Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

Hardcor

Resolved.

Continue from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 39#Hardcor :

It continues: Swagg Union Heroes, This Is Swag Team. Also Jude Enemy and socks are locked globally. πr² 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also: Cory Stunna, Crunk Music Enetrtainment. πr² 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You may just want to start with Special:Contributions/Bigggggggg and delete everything there.. its all seems to be continuing unnotable self-promotion. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Littlemkifdjmdfsdffdfddf (talk · contribs) and 173.74.174.38 (talk · contribs) as well. One of them is actually even creating the pages with the QD tag already in place.. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Swag Team Entertainment? Ally Rapper? πr² 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Both from 166.147.64.75. Osiris (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I compiled a list of his articles here (I'm sure there are more...) at User:PiRSquared17/Sandbox2. πr² 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that Tidy Yung was just created by 166.147.64.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). πr² 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This Is Swag Team by 166.147.64.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) looks copied almost directly from en:Take Care. πr² 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there's Swagg Union from the same IP. πr² 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Swag Team, Basic (entertainer), Basic discography (copied/modified from en:Drake discography), Swagg Union Heroes (group), Crown The King (copied from en:Take_Care I think), BeastMode (also from en:Take_Care, repeatedly recreated). All from Ghhfddfhdf (talk · contribs). πr² 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Section heading on Special:SpecialPages

On Special:SpecialPages, I see you have a heading called "Recent changes and logs". Since you call Special:RecentChanges "New changes", shouldn't the header of that section be "New changes and logs"? Od Mishehu (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no way to change the text on pages in the Special: namespace. I looked through the MediaWiki: namespace and nothing came up there. Orashmatash (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Here: MediaWiki:Specialpages-group-changes. Goodvac (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Since it seems fairly non-controversial, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hugo(film)

Hi because the article be in quik deletion? plis remove the template of the article ,thanks, all help with the article is welcome,hug Carliitaeliza (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is now at Hugo (film). Chenzw  Talk  15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And now at Hugo (movie). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparent edits from blocked user

I believe blocked user User:Carliitaeliza has been posting under IP addresses, asking for help about being blocked. See these diffs: [1], [2] (in that one, the poster states that she is Carliitaeliza), [3] (let me know if you'd like that one translated). I don't know what policy, if any, applies, but thought I'd report here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Clear block evasion. Goodvac (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One main issues with this is that the edits pointed out are almost valid. That is, the intent is acceptable (a user is certainly allowed to challenge being blocked as long as it is in a civil manner and we have have users here challenge their blocks or atleast deal with them civilly on en:wp by talk pages here (CM16 petitioning Alison for help dealing with matters on En:wp in a totally acceptable manner) but the target off the petition in this matter is an issue. It is one thing to hit the talk page of an admin/b'crat to make your case. And in this matter when part of it seems to be lack of language skills, there is a case to be made (yes or no on the outcome, it is an acceptable matter). The block reason is sound given the situation but the unblock deny validation is (no offence) a bit shifty. Block - being disruptive, Unblock? no - learn to speak the language. Better to point out that the user showed they could not comply to guidelines after being informed repeatedly and was being disruptive and non-helpful to the wiki. In all likelihood, the users inability to communicate in an manner that is understandable is an issue, but the actions that caused the block and the fact that nothing was done to correct those actions (on the users part) should be the key point. Should action be taken to deal with this now? Its annoying at best to deal with dynamic IPs making minor issues like this that are likely best just to ignore rather than requiring a CU to investigate what side-effects the needed actions to stop this might curtail. Ie. range blocking is needed to stop it and it is best to have a CU verify that would not have a negative affect on valid users but at the same time that can be seen as the CU peeking at issues that didn't warrant looking at and invade privacy of legitamate users for no reason and ... it gets complicated. And all that for a couple random unblock comments that are best just ignored at this point (if it continues, action may be needed but for 1-2 comments its probably best to just ignore) - Range blocking R serius bizness. --Creol(talk) 06:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The same user appears to have been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia as well. Can someone proficient in the language take a look? Chenzw  Talk  09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

CRRaysHead90

The discussion here was closed as the user 'retired', now that he has returned could an administrator please review the position. It seems that he position currently is that he has evaded any action by not editing for a very short period of time. Would an admin make a decision or should I start a community discussion for consensus? Normandy 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is POINT-Y. I've apologized numerous times, hell I've begged for forgiveness, my conscious is clear. I've seen many editors in private call this an all around stupid dispute. I think this is wasting the community's time when we could be content building. But go ahead, what I did was wrong morally, but it is not bannable by wiki policies from what I've been told. Again, pointless. However, I will "hide" no longer. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it 'POINT-Y'? Have you even read that before you posted it? I am talking about it, and I am not disrupting the wiki. Normandy 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, and feel by doing this your disrupting the wiki to prove to me I've done something wrong. Which I have and have apologized for like I said. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes personal attacks are banable, and yes NPA talks about ones made off wiki. Off-wiki harassment is blockable on-wiki per policy. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that discussion may be needed here. The previous discussion was closed since he retired, so no further discussion was had. But, since the "resolution" has now been "overturned" in a way, we need to discuss it again. Having people tell you offwiki that they want you to come back does not equal a consensus. Many valid points were made on both sides of the previous discussion, and they were cut short by the retirement. Just apologizing does not make up for having done it, and that you don't feel these were personal attacks show that you do not fully understand the issues surrounding the event. Considering your past history and your previous ban, these issues should be examined. Only (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To repeat what I said on CR's page. I was going to block him when it happened but he announced his retirement so I didn't. When he was let off his ban last time it was under the condition that even one problem would land him back on the ban. This clearly was a problem and thus a breech of the conditions that got him off the ban he was already on. He should be put back on a ban, and since this would be the 3rd time I believe, it would be a 3 strikes your out situation. Unless the community objects over the next day or so I will block as a violation of NPA and the conditions of his unbanning. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose hasty block. I would appreciate if this issue is properly discussed by the community. I don't see that Twitter account created by him as a form of personal attack, not to mention that the tweets purely consisted of material that can be easily obtained from this site (ie. they were quoted). If we consider this as PA, then I guess the folks at the Wikipedia Review have been continually making personal attacks at us. I would also like to point out that the previous ban discussion (which ended prematurely) did not involve the entire active community's participation. Chenzw  Talk  13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really require the entire community, he was under a one strike situation as was already agreed to by the whole community. Yes the tweets would be harassment and yes pretty much anyone on Wikipedia Review could be blocked/banned should what they said be bad enough. We don't need to have another discussion as we had one when he was unbanned deciding that all it would take was one problem and he would be banned again. Purposefully targeting one editor is harassment no matter how you try and spin it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I should note I don't have a problem with the community discussing it again though. But it is one hell of a waste of time since this user keeps causing us to have to have these discussions over and over. And then he tried to duck out of responsibility last time by retiring clearly so he could come back later when he thought the heat had died down. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That one strike rule does not exist, I just reread the entire discussion. It was mentioned, but never agreed to and was not applied by the closing 'crat/admin. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It applies to anyone who is brought back from being banned. So yes it is in effect. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)The actual quotes are not an issue (they were said, so can be linked, as they often are). It is however in this context that he secretly created a social networking account, not disclosing who was the operator, and using it with the intention of humiliating and discrediting a user here, solely on edits contributing to Wikipedia. NPA is essentially 'comment on the content, not the editor', and CRRays90 did not do so, and is in breach of NPA. As for the discussion previously ending prematurely, I foresaw this issue and would have preferred the discussion to remain open with the community changing their opinions to what would happen if he ever returned. When CRRays voted in a discussion I warned him that he declared himself to be retired to get away from community discussion on his future. He returns here with the attitude that "I can't be banned for it" and throwing guidelines around where they are not relevant to try to impede this discussion. Normandy 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how you came to the conclusion that I intended to "humiliate" and "discredit" BG7? Because no where did I imply any malice towards BG7 with that account, I explicitly stated that account was meant for laughing with BG7 not at him. I think you are jumping to improper conclusion and suggest you re-examine the evidence again objectively. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 13:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You explicitly stated "that account was meant for laughing with BG7 not at him."? Well darn, I must have missed that because I saw it nowhere. Yes I will revisit the evidence to check my conclusions, but I would note that to laugh with someone they need to be in on the joke. BG7 was not, you did not notify him of it, therefore you were laughing at him. Which is a PA. Normandy 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please block for a duration of one year to prevent further disruption. Jon@talk:~$ 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Firm Waring. This is a first time NPA offense, not an on-going offense. I've re-read the previous unban discussion, and can see no mention of a one strike rule. I proposed a six month period for one strikes, and that was opposed. I don't see any one strike rule in effect. We generally do have a six month period, however it is just shy of a full year now, so that would have expired. So, this should be a final warning. Any other behaviors should result in blocks and possible bans.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think he should be blocked. To be honest I thought it was over after the first discussion, CR says he apologized (whether BG accepts the apology or not matters little) and maintains it wasn't intended as a PA. Can we just get on with more productive things now? :) Yottie ^=talk= 12:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Brock Flanders

Hello guys, I locked this user for (only) 24 hours because it was going on vandalising and there were no local sysops around, please review my block in accordance with local policies. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block. I'm sure he'll be caught again if he vandalizes after the block.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection of RFP

I unprotected RFP earlier because it had long term protection applied that was no longer needed. And, it appears to be causing issues with certain folk posting to the subpages. My collegue User:Djsasso objected here and requested that a consensus was needed for this action. My response prior to seeing his reversion of my action is here. Since he had to log off before he started the discussion, as we all should do when reverting, as a courtesy to my friend and collegue I went ahead and posted here. I'm not here to discuss reversion, I'm here to ask permission to unprotect the page. Thank you for considering my request. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have it unprotected. We should investigate the problem with the rights cascading, not unprotecting it. An IP cannot run for admin, rollback etc so should not need to modify this page at any time. I'd say keep protected. Normandy 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was simply that I had clearly already stated I was unsure that it should be removed in my comment on the Rfa...since I had objected basically that meant it was already controversial. Anyways the reason I hadn't removed it myself and thought it should be discussed is that the circumstances have not changed any. It is still a very highly viewed page that is still likely to be prone to vandalism. I am completely fine if the community decides to remove the protection. I just thought it shouldn't be done in a willy nilly manor. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convert template

• The cascading protection used on Template:Convert is protecting a lot of unrelated templates from non-sysop edits (including template pages that haven't yet been created on this wiki). I realise it might be a bit tedious, but individual protection is a lot less messy.
• The above would also get rid of this minor error, from when templates protected elsewhere are brought over but not protected here (either protect the pages or remove the template).
• There are also two protected edit requests on its talk page. Osiris (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an unrelated template being protected? -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The full list

{{Anchor}} {{Dablink}} {{Documentation}} {{Documentation subpage}} {{Documentation/docspace}} {{Documentation/end box}} {{Documentation/end box2}} {{Documentation/start box}} {{Documentation/start box2}} {{Documentation/template page}} {{Fmbox}} {{Frac}} {{Intricate}} {{Intricate template}} {{Max/2}} {{Notice}} {{Order of magnitude}} {{Order of magnitude/x}} {{Ordomag}} {{Ordomag/x}} {{Precision/+}} {{Precision/-10}} {{Precision/-11}} {{Precision/-20}} {{Precision/-30}} {{Precision/-40}} {{Precision/-41}} {{Precision/-50}} {{Precision/-51}} {{Precision/-61}} {{Precision/0}} {{Precision/00}} {{Precision/01}} {{Precision/1}} {{Precision/10}} {{Precision/11}} {{Precision/20}} {{Precision/2010}} {{Precision/a}} {{Rnd}} {{Rnd/-}} {{Rnd/b1}} {{Rnd/c4dec0}} {{Rnd/c4dec1}} {{Scinote}} {{Scinote/P1}} {{Scinote/e}} {{Selfref}} {{Template other}} {{Tp}} {{Transwiki guide candidate}}

In the case of the last two, it's preventing those pages from being created by any non-sysop. Osiris (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of disabling cascading protection and individually doing it if completely unrelated templates are being fully protected. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

All of those should be protected....the solution to the last couple is for me to create them right now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks like one is a redirect and the other shouldn't really be on the page in the first place and has been removed. So currently the cascade is protecting exactly what it intended to protect in a less messy way. However in saying that if an admin wants to take the time to do it individually knock yourself out...just makes things harder later if we decide we want to remove protection from them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that all of those above should be or need to be protected—some of them (e.g., magnitude template) are outdated and need improving. But that's a secondary issue.

The convert template is unfinished—some of the subtemplates need to be edited (including the /doc page), especially when new combinations are created. Changes are being made and new features are being added all the time on enwiki and should be here too when required. Take a look at the redlinks in the /doc page for example— any of those or any other combination that would call the parent template cannot be created by non-sysops. I realise it's a lot of tedious work, but it's preventing improvement/expansion and it's a lot more messy. Osiris (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion: protect the main template and any of the above-listed templates that need to be protected (doc, precision, mboxes) individually. Most of the subtemplates shouldn't be fully protected (semi is another matter)—those that should will already have {{pp-template}} on them and therefore appear in here. So it's about 80 pages... Osiris (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see its preventing anything. Most active users here are admins so can still edit them, those that are not can easily ask an admin to make the edit for them if there is something that needs fixing. Anything related to convert and could potentially show up as vandalism across hundreds of pages should indeed be protected. We have in the past gotten a lot of that kind of hidden vandalism that affects hundreds/thousands of pages so they definitely need to be protected. The subtemplates are probably the most important ones to be protected. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why are we the only project that protects them? On enwiki and other, much larger, projects where changes affect many many times the number of pages than on ours, these templates are free for autoconfirmed editors to improve. Let's overlook the fact that cascading protection shouldn't really be used on templates— vandalism to obscure conversion subtemplates is pretty out-of-the-ordinary (even more so on a project of our size). I appreciate you doing those imports, but there are hundreds more (not counting updates to those we already have); the /doc page could also use examples relevant to our project. I'm not expecting you to do any of that, I'm simply pointing out that our editors should be able to improve these templates when and where they see fit. Some editors improve articles, some improve templates. Osiris (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because we are a smaller project with less editors to catch vandalism as it occurs. On en there are tens if not hundreds of editors at any given moment watching every new edit with things like Huggle. Vandalism is usually caught there within moments. Here there are gaps sometimes where vandalism doesn't get caught as quick. We are usually pretty good but it does happen from time to time. We have had vandalism to obscure templates in the past which has taken a long time to figure out what was causing it because it was on a sub template of a sub template of a sub template. Believe me I see what you are saying, I just don't think the benefit outweighs the risk when a request to an admin for a change takes all of two seconds. As for the hundreds more that are needed, we've always taken the view that we don't move convert sub-templates over until they are needed. (ie no point having them if they aren't being used) And anything not here already as long as its not linked from the doc page of convert can actually be created still as they aren't linked from the page so aren't protected yet. And really if we don't have it here it shouldn't be on the doc page to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that today with your imports. I realise you're unwilling, but you suggested above that if I can get another admin to replace the cascade with individual protection, you wouldn't object. Does that still stand? Osiris (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I do not care if someone does it. As long as stuff is still protected. I may even get around to doing it myself...I figured its not that big a deal. Just a lot of work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible impersonation attempt

I just noticed Drmies (talk · contribs) in the new changes log as a "new user account," not "account created automatically," which seems to indicate this isn't the same Drmies on the English Wikipedia. All edits from the contributions link were imported from the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked them to make a confirmation edit on the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Given this and this, I think it's safe to say it's fine. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And, in light of the above diff from Drmies, it looks like somebody should probably block/keep an eye on 122.178.112.184 (talk · contribs). Osiris (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention if there is no SUL on the account people are allowed to have the same name on this wiki as someone on another wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hey folks, thanks for the oversight. I just clicked on a confirmation link, but I'd be happy to make a typical Drmies edit... Drmies (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• OK, how's this? Sounds like the kind of thing this Drmies person would do, haha. Hey HurricaneFan, good to see you here. Osiris, "Did You Know...that Drmies once played keyboards (badly) in a metal band called Osiris?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, as far as that IP is concerned, there's a history there, which was indicated to me after their actions on Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu Vellalar), on the English wiki. Click on the history and see the different but similar IPs at work, which have apparently bled over into your neck of the woods. I suggested to Sitush that they figure out if there's socking going on from way back when, and to possibly inquire about a range block. I'm going to block pretty much on sight on the regular wiki. If anything exciting happens, you can drop me a line on my regular wiki talk page. Keep the faith, and Osiris, don't let me great DYK suggestion go to waste! Drmies (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: Sitush says it's this one. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye out for changes on India-related pages over the next few days, and let you know if anything you don't know about pops up. I'll get right on that DYK— I'm sure we can get an article going Osiris (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Renewing the logo

Moved to ST. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pages from user Racepacket's user space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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