Renamer. But I suppose better for them to reask there. -DJSasso (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had forgotten you had been promoted. Most wikis (including en) seem to be continuing handling global renames in their local pages. Now that we have 2 global renamers and a steward from our 'crats, should we do the same? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know wikis were still handling this locally. I fully protected our request for rename page so users couldn't make more requests there. If we're going to continue, the protection will need to be removed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize anywhere was...the point of this process was for them not to continue locally. I guess we should decide. I would think we should probably send them to meta. -DJSasso (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that seems fine to me, and I don't see anyone objecting, so it'll be as it is. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
WP:CRAT needs to be changed to reflect this. I would make the change, but I don't know the link to send people to. Could someone either give me the link or update the page? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the page. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to drag this up, just a quick one - can someone temporarily drop the page protection to autoconfirmed? Probably would be worthwhile doing an archive of the page and then cleaning it up a little more to make it clearer that we don't handle renames anymore - soft redirect? Happy to do all if someone can oblige on the protection. Churs. Goblin 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ!

 Done temporarily for archival & cleanup. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm  Done. I was going to make it a bit prettier and clever, but actually the remaining paragraph does the job just as well as anything else would, I think. Thanks. Goblin 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Thanks for the cleanup. The page has been re-protected. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet, evading block

Would one of you who is a checkuser please look at User:Alirio 2.0 to see if it looks like the same user as User:Alirio? It seems pretty conclusive to me, but I know we have to have evidence before taking any action. Alirio is currently blocked due to issues with a page in his userspace that has since been deleted. Alirio 2.0 recreated the page, in Alirio's userspace. (I have deleted it again.) Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you file a request at WP:RFCU, so we have it on record, in the right place? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think duck can apply here. I have taken action accordingly, since the user once again created that article in the original users sandbox after Auntof6 deleted it again. I have indef'ed User:Alirio 2.0 & Salted the sandbox to end when the original block ends for Aliro. -- Enfcer (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Request filed. Thanks for making me aware of that page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

After the CU, considering the user has not made any efforts to follow the rules and contribute positively to the project but has instead created a nice sock-farm, I think indef blocking them is a good idea. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny Face

The page Funny Face has been attracting large amounts of vandalism for sometime now. Is there enough disruption to warrant a protection?--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I know it's annoying, but a few edits a day isn't considered a large amount. The amount needed would be so many that it's starting to be hard for us to keep up with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I understand. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference live links...

... are screwed up at present. Someone tweaked the template(s)? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. In which page are you having a problem? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost all pages I edit. See Immune system. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed now. I accidentally broke {{Hide in print}}. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yippee! Thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem

For some reason I can't rollback the deletion of Universe. Obviously some kind of software problem. Would someone else do it, please? Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like one of the links is blocked by the spam blacklist. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

zideo.nl is on some spam blacklist. I found nothing on our list and only that the link was added back in 2011 on meta to the spam blacklist, however, I'm not able to find it on that list. -Barras talk 10:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I just checked; it's still on the global blacklist at Meta. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection Request

Hi all. I've created an article named List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) movies. It is facing so much ip vandalism. It will make glad if you protect or semi-protect this article. Watch it's history here. Thank you. PK ^talk 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restricted editing to autoconfirmed users, to expire one month from now. --Eptalon (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. PK ^talk 09:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

students editing simple wikipedia

I am soon going to be having groups of students editing pages on simple wikipedia. I will be closely monitoring them but in case any issues arise I would be grateful if you contact me about them. They will all have user names beginning with HUW followed by am or pm and a number. Thank you. --Hirodaicommunication (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect the page Blue-baby syndrome. Has a lot of vandalism. Rheedia ^Messages 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Stylefume

Hi there, User Stylefume is a sock operator at the English Wikipedia with an incessant history of disruptive editing. Without burdening the noticeboard with too much detail, the obvious indicator is that the user has injected "Jetania", a fictional nation of his own creation, into articles, and it appears also in his sandbox: [3][4][5]. Here is the SPI archive at the English Wikipedia, and here is another operator who is generally assumed to be the same person or a confederate. At the English Wikipedia, any account that adds "Jetania" to articles is typically indeffed as soon as it is discovered. When the user isn't vandalizing articles, they tend to use Wikipedia as a free hosting platform for make-believe edits, for example here where we learn in his sandbox that his make-believe movie theater has reasonably priced popcorn. Not an encyclopedic contribution. Recommending indef. User has zero consistent history of contributing constructively to the project, and no edits from this user can be assumed as being made in good faith. User is believed to be based in Aberdeen Scotland, and occasionally uses IPs from there, or general Sky IPs that geolocate to central England. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:ONESTRIKE. Clearly continuing what he was doing at en.wiki. Also a sock of Uno 2014 who was earlier blocked for socking. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Djsasso: And Uno is a known sock/confederate of Hoshi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

dear administrators I wrote the page name Mujeeb Rahman please protect it. Shahzado Chachar (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot protect the page. Whether the page will be deleted or not is up to the community and will be decided in the RfD. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Suicide threat?

POET GUY (talk · contribs) today left me a message on my talk page saying "between you and me im MRivera25. I go kill my self now". While I doubt he is genuinely I believe that on En.WP if things like this happen, the authorities are contacted. Is that necessary in this incident? Thanks, --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We should always take a person's mental health seriously, but to contact someone to arrange help would require detailed names and addresses. So in this case I am not sure what we could do.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know there is some sort of emergency protocol for suicide threats at en.wp. I HAVE SEEN THEM POSTED ON ANI OVER AT EN.WP WITH AN ISSUE OF SUCH AN EMERGENT NATURE MAYBE ONE OF YOU COULD CROSSPOST THE EMERGENCY REPORT ON THE ANI AT EN.WP IF THERE IS NO DEFINED PROCEDURE HERE AT SIMPLE. I JUST HOPE SOMEONE WILL TRY their best to try to get some help for the person and possibly save a fife. God Bless! Sorry for the caps I hit the wrong key with such low light. Anyways, I hope my suggestion may help. ciao!!! Carriearchdale 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found some information at enwiki. I will report the post to Wikimedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The report has been sent. I will report back if/when I get a response. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I received a reply that says just "Thanks Auntof6, we are looking at it." I don't know what Wikimedia's policy is as far as giving details about this kind of thing, so its possible we won't get any satisfying or reassuring feedback, but I will continue to report back here if I get further replies. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another reply received:

"I just wanted to first thank you for the report, and second, comment on your request for further information. The Emergency Team cannot pass on details about emergencies reported to us, except to the relevant law authorities. This is both to protect the privacy of individuals involved, and also reflects that we ourselves often do not know what happens after passing information on to the appropriate people."

This tells me we have done all we can, and that we should not expect to hear anything further. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I want to request the semi-protection of Harlequin duck, as it has been subject to a ridiculous amount of IP vandalism (presumably the same person, comparing the IPs), and I feel the only solution is to protect this page. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I protected the article, so that only auto-confirmed editors can change it. This protection expires a week from now, on Nov. 23. We can discuss further measures once the protection runs out, and we start having a problem again. --Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

78.40.232.71 quite clearly has been vandalising across two months accumulating two warning and failing to stop. Jack Stamps (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. This IP editor seems to have stopped editing for now and there are no edits since the last warning, so I don't think we should take any action at this point. Also be aware that with IP editors we don't assume that all edits were done by the same person unless they're fairly close in time. Because of that, we probably wouldn't consider the edits from last month in deciding what action to take.

By the way, we have a page for reporting vandalism. It's at WP:VIP. Unless the vandalism is very offensive, which I don't see with this editor, we usually require that the vandal be sufficiently warned before we take any action. This editor has only gotten a couple of warnings, levels 2 and 3, and the ones that were given probably started at too high a level. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Tex (THX)

A few days ago, I created a redirect to the THX article from the above page.

After that, I didn't want the redirect anymore, so I changed it into an article. Later, it got reverted by Auntof6 because it was a COPYVIO of www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Tex-%28THX%29, but it wasn't; it was from the main English Wikipedia. I undid the revert, and got reverted again. When that was over, Auntof6 semi-protected the page until 2 December 2014. And also, he reverted back to the redirect to the article.

The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tex_(THX)&oldid=309233499. The reason for the redirect is unrefrenced article about a minor advertising character. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:B1A4:B5B4:E6C2:2FC4 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Special:Contributions/171.33.196.109, have been warned and is still vandalising. Einsbor (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked. In future, it would be better to use this page. Thanks :) George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that user has been blocked, not banned. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox

Rather than try to find all the sandbox changes that included profanity, attack language, etc. so that the edits could be hidden, I thought I'd just delete the page and start fresh. However, when I tried to delete it, I got a message saying that it could not be deleted because of the number of edits the page has had. Does anyone know if there's a way around that? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Admins don't have the bigdelete permission (Special:ListGroupRights). I believe only stewards have this permission, and it is needed for a page with a history of that size. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth the effort to be honest considering there are so many edits on the sandbox that could be hidden for profanity / attacks. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, that just means it's something that might be needed routinely, rather than not at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest you shouldn't be hiding edits that are just profanity. Unless its aimed at a particular person, just revert and warn. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, stewards would probably decline such a generic request. Those deletions need always to be watched by system admins as something could go wrong. Without a good reason, at least I'd decline the deletion. It's better to use RevDel when it's needed. -Barras talk 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppetry by IPs on Talk: 2007 and Talk:2008

Feel free to move this if this post is in the wrong place. There are several IPs that are making identical edits to these talk pages thinking that they are the articles. It is probably the same person in my opinion. Perhaps semi-protection and or blocks would be in order to stop it. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

I have found that Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse was a vandalbot, a script which automatically puts vandalism on each page.

The bot was locked from changing across Wikipedia's sister projects. For example, the bot replaced the whole page with "This guy has been deleted" on someone's user talk page.

Could someone have a CheckUser investigate the vandalbot? Thank you. 108.194.238.251 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominated a page for deletion and am now being threatened

Hello-

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong place. I flagged a page for deletion recently because I felt the entry was for a person who did not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia and that the page had been created for personal promotion. The subject of this entry is now threatening to sue me for nominating the page for deletion. I just want to make sure that there is no legal grounds for this. Perhaps relevant is the fact that the person in question tried to hire me to create the page and when I said no, sent me angry emails and then found someone else to do it. At any rate, I just want to be clear that I flagged the page not out of spite, but because I thought it was questionable/borderline in terms of notability and should be reviewed. I don't think I have violated any of Wikipedia's terms of use in doing this, but wanted to inquire just in case I am contacted by a lawyer about this matter. Thank you for your time. KatieVagnino (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where you flagged anything for deletion on this Wiki. The only edits I see from you are asking this question here and at WP:Simple talk. Was it maybe on a different Wikipedia? Without being able to see online what was actually done, I can't really give an opinion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It was certainly on the English Wikipedia, see there. We can't help with issues on enwiki. -Barras talk 23:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

possibly remove offensive edit summary?

Could an admin please look and possibly remove this offensive edit summary located here: [6] Thanks. Carriearchdale 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done and a couple of others. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick attention to the matter Enfcer! ciao!!! Carriearchdale 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for deletion left over from 2014: glitch in the delete process

I'd like to remind my fellow admins about a glitch in the delete process. When an RfD is created in one year (for example, 2014) but closed as deleted in the following year (for example, 2015), the usual generated close reason in the dropdown menu is inaccurate. That's because the text for that reason is formed using the year when the close is done (for example, 2015), but the RfD page contains the year that the request was created (for example, 2014). To get the right link in the edit summary, we need to manually enter the close reason when deleting these. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And another one I hadn't noticed before: the RfD notices on the pages proposed in 2014 are are also using the current year. That means that the links to discussion pages aren't working. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We really need to revert the change that started automatically filling in for us in the first place, I drives me nuts that I now have to delete the reason for speedies because they are very often wrong because they use what people put in the template. It was better before when we got to choose on our own what to put in. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost 116 Pages Edit Warring

I am not sure if this is the correct place. Requesting Admin assistance with regards to the Lost 116 Pages article. Dispute is regarding the question of noteability. There are 2 small sections, one favorable and one unfavorable to LDS perspective. I am not the author of either section, but propose mutal inclusion or exclusion. Another alternative would be to have references to both sections included the see also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We've never had an article here by that name. I think you're referring to the article on English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. You need to ask for help on English Wikipedia. Sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FyzixFighter propagating multiple reverts.— This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 02:21, 17 January 2015‎ (UTC).

Again, you're on the wrong Wikipedia. You want English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia. It's a separate Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinkley Edit Waring

Requesting admin assistance. Users ChristianMJ and AsteriskStarSplat are making multiple reverts with out discussion.— This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 02:21, 17 January 2015‎ (UTC).

This is also not on this Wikipedia. We don't have users here by those names. We do have an article on Hinckley, but it hasn't' been changed since June. Please ask for help at English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• We should state in the first line of the page "Simple English Wikipedia", not just "Wikipedia". Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Automated archiving of Talk / Project pages

We have set up our project pages (this one, Simple talk), plus a few user talk pages to use Miszabot for archival. However, Miszabot seems to run no longer on the toolserver (or its equivalent). If anyone gets the time, I think getting a Miszabot running automatically would be a worthwile task, so that our project pages again get archived automatically. --Eptalon (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that Djsasso runs his bot from time to time so this is, in part, filled. I am looking at getting a regular, cronned bot running but some major life upheavals at the moment mean that this is having to take a bit of a back burner for at least the next fortnight. Goblin 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

See WT:B#BarrasBot. -Barras talk 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I have been doing it but kept forgetting to setup my cronjob at home to make sure its is done at regular intervals. So it was getting done every few days when I would remember to do it manually from work. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got it now so that the cronjob is working correctly. The bot should now automatically run once per day. -Barras talk 21:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this set up, Barras! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Explaining open proxy issues to blocked user

IP user User:70.190.229.97 has had two unblock requests denied due to the IP being an open proxy. He/she has commented following the second decline. Would someone who understands it better care to explain why it's not him/her, it's the IP? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I commented there simply linking the relevant pages and policies for proxies. -Barras talk 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for permission

Hello! I'm here to request to have my name added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage so that I may post comments on the talk pages of site and userscripts that are using deprecated (per MW:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript) resources. I'll simply be appending a new section to the talk pages of .js pages using `addOnloadHook` titled "Legacy JavaScript". It'll include {{JS migration|done=no}} and a short description of the changes with a link to the MediaWiki Legacy Javascript subpage of the ResourceLoader page and my signature. I've already started migrating pages on Meta: and MW: which do not have AWB CheckPages as well as en:w: and Commons: which do (and I'm listed on both as myself ^{( enwp | commons )} and as my bot ^{( enwp | commons )}) Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Added temporarily and also granted flood flag as it would be a bit spammy otherwise. Will remove when he's done. -Barras talk 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Message has been sent and flood flag as well as AWB access has been removed. -Barras talk 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

direct links to adverts

I notice a number of new registered users who have put in bare links to articles on finance (either as refs or as other websites). Some of these links have been to bare-faced adverts or slightly disguised adverts. We should take them out when we find them. On editor talk pages I have written notes explaining that they should not do this as "our readers deserve reliable and disinterested sources". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give us some names or diffs? Maybe it is a general spambot problem and not a real person behind the account. -Barras talk 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And also why is this section on the talk page? -Barras talk 17:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages on which ads or quasi-ads had been placed included: Sales quote; Debt; Promotion; Carpet; Race track; Bankruptcy. I think there were several users, one of which was CptRogerson. Not so many, but at the time I thought we might get hundreds. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Username patterns really like look spambots, the edits with that summary are suspicious. Mentioning interwiki links while we use wikidata nowaydays. All newly created accounts... I will look at it a bit closer. -Barras talk 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked some accounts now. Looks rather clear to me that their only purpose is to spam around here. If you find any other such accounts that fit the pattern, feel free to block. If you are unsure, poke me and I take a deeper look at them. Good catch, Mac! -Barras talk 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have brought Special:AbuseFilter/51 live, which should combat the problem significantly. Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fallout

User:Technical 13 has put the burden of fixing all this on the admins. The notices posted use a template that puts the pages into Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements, which is now under Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. There are 233 entries in the category. Most of the affected pages are in userspace. I have some issues/comments/questions about all this:

• Should the admins be expected to make all the changes? It might be reasonable to expect editors to take care of the pages in their userspace, either by making the change themselves or by asking for help with that.
• What exactly is the risk of not making these changes?
• What kind of timeframe are we looking at for making them?
• The messages were left on the talk pages of affected js pages. I suspect few editors will see those messages. I only saw the one on my page because I watch it. It would be good to leave the message on the regular user talk pages.
• Some of the users affected are probably banned, indef'd, or haven't edited in years. How much effort should we make to take care of pages belonging to such users? If nothing else, I suppose we could just blank them. The history of the pages could be used to recover what was there if/when the user returns to editing.
• What guidance can we give individual editors as far as figuring out what needs to change? The message left isn't specific to each page, and only gives examples of what needs to be changed. I know that everything I have on my js pages was copied from someone else. I don't know how to code that stuff myself. I suspect many other users are in the same situation.

Those are my current thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

These identifiers are not going to be supported by MediaWiki core eventually and will break lots of scripts when that happens. IMO, sysops should start with updating gadgets in MediaWiki namespace first and then move on to highly used scripts in user space. It is kind of pointless to update scripts that are not used. Docs on how to migrate these scripts are available at mw:RL/MGU, mw:RL/JD and other pages linked from there. --Glaisher (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with starting with the MediaWiki pages.

If there are highly-used scripts in userspace, aren't they "use at your own risk" kinds of things? I consider anything in userspace to be subject to change or breaking at any time.

I've looked at the pages you link, and I don't see how to figure out what needs changing in my js page. I'm sure it's there somewhere for people who have a background in that kind of code, but my background is in other kinds of code. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Answering point by point: Yes, admins are expected to handle the fixes. I already asked him that yesterday. While they may change MediaWiki config, they have apparently no one assigned to run around and fix local pages that break when the update comes. However, TC13 seems to be happy to help when needed, he asked for global edit interface right on meta to help local communities. When this doesn't pass, I'm sure we can in doubt find a way to temporarily grant him local admin rights to help us with the scripts. The risk of not making the changes is that all those scripts will simply stop working. I can't however say when that will happen. I would not start to spam the user's talk pages with that. That is also why there is a category where everyone can look up which pages are currently affected. Those who have been banned can have their user subpages probably simply deleted. When they are banned, they surely don't need their subpages anymore. At least as long as it isn't widely used, then we should consider fixing those pages. When they simply went inactive, we can look if the script is actually used somewhere and fix it or if it's not used, we can simply remove the notice from the talk page. So it gets removed from the edit protected category. However, while I'm certainly not a js expert, the fix of those pages appears to be fairly simply. I already "fixed" one script yesterday. -Barras talk 07:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I know that the risk is that scripts will stop working. I was trying to look beyond that, to see what functions exactly would stop working and how that would affect us. I just looked at Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements, and I only see user pages there now, so I don't see that our base functions should be affected. (If they are, we should move code out of userspace.) --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Auntof6. If one script that you are using has an error or deprecated piece of code, you don't "just lose that script" you lose all JavaScript loaded after it. For you, there will be errors in User:Auntof6/monobook.js and User:Auntof6/linkclassifier.js (the api has changed and your calls will produce warnings and errors) So, you won't have your popups, twinkle, or link classifier. It only takes loading one broken script to prevent the rest from loading. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, that is the information I needed. I do think it's worth giving serious consideration to letting a new user we don't know make changes to such sensitive code, but we've probably done our due diligence now. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Barras is almost right on. My point by point: Yes, admins are expected to handle the fixes if the user isn't around to do it themselves and it is something that is used by others. If it is a broken skin.js/common.js which isn't an easy fix and the user has been inactive for quite a while, delete it with a summary of non-compliant code with a link to this discussion and a note that says they can get it restored upon request but fixes will need to be made. I did request the global editinterface bit to be able to help and work through these, and I'm happy to help work on these wherever I'm asked. If that doesn't pass, I'd be happy to go through and work on all of these deprecated JavaScripts on a temporary admin bit for that purpose. I'd also be happy to go through the specific site scripts in the MediaWiki space an not only prevent them from breaking from the deprecations but also to bring them up to date with the coding conventions and jQuerify them where appropriate so that they will be more efficient and less likely to have a compliance issue for longer into the future. There is no need to remove the message from any page, simply flip the |done= switch and it goes out of the category. Alternatively, if there are pages that aren't going to be fixed and aren't going to be deleted then I would be happy to add another parameter to that template for those cases so that there will still be a way to easily find the scripts that are broken but they aren't in any immediately actionable category. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the template putting userpages into that category, but leave the warning. Userpages are the users own responsibilities. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• DJSasso, not when they are simply places holding scripts that are used by multiple users. I've modified Template:JS migration slightly so that it orders scripts with the ones needing the most attention up top (anything that isn't in user space), then all of the userscripts, and at the end are all of the common/skin specific (listed under the infinity symbol). Hopefully this ordering will help go through the ones needing attention from others quicker and the ones are only the user's own stuff at the end. I disagree that removing any from the cat is a good idea, because JavaScript coders can be hard to come by on most projects and if one of them sees this, and sees the cat, they may be inclined to help where they otherwise would not have known about it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would remove it even in those cases. User scripts are use at your own peril. But meh whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. User scripts are the responsibility of the user whose space they're in. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That doesn't work when the user is inactive and there are dozens or hundreds of people using that script. I don't care much about fixing people's common.js or vector.js unless they specifically ask me for help with them (and I have gotten a few requests, and those requests sometimes frustrate the poo out of me because I say replace this snippet of code with that snippet of code and they sometimes get it wrong. Going back and forth half a dozen times until they get it right is very frustrating and it was be much easier if I could just edit it for them upon their request). The big part of this is being able to fix the site gadgets and the scripts that multiple users rely on that haven't quite made it to gadget status yet. I'm also willing to assess the usage of some of those scripts and make a recommendation of which ones it might be worth promoting to gadgets. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Djsasso, for you... User:Djsasso/vector.js will fail because there are major issues with User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js that will cause it to stop working. User:Djsasso/monobook.js should still work, although it's not as efficient as it can be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know we try and keep things a lot simpler here, but would it not be better to put up for community discussion, and create an EditInterface user group. They guidelines and such up for community input. Something like only crat can give, after a period of discussion, and if the group only has the editinterface flag, or if we the community will allow edits to css & js areas of other users through the appropriate bits. Just do not see the need to give the full admin bit, even on a temporary basis if we can keep from it. -- Enfcer (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• My request for the global editinterface bit to be able to help and work through these has been declined as was expected. As such, I'm wondering what the next step is here. Do I put in a request for temp admin bit to work on and fix these scripts that are in need? Do I wait to see if there is a consensus to institute a local EditInterface usergroup and request that? Any guidance on the standard practices here on simple would be appreciated. I'll say that if temp admin was granted, my use of the bit would be exclusively limited to this task, and I have no interest in using the bit for 'other admin duties'. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  You simply make edit request changes to the talk pages of the pages you want to change with exactly what you want changed. I can pretty much guarantee that temp admin status will likely never be granted on a wiki with active admins. And I doubt we would create this usergroup. I know I for one would oppose it on this wiki especially if its just to change user page scripts as opposed to mediawiki space. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It is simply not worth the time for me to fight with communities to keep their scripts from collapsing and breaking. I have hundreds of scripts on 700+ projects to go through and placing tens of thousands of edit requests on tens of thousands of pages is just not something I have the energy or ambition to do. Hopefully these things get fixed before they break and people start asking why their scripts aren't working anymore. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I think you overestimate the issue here. We have less than 20...It might even be less than 10 active editors on this entire wiki now. It is highly unlikely that people will ask why their scripts aren't working anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Barras is in even worse position as he will have no JavaScript on any WMF wiki except the gadgets on meta itself since he's importing scripts that will be shutdown by the change in Meta:User:Barras/global.js. My bottom line and point here is I want to help with cleaning up and fixing code, don't care about doing other admin tasks, and would be happy to request removal of the bit as soon as I am done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I have very limited understanding of the technical issues here. However, if I have read it all correctly, there will be changes made that will break some java scripts. This could lead to follow on problems with more java scripts. Technical 13 understands the issues and has offered to fix them. To do this he needs admin access. So we give it to him. I do not understand why this should be a problem. Small wikis need to access the skills and abilities of those who have them. Lets get this done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The only scripts that haven't already been fixed are personal scripts that are only used by the people whose userspace they are in. And I don't believe a single one of those scripts are by people who have edited here in a very long time. We don't just give admin bits to people who want to do things here. If he wants to fix things, its not any harder for him to post to the talk page of the pages he wants fixed and an admin can easily fix them. -DJSasso (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)