Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 48

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Close needed

Resolved.

WP:RfD for Chikki Panday is overdue. Will someone uninvolved please close and move? Thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Barras talk 13:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change filter mistakes page

Can we get some attention over there please? There as not been any for almost 2 months. Ipadguy (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

closures needed

We now have three RfDs which are overdue for closure, all clear-cut. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the two I didn't initiate. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of an article for copyright infringement

We have found this sanbox all over the net and need to have it deleted since the person on the article is suing us from creating a page without his consent http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/User:Seancombs84/sandbox —This unsigned comment was added by Seancombs84 (talk • changes) 14:20, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Seancombs84: The link is to a mirror site that appears to be a mirror of another Wikipedia project. This is Simple Wikipedia. Although related to other Wikipedia projects, this project is separate from others and administrators here have no special authority on the other project (unless they happen to be an administrator there as well). The sandbox does not appear to be on the regular English Wikipedia (EnWiki) nor does it appear in the Japanese Wikipedia either. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found it. The article in question was deleted from English Wikipedia in August 2014. This is the link. Regards, Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal for User:Krett12

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.

While noting the objections, there is clearly a consensus for imposing a ban. As to the length, I'm going to go with a compromise and set it to expire at 14:17 1 June 2016 (UTC). That's about 4½ months. Although it was mentioned, there isn't any agreement on imposing restrictions on the user once the block expires. Since consensus is not likely to change very quickly, to ensure that the community's valuable time is not wasted, I'm going to require that the user does not attempt to appeal the ban before the end of February. Osiris (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

The previous thread regarding this user has not even been archived from this page yet, but it seems that we need to discuss this user again:

I put before everyone a request to impose a community ban on Krett12. Said editor has already had on a few run-ins with editors on EN shortly before he made his first edit here (mid-Sep 2015):

Previous revisions from en:User talk:Krett12

And now, on this particular wiki, similar behaviour has appeared several times (apologies if not all diffs are in chronological order):

AGF issues
Overstepping of authority
Feeding the trolls
Persistent questioning of other editors' actions/edits

As what some of the EN diffs have suggested, the editor is also having issues with humility and accepting his own mistakes with grace. There also seems to be some (false) impression that he is immune to blocking and that he is not entitled to one because he has been here a long time and no one else has said anything. You may be interested in this particular diff as well (with emphasis on the <!-- HTML comments -->)

On another note, the above editor has on several occasions (1, 2) revealed inappropriate personal information that I fear (along with feeding the trolls) has made him a more visible target to other vandals:

“ Give editors a few chances, and some good advice — but if these don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not competent enough. ”

—WP:CIR

My opinion is that this is not merely an issue with competence; this is also about not having the mindset to contribute to this encyclopedia (see list of mainspace contribs, or pie chart for easier comparison). I don't think a one month block will help much, considering the editor's mindset, and propose a 6 month ban for this editor. Thank you for your time. Chenzw  Talk  08:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Krett12

Hi all, I'm sorry if you feel like I was trying to be a mini-admin, but I was really just doing what I always do. It's really unclear what you want the topic ban to BE, so all you all really doing is just saying you want me to have restrictions. I'm also not sure what "limited conditions" Peterdownunder is talking about. I get that you feel my edits are disruptive, but I would like to know why, rather than giving me a vague final warning then blocking me almost half a month later. Besides, one of the reasons I have so many user talk edits is not because I am confusing Wikipedia with Facebook, but because I issue warnings to vandals (and not all of the reverts take place in the main namespace). I have no idea why the holiday cards are a huge deal, they are all fixed now. Please re-consider the topic ban.

Above statement by Krett12, sent to me by email. He has also indicated that he does not understand why his talk page access was removed. I was the one who performed that action, so can another administrator take a look instead? Chenzw  Talk  17:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krett12: I will reply more later. For now, I just want to point out that the proposed ban is not a topic ban, it is a complete ban. As far as I've seen, there isn't just one specific area that is the issue: it's more general than that. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With comments like "If you extend the block, you may find stuff you didn't think about to happen (no that is not a threat, it's actually something I can't control)" I think removal of talk page access completely appropriate. Even though he claims this is not a threat, I do believe this qualifies as a threat, and would be a direct violation of the Terms of Use. And seeing these were made while blocked, in my opinion would be grounds for a lengthy extension of that block. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little vague. He could be saying he will do something, but he could also be saying that vandals will do things that he won't be here to fix, so the rest of us will "find" the vandalism that he would have corrected. Of course, writing such a vague statement, without having thought through alternate meanings -- or worse, writing it with a full understanding of those alternate meanings -- continues to demonstrate one aspect of the problem. As noted elsewhere, I still feel that the block should not be extended.Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "threat" was basically saying he'd turn me over to the stewards or Jimbo or someone else and whatever happened to me was on me, not on him. Only (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well that puts some context on the "threat" -- but we should avoid kneejerk reactions when someone "threatens" to report some perceived wrongdoing to higher authority. The Stewards and Founder are quite capable of reviewing this thread and the related links and applying a boomerang if needed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually took it to mean a little further then Only did. " (no that is not a threat, it's actually something I can't control)", almost sounds like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario, or someone who has a very explosive personality. From jobs I have held in public service through the years, and with today's current mindset, and turmoil, that statement to me sounds like a threat in a very dire way, whether or not it is or not is up to personal interpretation. And as far as involving Jimbo or the stewards. Jimbo rarely gets involved in editor disputes, and stewards are only supposed to act to enforce community consensus if they act at all on a local issue. This too also sounds like the old adage of threatening to run to mommy if daddy doesn't let them do something. Which goes against the very grain of how a Wikipedia works, by its community consensus and standards. Major heated debates go on when the Wikimedia Foundation makes a controversial proposal or take a controversial action. But at the end of the day they still own the site, and we must adhere to their policies and actions. Our job as administrators is to act on community consensus while adhering to the policies set forth by the owner of this site, and the most interaction most of us have with the WMF is through the written policies and guidelines. Now with all policies and guidelines they are subject to interpretation. I interpret the words to mean a little more then others, due to my previous jobs. That is also why any administrator's action is review able by every other administrator. So Etamni I hope that explains why I see that statement as so much of a threat, because the days of sticks and stones are not longer around, and threats in today's society can lead to very serious actions. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Even before this message I was thinking one month is far too short a time. A complete change in attitude is needed. It may never be forthcoming, but six months would give time for a person to grow a bit and readjust. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  (change conflict) I see that a 30-day block has already been applied to the user, and talk-page access has also been revoked. Personally, I would prefer to give 30 days a try before resorting to longer blocks or bans. During the past three or four months, the user has made more than 30 changes to mainspace pages that remain the current version of those pages (although I do acknowledge that in some cases the changes were self-reverts of what can most-charitably be described as "test edits"). Other changes to mainspace have been reverted by others, and some have simply been superseded by the addition of more content by others. It's clear that the user wants to help, but is having trouble finding a niche. While most of the criticism of the user has been valid, I do want to go on record as stating that I do not believe that any aspect of the Christmas card that Krett12 sent out was intended to be disruptive. The precedent of sending cards out, and the precedent of using mock warnings for humor, have both been set on EnWiki, without so much drama, and the fact that the attempt here (to use both together) fell flat has more to do with the user's inexperience and prior history than it does with any actual disruption caused by the attempt. It is important that the user not try to justify prior actions or compare those actions to the actions of other users, but instead try to see things from the point of view of others, and, upon return, not attempt to be a "mini-admin" of sorts. I do not support extending the 30-day block to a six-month ban at this time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with the holiday card wasn't the sending of it...I have no issue with users sending them (others appear to). The issue to me is that he sent them with the ridiculous sizing on the images and when confronted about it said someone else do it for me. And when he fixed it, he only fixed one with a terrible "blame it on autocorrect and my phone" type edit reason. That was the issue in my mind. Only (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have brought up his edit history from Krett12 edits User talk: 557 (59.51%), Main: 121 (12.93%), Wikipedia: 114 (12.18%), User: 111 (11.86%), Talk: 13 (1.39%)

His involvement in main space article editing has been very limited. He has had a number of increasing block lengths. While I don't think his behaviour will change, I would support a further increased block of perhaps three months, and then allow him a fresh start under certain conditions.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand fully by my block. I would support any agreed upon increase as well. I hadn't seen the EnWiki discussions prior to this thread. Pretty eye opening. Had many of the same issues there of attempting to run his own interpretations of how to deal with vandals. And then when called out about it, insists that no one else sees it as a problem, just that one user and thousands of others have no issue. I'm glad to see based on this thread that others are seeing the issue too. I hope this thread helps Krett12 see that it's not just Only picking on him....its legitimate concerns from multiple users. Only (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user needs to rethink their behaviour, and take heed of the advice given by other users, as opposed to causing arguments over it. 6 months is possibly too long, in my opinion. A 3 month block would suffice per Peter. I similarly believe that users should be granted a second chance, with a fresh start. If behaviour persists, then the block should be increased, dependant on the severity. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen very little evidence that this user is willing to cooperate with others and work toward building the encyclopedia. He has done a little anti-vandalism work, but his most visible edits are the objectionable ones. He doesn't understand why we think things he does are disruptive; when we try to explain, he gives excuses. If he's going to be here, he needs to work toward the goals of the project. He seems at times to treat this wiki as his personal playground. A certain amount of that would be tolerable if most of his edits were constructive, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So far he has been blocked for 24 hours, then 3 days, and now for a month, and the blocks don't seem to help. Krett12 needs to take time to learn how this wiki operates, not only technically but procedurally. I'd really like to see him say what constructive work he wants to do here. If he doesn't show that he understands the issues and will change his behavior, I would reluctantly support a ban. If Krett12 thinks that six months is too long, he should understand that many similar bans are for a year. I don't even remember seeing one as short as six months. I'd really like to see Krett12 say what constructive work he wants to do here. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think he should be banned Indefinatly, but a Short break will do it. SleepyMode (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading a lot of the policies concerning editor behavior, and while new, thought I might just note something here. Krett12 is doing what he thinks is best for Simple, showing that he is here to build an encyclopedia. It looks like he is trying his best, but just can't quite figure out his place on the wiki since his preferred place isn't available to him. Has he ever been invited to join a project of some kind, or something to channel his energy in a productive manner? This isn't a comment on the ban specifically, but instead just a question about how to possibly help him be productive. Lithorien (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions were made to him about ways to contribute outside of the areas he was focused on. He was also asked by a couple of editors about areas of interest he might have interest in, but he never responded to those requests so far as I can see. We've attempted to get him to be more productive and less disruptive, but he's not been able to channel his energies better. Only (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithorien:, I invited him to consider other forms of editing with questions here and suggestions here but apparently, this didn't appeal to him. Part of the reason I do not support increasing the block to a six-month ban is precisely because, as you noted, he seems to be doing what he thinks is best for the project. (That said, he needs to figure out how his behavior is negatively affecting others; if it doesn't change, and soon, he will be permanently banned -- and such a ban could affect him on other projects as well.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I have had struggles with assuming good faith with some of the edits. There have been far too many "whoops, didn't meant to do that!" reverts. Like when he said that brides wear black at weddings, and then quickly reverted saying "oh, that's funerals I was thinking of." Only (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refocusing this: we seem to have a consensus saying an extension is needed (with some objections). Some seem to think 3 is a good idea...others lean to 6. We still have a couple of weeks before the block expires, but I agree with Chenzw that we should reach a consensus here soon. Only (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue - vandalism

I've just reverted vandalism by an IP user to one of Krett12's archives. I think page protection may be called for here. Is there a simple way to protect all of the pages within the Krett12 userspace, or would this require an admin to protect each of the 24 32 or so pages that are there? If I were to transclude all of the pages onto one page in the Krett12 userspace, could they be protected with cascading protection? Is this desirable? Actually, I think that every page except the main talk page should get full protection, but the main talk page should only be semi-protected, in case some notifications are required by non-admin users. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup it's possible, either with cascading protection or the abuse filter. However, cascading protection will look messy due to the numerous transclusions on the page being protected. I would recommend using the abuse filter, so that any (attempted) edits will also be recorded in the abuse log. Chenzw  Talk  05:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure I don't have access to set that up though.... Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have created filter 62, but have not enabled it yet. This is a rather unusual application of the abuse filter, so I will wait for another administrator to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Chenzw  Talk  06:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order

Since the proposal here is a ban, which is decided on by the community, shouldn't this converstion be at Simple talk instead of on the admins' noticeboard? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about extending a block. Either way, being here has not deterred editors from contributing! Since people have had their say and more, it it surely time for the discussion to be closed. I see a clear consensus for extending the block, and an independent person should adjudicate on the length of time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking just about extending a block: any admin could shorten, lengthen, or end a block. We are talking about a community ban, which would require another community discussion if the user asked to end it early. There could be community membets who don't watch the admins' noticeboard and so are less likely to see this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current length of this discussion, it is probably more preferable to post a link on ST rather than move the whole thread over, in order to preserve the page history. It was my fault to have posted here first, sorry. Chenzw  Talk  08:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief note on ST. In lieu of the late announcement, I suggest that we leave this open for another week to allow time for other editors to chip in. Chenzw  Talk  16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can an uninvolved administrator please look into closing this? Slightly more than a week has passed since the linking from ST and his original block also expires in about 2 weeks. Chenzw  Talk  02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Not my cup of tea, but...

I want to put a few more pairs of eyes on the article at World Wrestling Entertainment roster which has had more than 300 edits since the first of the year. Some of those edits have been reverted by Only and Chenzw but the flood of changes is still of concern. There has been no discussion on the talk page nor on User:KO Asylum's talk page (the user making most of the changes). (That user is invited to explain here the intent of the changes.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with the subject, but it appears to me that most of the edits are about updating of outdated information (I have not cross-checked this against any other source), though some of the edits involve large content removal and look rather suspicious. Template:WWE personnel is also affected. Something to note is that I have previously blocked 2601:205:c100:66cd::/64 for repeatedly removing redlinks (and sometimes citations) despite being told several times not to. An IPv6 range of /64 is roughly equivalent to a single allocation of IPv6 addresses to a single household, in line with current recommendations (see RFC 6177). Following the block, another IPv6 range (again, /64, equivalent to one household) began editing on 11+ hrs 9 January, with similar editing behaviour. Both affected pages were then semi-protected by me. This protection will expire next week.
While "too frequent edits/flooding" is usually not considered a critical issue (especially when server resources are more than adequate), I am concerned about this user's editing behaviour/lack of communication with others. Also, this is a small wiki, and my opinion is that flooding of recent changes (without any flag) with numerous small edits should be discouraged because it impedes recent changes patrol. I further note that this user was previously known as Officialaccount1. Chenzw  Talk  06:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE, as I implied with the section title, is not my cup of tea. That said, I recognize the notability of the subject and my desire here is that the information contained in the encyclopedia be accurate. If the user making the flood of changes that have been noted here is making accurate updates, then I'm less concerned about the changes than I would have been. That said, I would still prefer to see changes that are supported by WP:RS. I agree with the semi-protection of the article, however. Assuming the IP user and the registered user are the same, it appears the user's IP address is not perfectly stable. Having a registered user making all of the changes reduces the chances of vandalism slipping in from someone else using an IPv6 address. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we get a bit more time to look into this, I've extended the protection. I have a memory that KingRaven44 knows something about this subject, so I'll mention it on his talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea for someone to link KO to this discussion or explain why the article was protected. Might be better coming from someone other than me to be another voice to tell him that something is up with his edits. Only (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
└───────────────────┐
(Note added later) User:KO Asylum was effectively pinged with the very first post in this thread, and again with this one as well. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────┘
I have linked him to this discussion. However, considering the previous question you posed to him (and which he left unanswered), I doubt that we will be getting a satisfactory explanation any time soon. Chenzw  Talk  11:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only note the edits taking place, even though the article is on my watchlist. With no edit summaries to instruct the clueless, we can't even seen if they are changing the sources along with the data without manually checking each edit and then validating each reference. None of the few, the brave or whatever we have here can expend that much time and energy. Whatever is not in my realm of interest I am lacking any context of accuracy. (Why I gave up watching Dr. Who articles: I reverted a good edit...). Minecraft I follow, but it is largely unsourced and many sections only have dialogue about versions and gameplay...the entire article could lack factual content but I am only able to say "oh, okay" to any changes. It went through a lot of edits last year, but has been quiet lately. I realise this is a comment without a solution. Fylbecatulous talk 15:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the administrator's noticeboard and a place for solution suggestions instead of rambling, this is my point, I believe. We should make the use of edit summaries more highly expected, if not required. Especially for those editors who are yet unknown or not yet trusted. Even for all of us who know each other, it is considerate to state what we are doing in any change. I practically have a conversation in mine! I notice that Macdonald-ross converses back if they make edits to an article I have recently or just worked on. I really like that, as I am clear about what they think and are doing. I believe my percentage is 100% ffor this wiki, but that is just my personal ethic. I realise we have to have community concensus for a policy change, but if I am in favour of using warnings (gentle to more stern) for those not volunteering edit summaries. Fylbecatulous talk 15:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize this took so long and for my lack of communication as I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I couldn't quite understand how to communicate at the time and I use this as no excuse. I apologize for the frequent removal of redlinks and sometimes citations as I was just looking for a method to simplify the page to make it easier for those scrolling it. Only removing those that were outdated, but I became overzealous and I made major errors due to my part and since then they have been restored on the page and those that were removed recently were just corrected in proper manner or outdated. My objective to make edits on the page were simply the manner of updating outdated information and I due advocate the need of a registered user to make the proper edits when necessary as I am not one myself. Once again I apologize for the disturbance that was due to my behalf. I promise on the page there will be less edits that are only made in the proper use when necessary and when, in do time, there is a proper registered user in place. Thank you for your understanding and hopefully patience as I sincerely apologize again on my behalf as my objective was to only make improvements and to not make things difficult that I did. KO Asylum (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KO Asylum: Thank you for replying here. I want you to know that a registered user is someone who is logged in when editing, as you have been doing lately. It does not require a special process. I cannot speak for everyone here, but my main concern was that a lot of small edits were being made with no summary explaining what is being done. When we watch for vandalism, we look at the list of changes people have been making, and we look at the summary to get an idea if they are making good changes or bad changes. We want good changes, of course. I will put some things on your page that might help you understand how to explain your changes so we can see what is being done without opening the article to read each one. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biografia Italo Salizzato

Chiedo cortesemente che la pagina da me creata venga protetta! Grazie per l'attenzione! Distinti saluti. --Ermo casella (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can't answer you in Italian. The article you created was deleted (twice) because it was not written in English. Articles on this Wikipedia must be written in simple English. You might want to create the article on the Italian Wikipedia. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Can someone please indefinitely semi-protect my user page? I have already had to revert vandalism on it. Ipadguy (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by another Admin. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone also do that to my talk page? Same reasons. Ipadguy (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no -- we don't protect talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A further explanation: We protect user talk pages only if there is heavy vandalism/abuse on that page, and even so it's for a short duration only. The offending IP in question has already been blocked, so a protection is not justified here. Chenzw  Talk  03:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another proaction request

Can someone pleese protect Simple English Wikipedia? There has been lots and lots of IP vandalism over there. Ipadguy (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. There hasn't been enough vandalism to need protection. There were only a few today, but none for a few days before that. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can we get action over at WP:VIP? Ipadguy (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In future, please be more patient. You left the message here less than an hour after the reports at WP:VIP. Admins aren't online 24 hours a day, and vandalism is easily reverted even after more time goes by. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Can I get temporary permisson to import pages from the Enlish Wikipedia to here after simplifying it? Thanks. PokestarFan (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. How many pages do you want to import? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. presidential elections

As we go forwards, IP vandalism on election candidates' pages is likely to increase. I suggest we semi-protect the pages of all candidates until a) the primaries are over and, for the ultimate candidates, until after the elections are over. You might feel we should deal with it on a case-by-case basis as we usually do, but that risks screenshots of vandalised biogs being used for various nefarious purposes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. I would also suggest that we discuss what the next step will be if these articles are vandalized by auto-confirmed users. I can see a possibility that those with political agendas may be willing to wait out the minimal time periods necessary to create an auto-confirmed account, and if so, they may edit some of these articles using a Single-Purpose Account (SPA). Even if we decide that current policies are adequate to deal with that situation, we all need to be mindful that edits to articles that are about the political process, the parties, the candidates, or even those currently in office, may have a subtle (or even overt) political bias, and we should be extra mindful of the BLP policies in these cases. Note that when I refer to those currently in office, I mean not only the executive branch, but the legislative branch as well. Politics is dirty business and every party has people who will do anything to help their candidate win. We should do everything possible to ensure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for dirty politics. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with pre-emptive protecting. It may even be against Wikipedia's policies. If I see protection that is too long or isn't in response to actual vandalism, I will change or remove it. Let's wait and see how much vandalism we get, and try not to imagine worst-case scenarios. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We get a lot of helpful edits to biographies from unregistered users. Some even help in anti-vandalism. Protection is the last resort. The only article we're seeing much vandalism on is Donald Trump, but it's easily manageable so far. The articles on Clinton, Cruz, Carson and Rubio haven't been touched in a month in most cases, and Sanders' article is being actively supervised at PGA. Osiris (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. I think an election of Trump vs Clinton would be quite extraordinarily abrasive. We'll see. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need administrator intervention

Good evening. I apologize for having to bring this up here, but I would ask for an administrator to intervene in the edit warring between Ipadguy and User:94.12.81.251. There is constant edit warring on the IP's talk page, and it's disruptive. I have attempted to intervene by providing Ipadguy pages to read about policy/guidelines, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Is there an administrator who can step in and help out here? --Lithorien (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken care of. Ipadguy has been indefinitely blocked per WP:ONESTRIKE. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Inc. trademark

I believe there is a problem with the following pages:

Both pages use the file named "Apple Computer Logo rainbow.svg" which is found on Commons. While the rules for Commons do not allow files to remain there if they violate copyright in the US, the image is tagged there as likely violating copyright in other jurisdictions, and is also tagged as likely being protected as a trademark. Indeed, the symbol for a registered trademark (circle around letter "R") is contained within the image, and it appears to me that US trademark registration 1114431 applies to the distinctive apple with a bite image (regardless of color). This means that the image in question is not totally free for any use.

Because WP:Image use policy does not cover this situation, and we don't seem to have a very definitive userbox policy here on Simple, I believe we should start by taking guidance from EnWiki on this issue. EnWiki requires that images in userboxes be completely free for use and disallows "fair use" images. (This is likely because "fair use" is a context-sensitive determination and the use of these images within user-space does not provide the necessary context.)

I feel that the image in question would be perfectly acceptable (under "fair use" concepts) in an article about Apple or its products or its marketing, but to use a registered trademark within userspace to express interest in the subject goes beyond the allowable purposes of using such images.

It really doesn't matter (to me) if the images are simply removed from the pages, or if the pages are deleted. In the case of the topicon page, removing the image completely guts the page since the entire purpose of the page is to create a template where a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. is placed at the top of any page it is transcluded onto, thus the page should probably be deleted completely. The second page -- the userbox -- could survive without the image. Personally, I think removing only the image would make sense if the editor was going to continue editing the encyclopedia, or if other users had transcluded the userbox. As of right now, nobody has done so and the user is indef-ed. Either way, I do not believe that it is proper to leave that trademarked image within userspace. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no trademark infringement since neither Wikipedia nor the user in question is competing—nor attempting to compete—with Apple for customers. Nobody can possibly argue that that userpage is attempting to confuse people or misrepresent itself. It says "Apple, Inc." right next to the logo, with a link, and simply expresses the user's interest in that subject. It's not attempting to sell anything. As for its copyright status, the only thing that matters is that it's free to use in the U.S. and in the place of original publication (which is also the U.S.). Osiris (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may be trademark infringement anyway. Apple can maintain that use of the logo suggests a company-authorized link, where no such authorization exists. And if there is trademark infringement possible in the U.S., it's not really free to use. I think this has to go.
When I first created my enwiki user page, I was told categorically that trademarks could not be used without permission, period. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does that matter though? That has nothing to do trademark law. The words "Apple, Inc." are protected as a trademark just as much as the logo. No plaintiff can argue that the logo is an infringement but the words are somehow not. It's not being used for advertising another product, and it's not likely to confuse consumers into buying something else. This is an entirely non-commercial, nominative use, which is protected in the U.S. by a constitutional right to free speech.
The English Wikipedia is free to make up its own mind. But if you were indeed told that trademarked images require permission to use them on a Wikipedia user page, then you were misinformed. Their guideline on the use of logos has a section dealing with trademarked logos, as does this information page and this essay, and the use of trademarks in general is explained on the site's general disclaimer. Osiris (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of List of U.S. state slogans

Could someone please protect this page? Lots of vandalism from IPs. //nepaxt 19:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Only (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment roster again

The situation on this article needs to stop. I reverted another one of KO Asylum's edits which removed cited sources. I note that this has happened at least two other times, since the removal of sources issued has been mentioned on his user talk by two other editors already. The current flood of revisions on the article and Template:WWE personnel is making it difficult for other editors to review his edits. Doesn't help that there are no edit summaries, and no communication with other editors either. I really would like to believe that he is helping to update the article, but his current approach to editing is causing problems. I ask that either a full protection or a temporary block be implemented. Chenzw  Talk  08:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the consistent short edits and the two cited sources being removed as I felt they were a bit outdated, but if you feel the sources are needed until an updated version is to occur, I understand. I've had a problem with not adding a summary to an edit I've made, but that will change from this point on with now I see it as a disturbance to other editors. I have made communication in the past and responded when need being and I understand I have to be more open in the future. To make my point, my goal is to help by updating the article and I'm willing to make a step into keeping any edits I make less occurring on a daily basis so I ask there be no need for a higher protection or a temporary block on my behalf as I'm more open to communicating with you going forward. KO Asylum (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this source outdated? It was published just yesterday, and the tweet dated 25 January 2016. Chenzw  Talk  08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the assumption there would be an updated version to that particular source, but I realize from now on to wait until it comes out. KO Asylum (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ethnocentrism, sexism

"Shi Tianze was a Han Chinese who lived in the Jin dynasty. Interethnic marriage between Han and Jurchen became common at this time. His father was Shi Bingzhi (史秉直, Shih Ping-chih). Shi Bingzhi was married to a Jurchen woman (surname Na-ho) and a Han Chinese woman (surname Chang); it is unknown which of them was Shi Tianze's mother.[30] Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women, a Han Chinese woman, and a Korean woman, and his son Shi Gang was born to one of his Jurchen wives.[31] The surnames of his Jurchen wives were Mo-nien and Na-ho; the surname of his Korean wife was Li; and the surname of his Han Chinese wife was Shi." was in the section under Yuan Dynasty. This has nothing to do with the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and is a clear example of Han Chinese chauvinism and sexism. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Similiarly sneaky Chinese nationalistic chauvinism exists in the article for "Shi Tianze": "Shi Tianze was a Han Chinese who lived in the Jurchen Jin dynasty. Interethnic marriage between Han and Jurchen became common at this time. His father was Shi Bingzhi (Shih Ping-chih) 史秉直. Shi Bingzhi was married to a Jurchen woman (surname Na-ho) and a Han Chinese woman (surname Chang), it is unknown which of them was Shi Tianze's mother.[1] Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women, a Han Chinese woman, and a Korean woman, and his son Shi Gang was born to one of his Jurchen wives.[2] His Jurchen wive's surnames were Mo-nien and Na-ho, his Korean wife's surname was Li.." PLEASE ERASE THESE PASSAGES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.18.158 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That information is not on this project, but it does appear to be at en:Yuan dynasty#Rise of Kublai Khan, starting at the third paragraph, and en:Shi Tianze. Please address your concerns on the talk pages for those articles, rather than here. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan editor

Looks like the Pakistan editor is back, editing as 119.160.68.241. J991 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell, given that that IP has made only one edit? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, um, there's no proof; you should wait and see if it makes more Pakistan edits. J991 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is really premature. One questionable edit isn't enough to draw that conclusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That editor does not seem to be the particular Pakistan editor we have always been troubled with, but rather en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo/Archive. He was involved in move warring on Arina language last year. I have semi-protected the affected article to stop this. Chenzw  Talk  02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism at Knights of the round table

After being stable for some time, the article Knights of the round table has been repeatedly vandalized since mid-January, by different IP users (who geolocate to different places). Many of the regulars here have reverted vandalism on that page at least once these past few weeks. Based on this, I would like to suggest that the article be semi-protected for an appropriate period of time so as to discourage anonymous IP vandalism and allow the article to become stable again. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been enough vandalism to warrant protection. We do that kind of protection when there's so much vandalism that it's hard to keep up with. The edit history shows no more than a few incidents per day, and most are being reverted pretty quickly. There are 14 people watching the page, which helps. Feel free to watch the page yourself, too! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been on my watchlist since the first time I reverted vandalism there. :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected the article, for a month. 9 reversions in 3 weeks is on the brink of getting a nuisance.Editors are often more motivated, if they can contitibute/improve the content here. Creating an account and getting autoconfirmed is relatively sipmle. Note alos, that we had a similar problem in autum, where the page was also semi-protected. --Eptalon (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal for User:DupieSuper Withdrawn

I believe that EN:WP:NOTHERE applies. 100% of this user's article edits have been non-helpful. Although often not warned for the behavior, there has not been a single edit by this editor (outside of the user's own userspace) which has not been reverted. The edits below started in May of 2015; the most recent was about an hour ago.

FIFA

  • [10] Added hoax info to FIFA about fake soccer players, tagged edit as minor
  • [11] Edited hoax info about fake soccer players
  • [12] Changed info about FIFA; changed word "six" to "sex" and incremented various numbers by 1

Global warming

  • [13] Page blanking, changed global warming article to read "We must stop global warming now!! Save the JUSTIN'S!!!!!!!!!!!!"; tagged as minor
  • [14] Reverted the above edit and replaced global warming article with content from somewhere else; tagged edit as minor

Canada and the US

  • [15] Added "This just in! Canada has a new co-op duo for prime minister they are (Redacted) . WAR IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!"; tagged edit as minor
  • [16] Added "AMERICANS ARE FUCKING DICKHEADS!!!!!"; tagged as minor
  • [17] Changed Justin Trudeau birth year from 1971 to 1970 (For those who don't know, Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada; his birthdate is well documented as being in 1971).

I think the user's userpage sums it up: the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose. This is nowhere near needing a ban. The user's edits are too few (only 10, including two on his/her own user pages) and spaced too far apart for a ban to be appropriate. The edits listed above are all the edits the user has ever made except for the user ones. I'm not sure this is even enough for indefinite blocking as a vandalism-only account, but that would be a first step before banning. I think Etamni needs to understand the processes better before making this kind of proposal. Besides that, the appropriate place for a ban discussion is Simple talk, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If needed, this can be interpreted as requesting an indef-block for a vandalism-only account. While there may be technical differences between the two statuses, the result is the same: The account stops being used for vandalism. As to posting this here instead of at WP:ST, that choice was informed by the now-closed discussion of a ban for Krett12, which was discussed on this page and, as of this moment, has not been archived yet. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it was acknowledged in that previous discussion that this page was not the correct place for a ban discussion. There is a big difference between a ban and a block: a ban takes a community discussion, the other is an admin action. Not only does a ban discussion take up the community's time to decide, it takes up community time if the user ever wants to reform and get back the ability to edit. This user has never even had a block and a ban would be inappropriate. I ask you to withdraw this proposal and instead ask for a block at WP:VIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I happen to see it, I will. The user was never previously final warned, so it looks like we have to wait for more vandalism from the user before we can act. The userpage is on my watchlist now, so any warning at any level issued by any editor or bot will be noticed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Fox

Excessive vandalisim. --忍者ポップ (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for 24 hours.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protect User talk:112.78.117.68 and change block

Excessive vandalism and talk page. --忍者ポップ (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@忍者ポップ: I have blocked the IP from editing his own user talk page. Next time, please refrain from the excessive warnings. I see 7 "final warnings" on the talk page, all 7 issued within 30 minutes. Also, what's with this? Uw-huggle5, 6? Excessive use of "final" warnings undermines the finality of {{uw-vandalism4}}. Chenzw  Talk  15:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Access in Cuba

We recently travelled to Cuba and met a guide who is very interested in accessing Wikipedia. He cannot do so (as far as he knows) in his country. He has asked if we can help him either access the website or download a current version to send to him so that he can use it to improve his English speaking and writing. Can you suggest a way for us to help him?

Thank you.

GGJensen

@GGJensen: this particular Wikipedia probably will not be able to help you with this, but the main English Wikipedia has a team that is working on making an offline release of Wikipedia. You can try downloading it here, or ask around on the Village Pump. Chenzw  Talk  02:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Import Help

Howdy. I was wondering if one of you would be able to import en:Scott Kelly (astronaut) for me, into a user subpage. I've been looking for a new pet project and this seems like a topical page we could have, so I'd like to get to work simplifying and adding to it where I can. Would appreciate that. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:Gordonrox24/Scott Kelly (astronaut). It's been a while since I've imported to userspace and the interface has changed a bit, so I only did the latest revision -- I was a little worried I was going to overwrite your userpage. Do you want the rest of the revision history, now that I know it works how I want it to? Osiris (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having only the most current revision, that should work just fine. Thanks! --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Import Request

Would an admin please import en:iPad Pro to the Simple Wikipedia? i can simplify it afterwards. Thanks! -- numbermaniac (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have imported it to User:numbermaniac/IPad Pro. When you are ready for it to go to mainspace, you can put it there manually, or ask an admin to move it for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader rights

I would like to request uploader rights to upload a spoken article version of VGA mourning dove. --Yottie =talk= 20:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely the following error comes up:You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Uploaders., despite being in the uploaders group. Thoughts? --Yottie =talk= 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try log out and in again? Or clear cache or something? Osiris (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still not working. Strange. I guess you can remove the rights until we find a solution. It's not urgent :) --Yottie =talk= 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does it reject it? Anubis can get the upload page loaded; is it once you hit upload? Anubis (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page (Special:upload) will just show me permission error as soon as I try to access it. --Yottie =talk= 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't get that. I get the page. I'm uploading a screenshot. Anubis (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe cookies or something? Osiris (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never reach that page (on the screenshot). Very strange indeed. Just tried clearing the cache, logging out and restarting browser again, without result. --Yottie =talk= 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, man. You've got the flag until you figure it out though. Osiris (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now it won't let me delete that damn file I uploaded. Apparently, it's "in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends", whatever the heck that means... Maybe the system's just a bit temperamental at the moment. Try again later. Osiris (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After refreshing the "special:upload" page three times, I finally get the upload page. I select the file, fill in the description, choose the license and hit upload... and it then comes up with the permission error again. Tried it twice, same result. Never mind... --Yottie =talk= 20:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the restriction was not modified. @Glaisher: -Barras talk 21:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Looks like Yottie is the unfortunate lottery winner of a MediaWiki bug (possibly related). Currently there is an inconsistency of user rights between the cache and database. Chenzw  Talk  05:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With some fiddling around in the buggy hidden form field, I think I have restored the rights to their proper state. Please check again whether you can upload, and whether your patroller and rollback rights are still okay. Chenzw  Talk  06:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I suspect that we still have a problem here. Now Special:Userrights is giving inconsistent results. Hopefully a few hours more will allow the expiry of the invalid items from the cache. Chenzw  Talk  06:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Trial and error. We'll just have to wait and see. --Yottie =talk= 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean Special:Upload is still failing for you? :( Chenzw  Talk  11:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If I refresh 3-6 times, it eventually shows the submission page, but then I just get the error again when I hit upload. --Yottie =talk= 11:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: I took at look at Special:Userrights today, and it looks like the problem has resolved itself. Can you check if you can upload? Chenzw  Talk  03:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has indeed been resolved. I have uploaded the spoken article, and you can now remove the uploader rights until the next time I need it. Thank you, --Yottie =talk= 10:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure it's not technically related, I still can't delete File:Test-image-for-Yottie.png. I think it's being fixed, but could take some time. Osiris (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like someone else to try to delete it? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! If you can get it done, I'd be very happy. Osiris (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no luck. I get the message "Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/d/de/Test-image-for-Yottie.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends". I imagine that's what you were seeing. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Those damn internal storage backend inconsistencies (???). Thanks for trying though. Osiris (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop

Unfortunately I will be unable to uphold the activity levels expected of me by the community for the foreseeable future. Please remove my admin rights. Thanks, -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooo, Orash! :( Are you still going to be around on Meta? Osiris (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service here :(
P.S. I have not granted any other rights (rollback, patroller), because your global rights will settle that for you. Chenzw  Talk  04:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term IP abuse

We generally consider warnings to IP users to be stale after a fairly short period of time. At what point can we look at a long-term pattern of abuse and say "this is clearly the same user" and take action based on that longer pattern, rather than on whether we have recently applied enough warnings to the IP user's talk page? Take, for instance, the edits by the user with IP address of 171.33.197.168. Since November 2, 2015, this user has vandalized Central processing unit more than thirty times. Other vandalized articles include sex, binary number, and others. The list of those reverting this user's changes reads like a Who's who of Simple English Wikipedia with many of our active admins and users (and a bot) reverting this user at least once. Amazingly, the user has been blocked only once, this past December, for a week. Do existing policies and guidelines provide enough, um, authority, to take more drastic action, or do we need to create something new in order to more effectively address this type of situation? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the pattern is obviously the same, you can make an immediate report to VIP. I have blocked for 3 months. Hopefully in that time they'll forget about simplewiki. Osiris (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. Using my steward rights I've just blocked User:Lelkeklord for 31 hours due to excessive vandalism. You might wish to extend the block. Trijnstel (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend fully protecting Template:Main Page panel. It looks like it isn't meant to be changed much MusikAnimal (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need a page merge of Xi Jinping‎ and the talk page along with another page. //nepaxt 00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nepaxt: This seems unrelated. I suggest putting a merge template on the page if it needs merging. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching it, Trijnstel. I made the block indefinite, on the grounds that it's vandalism-only account. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: There were two separate pages with the article in one place and a copy of the article with the article's history in the other. Looks like it's fixed now. //nepaxt 02:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KO Asylum and WWE pages again

The situation doesn't seem to have improved since the last AN thread. Hundreds of edits have been made to both World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Template:WWE personnel, with no explanation given for the edits. These two pages are probably our most frequently edited pages during these 2 months. I also see 50.143.226.0/24 and 2601:205:c100:66cd::/64 with the same editing patterns, but I can't tell whether it's a matter of accidentally editing while logged out, edit-warring, or fickle-mindedness of the editor.

A partial review of diffs (there are hundreds of revisions here) show a few recurring edits, for example:

  • Renaming of "Main roster" to "WWE roster", and vice-versa: [18], [19], [20]; [21], [22]
  • Disagreement as to whether The Undertaker should be displayed as [[The Undertaker|Undertaker]]: [23], [24];
  • Repeated expansion and contraction of acronyms, such as "U.S." <-> "United States" and "I.C." <-> "Intercontinental Championship"
  • Repeated addition and removal of periods in "A.J. Styles" (and "AJ Styles")
  • Repeated reshuffling of personnel which I really am unable to look into specifically. The amount of diffs hurts the eyes.

This situation is not looking good for editors who are looking to verify the edits and the contents of these pages. It seems that EN has had a similar problem in the past. I propose that we start off by copying the contents of the EN template to our version here, and apply full protection on both pages, allowing edits only with {{edit protected}}. --Chenzw  Talk  14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third and fourth points above, do we have clear guidance from the MOS for a preferred style? As to the rest, perhaps it's time to craft some guidelines for these types of articles. I don't want to see the admins bogged down with edit requests -- which I think would happen -- unless other options completely fail. Semi-protection would at least ensure that editors making changes were logging in, and could help clarify the situation as to whether we are dealing with one editor who is flip-flopping on what style to use, or multiple editors who are (perhaps inadvertently) edit warring over style and trivia. In either case, I agree that the flood of changes to these pages is disruptive as it makes the process of watching for bad changes (at Special:RecentChanges) more difficult. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A.J. Styles should remain at "A.J. Styles", like his article. Contractions are okay after the first appearance of the word, which should appear in full.
@Chenzw: I don't really understand anything about the subject, so it's difficult to assess the quality of the edits. I agree that the constant back-and-forth with formatting and moving around of names is quite strange. Perhaps KingRaven44 can take a look at this for us? I suspect he might have a better idea about what purpose all of these changes are serving. I will remind the user yet again about edit summaries. And I think that protecting the template is not a bad idea. Osiris (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using edit summaries is only solving a symptom. I think the bigger issue over here is why there is such a rapid and frequent editing of the two pages. Even EN does not have such a rate of editing. I am also not that knowledgeable of the subject myself, but I don't think that WWE rosters are shuffled so frequently; it is ridiculous for wrestlers to be shifted to and fro rosters/appointments every day. Chenzw  Talk  11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly not sure why it keeps getting changed. - KingRaven (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully-protected both pages for now, and will pop by EN to take a look at their version and prepare for copying over to here. Chenzw  Talk  02:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have imported the EN revision over to the template on this wiki, for now. Still not sure how we can go about this without a permanent page protection. Chenzw  Talk  06:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Job for someone

Abuse Filter Privileges

This is probably a Crat related question / concern. I saw the other day Abuse filter (talk | changes | block)‏‎ (administrator) (Created on September 19, 2015 at 07:42) when I pulled up a log. Now there is no issuance of that right here on simple nor on meta. In fact some have requested the removal of the right on meta. So I am thinking this was a database add. I do not see where this is needed. Anyone have any thoughts on this or should we have that right removed from this like these others have requested on meta [25], although we should be able to do it locally. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can indeed be done locally. The "user" was granted administrator through the database because the abuse filter allows for blocking and de-grouping (removal of all local rights) of users who trigger filters. Since such functionality is not enabled here, there is even less need for this user to keep the flag. Removal of the flag does not restrict the abuse filter from performing sysop-level actions; I believe it's just something to make it clearer for other users. Chenzw  Talk  06:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user Damien ELIE

Please note that user:Damien ELIE is an employee of Aphelion (software)‎. I have restricted this latter page to a stub, pending other eyes on the situation. Also it was largely an unsimplified copy/paste from En wiki. Comments had already been made that it was not simple. However, the main issue is that the editor has vested interest. If the product is notable, I see nothing wrong with this short page. Is it notable, I wonder? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the 5350972 version of the page, which is a easier to understand description. --Damien ELIE (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick Google search shows that the word Aphelion is applied to more than one software product, from more than one company. I found one white paper from 1999 that seems to mention the product described in the article, but that paper by itself would not be enough to establish notability. I would ask that Damien ELIE provide (below) a few links to sources that would show or tend to show notability. Industry awards, reviews, and other significant discussions (more than a brief mention), which are independent of the company, would be helpful. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the references present in the english article en:Aphelion (software). Some of them are from relevant publication sites or magazines and cite the usage of the software. --Damien ELIE (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damien ELIE, let's continue this discussion at your talk page, since another editor is talking to you there as well. (For the record, I do see that the editor has appropriately declared a connection to the company that makes the product.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the protection level for World Wrestling Entertainment roster

WWE wrestler Neville suffered a broken ankle and shinbone on an episode of Raw Monday night in a match and has to be moved to the inactive section of personnel. KO Asylum (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for this. Question: is Raw live, or could that have happened a while back? I wouldn't want to move him to "inactive" if he has since recovered.
More general question: do we even need to have a separate section listing inactive personnel? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: if you want someone to make this change (since the page is protected and you can't change it yourself), you need to make the request on the article's talk page, using the {{changeprotected}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify - delete Wiki.png

WP:IUP says "All images used on Simple English Wikipedia should come from "Wikimedia Commons",". In earlier times there may have been technical reasons to keep File:Wiki.png, but this is no longer necessary.

There are 85 Wikipedias that don't have any local media files, see: meta:List of Wikipedias having zero local media files, among them two Wikipedias with 1 000 000 articles.

The Simple English Wikipedia logo is in Commons: commons:Wikipedia-logo-v2-simple.svg. 91.9.118.123 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the IP user would like to provide a reason why this should be done. Personally, I think that keeping this particular file local will better protect it from vandalism and other mischief, but I could be mistaken. I also think there is no harm to the project or to the foundation by keeping the file where it is, but again, I could be mistaken. Finally, even if we move the file, we will not fit into the list of projects without any local media files as we have a process to allow certain audio files to be uploaded locally. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete that file. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81 - "need" was not given as reason for deletion. But if you go down to such a level, what is the "need" to keep that file?
@Etamni - 1) "Perhaps the IP user would like to provide a reason why this should be done." - No, the IP user would not like, as that would be a repetition. 2) You are mistaken. Deleting the file is the most secure way to protect it from vandalism. Even users that have the right to edit it, couldn't. ... Sharing is caring, that is why some Wikimedia projects move all their free files to Commons - a repository of free content. 3) Again mistaken. Avoiding adherence to IUP is a harm, as it is a precedence for not adhering to other policies. 4) That process is unnecessary complication too. If the files are free, they can be hosted by Commons, for easy re-use by other Wikimedia projects. 91.9.116.242 (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there is little risk of vandalism due to the fact that non-sysops have no permission to overwrite the file by re-upload, it is indeed true that there is no need to keep the file on this wiki any longer, not to mention that the licensing terms are incorrect ever since WMF released most logos under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Most wiki logos now are centrally managed in InitialiseSettings.php (see $wgLogo) and require opening a new task at Phabricator for modifications, so the file's local existence should no longer be needed. The only exceptions at this moment are Wikinews and Wikiversity, which take their logo from the wiki's local copy of Wiki.png.
By the way, I am not sure of the circumstances leading to Intforce's modification of the logo on Commons in 2012 – the version there (and the SVG) is not the same as the logo in use on this wiki. Changes to wiki logos must be supported by community consensus. I will look into the ST archives later to find out more about the logo changes. Chenzw  Talk  17:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chenzw, thanks a lot. "ST" means Simple Talk? So, there is 1) pre-Intforce PNG + the corresponding SVG, [=enwiki] 2) Intforce PNG + c. SVG ["Simple English"] 3) the file in actual use in the top left corner [text above Wikipedia]. 91.9.102.247 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Wikipedia site.

Dear Sir or Madame,

I would like to begin first by saying that I am very pleased with the plethora of information and graphics provided by your website. Nonetheless; despite my contentment with Wikipedia, I am chagrined by a few things.

I must report a flaw in the layout of one of your pages. The James Monroe page in particular, address: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe in my opinion has discrepancies. The information about James Monroe found at the beginning of the page should, in my opinion be followed by the "Personal Information" section found in the middle of the page.

Although the information is very interesting, it is the sequencing of the material that needs 'tweaking.' I believe it would be more relevant to the reader who wants to be acquainted with this figure to have access to his personal data in lieu of the information provided. In addition, the other grievances I have are technical in nature and I would gladly address them to the editorial team.

Thank you for your time and dedication. Kudos!

Sincerely,

Natasha --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.121.23 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, the article you link is not on this site. It is on English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia, a separate Wikipedia. You need to discuss this on English Wikipedia, not here. I'm sorry we couldn't help you. --Auntof6 (talk)
(Null post so this topic will archive correctly.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex

I think this article might need some protection. It's had non-stop vandalism for weeks, mainly coming from similar-looking IPs. J991 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have semi-protected this article, as it has had a lot of vandalism in the few months, hopefully a month long break will cool the temptation to vandalize this article. -- Enfcer (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this article has seen some vandalism, I do not think it has risen to the level that requires protection. With the other article now being protected, that may draw interest to here. We will need to keep an eye here, and if needed we can add it to this article also. -- Enfcer (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

This username violates our policy - offensive username. J991 17:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily see the offense. I assume you mean the second syllable in the first word. It's only a syllable in a longer word, and could very well be a real name. It sounds very much like names I've seen from Middle Eastern countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's apparently an Indian name. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, if i may arrive late and respond, there is a feminine version of the name called Harshita. Winterysteppe (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's very intetesting to know. :) My main point is that we native English speakers need to be aware of this kind of cultural difference. Another one I know of is that many Thai names include the syllable "porn". We should not assume that names with that syllable are referring to pornography. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeesh

I think we have the makings of a sockpuppet situation if anyone is watching the user creation log. It appears hes creating accounts and talking to himself. User:Thefishisnotdead, UserThefishisdead and that bag of chips guy. Trying to assume gf here but I just can't altogether. Synergy 01:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you checkuser, all accounts are from a school. User:Thefishisnotdead is my ult, made to test view from another user. I never intended to edit with it. User:TheFishIsDead is someone else. A small bag of chips (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to stick to one account. Using multiple accounts is not permitted on the wiki. Synergy 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that WP:SOCK#LEGIT- Testing and training was valid for simple english, apparently not. A small bag of chips (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is permitted in some cases. You can avoid misunderstanding by declaring it ahead of time. Several editors have alternate accounts that they use for editing from public places, to avoid having issues with their main account. If you want, I could block the account you don't intend to edit with, with a note that it is not being blocked for any bad behavior. That way, there would be no concern about socking. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I was attempting to assume good faith. I used to hunt down socks. When you start talking to yourself, it poses an issue for me. Synergy 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, could you block User:Thefishisnotdead please? Apologies for any annoyance this has caused 02:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but first would you please put a notice on the user page of each of your alternate accounts, explaining that they're alternate accounts and what the main account is? Also note what each is used for, if they're used for anything specific. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 This is my main account, please block the others (A small bag of chips and TheFishIsNotDead) Thanks, TheFishIsDead (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) TheFishIsDead (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 The use of multiple accounts in itself is not a blockable offence, and editors are not required to disclose their alternate accounts, unless there is a conflict of interest somewhere or when these multiple accounts are used to edit a common page/topic/subject area to avoid scrutiny/review of contributions. I am giving the benefit of doubt here, and have unblocked User:A small bag of chips per the unblock request and explanation given on this page. No comment with regards to the two remaining accounts. Chenzw  Talk  04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Flintstones

I'm guessing this and a few others created by the same IP need to be deleted? They are blatant copy-pastes from en, but unfortunately QD A3 isn't an option for templates. J991 17:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No QD criteria apply. What usually happens with templates like these is that they marinate for a little while (in case the person importing them actually starts creating content to go with them). Eventually @Auntof6 nominates them at RfD, and a week later they're gone. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste issues apply only to significant content that could have copyright issues or that might have complex language. There's no such content in templates (or in categories, either). I left the user a message about converting templates and putting them to use. Also, I'm not the only person who can propose deletion, y'know! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know! (smile) But you're the one who most often goes back and finds these things after the rest of us have forgotten them ... good for you, alas for us! StevenJ81 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please block this user?

Could someone please block Anti Cuck (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) for a username that has the (offensive) word "cuck" in it? Thank you! --<< S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the offense. Wiktionary says that "cuck" is a shortened form of "cuckold", which is not offensive. Even if the word were "cock", it wouldn't necessarily be offensive, because "cock" has a non-pejorative meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_48&oldid=9498326"