This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or to start a new discussion. You may use requests for rollback to request rollback.
Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.
Are you in the right place?
- 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)
Lab Rats[change | change source]
This article seems to be stuck on the New pages list (like Charlie on the MTA). I can't see any way to mark it patrolled. It's been there for some time now. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Marked as patrolled through API. (<patrol rcid="6721441" ns="0" title="Lab Rats" /> Request time: 0.256) I couldn't find another way to do it. Also note that after 30 days, pages expire from the unpatrolled queue. --Glaisher (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: It provides direct access to data in a database etc which can then be used to request actions/querying on the database. Most bots work by using it. There is an article about it here (en:API). MediaWiki's API is well documented at mw:API. You can use Special:ApiSandbox to play with it. However, note that you can do stuff like blocking/deleting with it so please be careful when doing actions with API. --Glaisher (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Request for admin comment(s) re: warning levels[change | change source]
I asked Griffinofwales to use the standard warning levels, after he had started with final warnings with some users. He replied that he was following procedures that were set forth by admins in the past. Would any and all willing admins please comment at User talk:Griffinofwales#Warning users and let me know if I am indeed missing something? Please reply there only about procedures that are already in place: I am looking to learn if there are procedures and practices I'm unaware of, not to discuss what the procedures should be. We could certainly have a conversation about the latter, but elsewhere, please.
For your convenience, here is a list of the users who received the warnings I objected to in case you wish to review:
- Associating an IP and a username usually requires a checkuser test to be run (which in turn, will require some hints, and some vandalism beforehand); while I have the checkuser flag, I have not run a test on the cases above, so I could not tell you whether they resolve to the same user (or institution). In addition, over the time, there are some IP address blocks which have been associated with vandalism (or users performing vandalism). so depending on the extact type of vandalism it is often apparent that the user has no intention to help and simply wants to be a nuisance. In such cases, going through all levels simply wastes time; same with school ips, where a short block may often solve the problem, as the pupils lose interests. Anyway, I trust the admins to warn appropriately, and I don't think dissecting every case is worth the time. When you know somewone burnt down the church in the neighboring village, and you see them with a pair of matches, what do you do?.... --Eptalon (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
using registration to post personal details?[change | change source]
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[change | change source]
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[change | change source]
- 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[change | change source]
- 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[change | change source]
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)