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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

unauthorized bot

This IP is a bot (or claims to be and I believe the claim). Could an admin please take the appropriate action? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is a toolserver bot, which is out-logged. Barras || talk 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's made two edits, no action needs to be taken at this time. I don't think it's the Toolserver's IP address, but it could be another bot that has got logged out - it does happen, and all that needs to be done is check across wikis for the same edit - it could be it's logged in somewhere else. Goblin 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

See this link. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to. I don't care. Sort it out yourself. Goblin 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

The comment wasn't to you. Check the indents. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate action is to leave it alone. It happens from time to time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are toolserver bots based in Poland? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it's run by Wikimedia DE it's logical for it to be in Poland! </sarcasm> Goblin 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

—MC8 (b · t) 19:46, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

I have checked and it is an authorized bot that is merely logged out. It is not a concern. Thank you for your concern. fr33kman ^talk 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I check? Or is it an admin/'crat only thing? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I performed a checkuser on the IP address to find out what user account it normally is. It is an authorized bot account. It's not something that most people can do, however. fr33kman ^talk 23:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let it go. This happens with bots from time to time. Our login gets dropped by the script. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter anyways, this wiki subscribes to automatic approval of interwiki bots. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the IPs, not the actual bots. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just drop it. —MC8 (b · t) 20:02, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about this bot, it's about future (possible) unauthorized bots. There was an IP blocked a day or two ago because it was an unauthorized bot. (See here) Griffinofwales (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. —MC8 (b · t) 20:07, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it! It has made two edits here, no more. It's a simple mistake - find out the operator and let them know, rather than going on about it here. Goblin 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Yes, and Novocalscream made a mistake and should not have blocked that bot. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• You all need to stop telling Griffen to "drop it". S/he is asking, only to learn, how can he check himself. A good faith question about how he can check himself was met with "let it go...", just drop it. So he asked how he could check for future bots. That was met with paraphase: Just leave it, stop posting here. He can post here all he wants, and I will do my best to answer everyone of his questions here. This is for anyone. Unless an editor is being disruptive, let us attempt to at least be civil. We are all volunteers and I don't doubt for a minute that Grif is attempting to make the wiki better. Please take this as a strong encouragement to be nice, and helpful. If you don't have anything helpful to add, don't. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. —MC8 (b · t) 12:39, Friday August 14 2009 (UTC)

• I think, had the comments/questions come from someone other than Griffin, the replies wouldn't have been like that. As it is, I think most people are sick and tired of his continual interrogation about every single thing that happens, so are asking him to "drop it" because of this. He ought to take their advice; he is becoming a pest. Majorly talk 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Actually I don't think he is trying to be helpful in the least, I am pretty positive he is asking these questions to be disruptive. He asks millions of questions about every single thing, and then proceeds to tell everyone how they are wrong about every single thing they do. He has managed to alienate himself from almost every single editor on the wiki. Which isn't an easy task to do. I've been asked by most of the wiki to block him for disruption to be honest, as Majorly says he has become a pest. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree totally with DJsasso. →javért ^stargaze 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. He's asking unnecessary questions when the answers are already there. In my opinion he's becoming more of a Simple critic than actually being helpful on discussions... иιƒкч? 13:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Kind of reminds me of Thekohser to be honest. Cheers, Razorflame 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

<-@Nifky, I can't find the answers, that's why I'm asking (where are they, by the way?). @Razor, some similarities, but different issues and he attacked users, I never have (to my knowledge). @Djsasso, not quite in the millions, 100 max. Most of the community can block me, why are they asking you? @Majorly, I'm working on it and it's working (although you probably haven't noticed a difference yet). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because people know I will make the hard calls because I don't mind taking the flak for them and they would rather not have drama attached to their name. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-move protection of my talk page and user page

Hi there. Could I please get both my talk page and user page both autoconfirmed move protected please? Thanks, Razorflame 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 done by NonvocalScream and me --Barras || talk 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Razorflame 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

protection

I want indefinite semi protection of my user page and my user talk page (with move protection). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of what could be the reason ([1]). Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3 IPs, New york, Illinois, & Berlin. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, see [2] [3]. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator has protected the pages. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring [removed] to administrator attention. It appears that this username is being used only to harass Griffinofwales, though it hasn't edited yet, but I'll be keeping a close eye on it. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's already blocked. Sorry. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

66.102.237.62 (talk · contribs) is another IP harassing Griffinofwales, with the creation of [removed]. I think they're all the same person targetting Griffinofwales. Mythdon (talk • changes) 03:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And with the creation of [removed] and [removed], I think 199.71.213.57 (talk · contribs) is another sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Open Proxy?! This is crazy. I can't figure out what I did. The IPs don't check out with my Huggle work, and I never did anything here. I have no clue. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an open proxy. Probably because of the reverting of that one IP's complication of sentences on articles a few hours ago. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please semi-protect User talk:Griffinofwales due to recent harassment. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please review the contributions of 68.168.212.12 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see 12.47.44.197 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New changes

I strongly urge all administrators and editors to keep a close eye on Special:RecentChanges due to recent attacks by IP's at Griffinofwales and other users, such as me and other administrators. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, just looking through the past 200 changes that have been made to this Wikipedia, I could see very little amounts of vandalism that would need a semi-protection of a user talk page and user page. Not enough vandalism, IMO, means no protection, but a move protection in this instance would not be against the rules, which I see has already been done. Cheers, Razorflame 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not if the user requests it (talk pages are exempt). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if a user requests it, User talk pages are not exempt from this rule. According to the English Wikipedia, and based on my experiences on the English Wikipedia, I have seen several requests there for User talk pages to be semi-protected for a few days, and even then, WITH vandalism occuring on the pages, they were not protected, because everyone needs to be allowed to edit a users' talk page, no matter if it is vandalized or not. Razorflame 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have arranged for two things. In the event of an attack on my user talk space, my talk page is indefinitely protected until the admin determines feels that the threat no longer exists. If the attacks start again, the page is re-protected and appropriate actions are taken. Although your last point is correct, in my case, I do not think that an IP or non-autoconfirmed user would need to talk to me during the attack. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

While your point is also valid, even in the case of someone personally attacking you, it likely would only be a single person/account or a single IP. In this case, no protection would be needed because the protection would be facilitated through a block of the user harassing you. The only time I see a User talk page being protected is if it is vandalized by more than three or four different accounts or ranges of IPs at the same time or very near to each other and with the only way to stem the vandalism to be the temporary protection of your user talk page. It is stated on the English Wikipedia that User talk pages are never supposed to be indefinitely edit protected, and I believe that this policy should also apply here. Razorflame 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<-That's what I meant, several users/IPs attacking my page. The indef protection is there in case more IPs keep popping up, so we don't have to worry about extending it. When the attack is over, and we have blocked the users, we can then unprotect. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

However, since cases like the one you faced are usually isolated events, a protection would probably not be needed because it would probably only be an isolated incident and would easily be dealt with using the block tool. No protection of a users' talk page would be needed because the situation would easily get under control. When I posted my last note about the policy, that was only if the situation was out of control and could not be handled by a few administrators, which is very unlikely, therefore, permanent user talk page protection is hardly ever needed because situations like this hardly come up, even on the English Wikipedia. Razorflame 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

From earlier. There were 2 admins and 2 rollbackers online (although two other admins did minor things). The admins were deleting revisions, deleting articles, banning users, responding to comments, and reverting vandalism. That's a lot to do, especially when new IPs kept popping up. It's easier to make the IPs slow down, so they can be blocked easier. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator note: @Razorflame... you may not see the vandalism, because I have withheld (selective deletion) some revisions. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirm enable

I have filed a bug against simple, requesting that autoconfirm be enabled and new page creation for IP's be disabled. This is in 20284. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you cross-post this to Simple Talk, since it is a general community-interest thing. Also, where is the consensus for the change? As far as I can tell, the conversation is ongoing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested the bug change to WONTFIX... because I've been made aware that it is in fact not the default of the software... so it is not a bug, and would require actual discussion. I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Please review my block of editor user:Bluegoblin7. I have blocked him for disruption. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look great when you vote and close immediately, but there is nothing to stop anyone from closing these. No judgement is needed at all, it's simply a headcount. BG7's disruptive attitude in reverting both me and you claiming "COI" is utter nonsense. Voting for someone is not COI. Majorly talk 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that his editing appears to be disruptive. In the future though, please don't block people you were involved in disputes with. Another admin could have made the block if the editing was clearly disruptive. Either way (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair request, you've got it. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You already know my thoughts on closing the request. I don't disagree with the block however. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) I wouldn't have closed that RFx (2) particularly at the same time as voting in it and then (3) I wouldn't have issued the block myself either, particularly as it appears like you have ongoing issues with one another. Most importantly, and (4), we have probably lost another editor who is one of the very few who makes good (very good) mainspace contributions. A pity considering these "elections" have had so many comments about unnecessary early closures. Once again, can someone please point me to what the "rush" is? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you probably could've left this block to another administrator to perform if the disruptive editing continued, but I can see no real reason for the block at this point in time, IMHO. Cheers, Razorflame 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have been contacted by BG7 who has retired. I hope the on-going election nonsense will not continue to cause so much unnecessary drama and further loss to the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a cyclic occurrence. Also, I don't know if there is any loss when a disruptive editor leaves. We are all mature here, and have a goal in mind. In fact... I would like to see some articles published on CD... but I've not committed this goal to the wiki yet. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He retires everytime he gets his hands slapped for being disruptive. If he is truly retiring then it might actually be an improvement rather than a loss to the project. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I suspect some people here feel nothing for the loss of a community member who clearly felt strongly about some aspects of the bureaucracy here but still got on with writing decent articles. Quite what that says those people I'm not sure. I also can't quite see what relevance publishing articles onto a CD which becomes immediately out of date has to this discussion. As for maturity, continually "pushing his button" after he's retired is very indicative to me. Bottom line is that while some people considered BG7 to be a disruptive editor, he also contributed several high quality bits of work here. As with a lot of decisions lately, this whole event was "rushed". And I still cannot see why we need to "rush" at most anything here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TRM, your skirting awfully close with commenting on what a person looks like on the project, "what that says those people" and the maturity piece. With respect, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's my personal opinion on the way a lot of people here treat each other. It's a simple observation. If it hits home with individuals, that's not my fault. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there was no need to rush. That is what I was referring to about nvs knowing how I felt about the close. However, I don't see where he contributed several high quality articles to the wiki. Most of them are almost word for word copies of what is on en, sure a number of others use this method including myself at times. But you certainly can't hold him up as a beacon of a good article writer when he mostly just takes what others have written and copies it over. This combined with his disruption made him a net-negative to the project. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a good article writer. Who do you think contributed to the articles like Crich Tramway Museum on en.wiki? At least he did actually attempt to "build" the encyclopedia rather than spend his entire time here embroiled in bureaucracy.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally oppose the block. Writes articles, didn't break any rules. If he remains blocked, for very little "wrong" then I shall be leaving too. Not a threat, merely to show the strength of which I believe BG7 is a valuable editor. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Did not break the rules? He just finished edit warring. In the past, he owned items. Very anti collaborative. Many, many diffs available upon request. Many. There is a history to this editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been a disruptive WP:POINT editor for a long time. I am sure many people could dig up alot of diffs showing his edit warring and ownership issues. While this event may have been smallish in nature, he should know better and has a history of doing it, and can't keep getting away with it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Kennedy, you signed this. Why are you now using "leaving" as leverage in this discussion? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the block was very wrong. You are no where near neutral where BG7 is concerned. This seems to be a bit of a liberty with the block tool. Where you and BG7 are concerned you both should be seeking third party intervention in any disputes the two of you have. You should seriously consider lifting the block and the both of you entering into informal dispute resolution. fr33kman ^talk 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the block wrong, or how the block was issued wrong. Remember those are two very separate issues. BG reverted two different admins. Any other user would be blocked for this. BG should not get special treatment because he has been around awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The admin who issued the block was not neutral; a different admin should have been called in to deal with the issue. I don't think that either NVS or BG7 can possibly be neutral towards one another as too much water has flowed under a very shaky bridge. I might have done things differently with BG7 but then I find that perhaps because I've never clashed with him, I find he tends to be receptive to comments I make. Be that as it may, I think the block was not a good idea, and comments abound that tend to agree. I'd have asked someone else to look into it if I were NVS. fr33kman ^talk 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• The block is a very difficult issue. BG7 is a former admin here and should know how far he can go. I endorse the block, because I think his behaviour wasn't ok. I am just sad to see him retiring, because he's a great mainspace contributer, The block is imo ok. Barras || talk 19:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• My two cents: The way the block was issued was wrong. NS was not a neutral admin in this. Since the block itself was warranted in general, it's not a huge deal, but NS, please keep that in mind when making future blocks. hmwithτ 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and I will do that, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy computers

Please remember to block these with the only ACB AO options enabled. Also, please do not block the talk pages, in case the IP statuses change. Remember, they can secure the system at any time. Keep up the good work. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the settings of the blocks I and Fre33kman did earlier. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why anon only? Shouldn't the proxies be hardblocked (with talkpage editing enabled)? --Chris 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup I do believe that is the common method to use. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Make your minds up. That's what I did initially, but changed to anon only after NVS commented here. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe hence why a few of us here are trying to tell people to stop rushing. Don't react immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually tend to act quite fast. I'll be more careful next time ;) Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AO to permit already registered (named) users to continue contributing. Talk page editing enabled, so that the user can communicate. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have IP block exemption, we should hardblock open proxies and grant the exemption to editors who need to edit from open proxies. This reduces abuse of open proxies. Chenzw  Talk  15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to hardblock open proxies since it's very easy for a vandal to create an account, log in using the proxy and start vandalizing. I find Chenzw idea a better option. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I had forgotten about IPBLOCK exemption... yes... so I gather the talk pages are still open, yes? An an aside, AO ACB would permit continued editing by named account, and not permit new accounts to be registered. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the talk page (email was left open), but an open proxy should be blocked for all editors, named and anons. No one should utilize an open proxy once it is blocked, per meta. IPBLOCK exemption can be given to trusted users to bypass this of course. fr33kman ^talk 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Correct. I'm sorry, AO ACB only was an old method. Now that we have IP block exemptions, it is not needed per fr33kman. Also, I've just updated meta policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How can talk pages be enabled if they abuse them as well? -- Mentifisto 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disable talk pages after the abuse... it is never a good idea to kill talk pages pre emptive. IMHO. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NVS on this. Abuse of a IP talk page can easily be deleted and then semi-protected. EhJJ^TALK 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection

Someone please semiprotect Taiwan. IPs have been vandalizing and edit warring there for few days. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - 36 hours should do. Chenzw  Talk  12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. Can an uninvolved administrator remove one revision 1 pending a request for oversight. This revision meets criteria II of oversight at meta (The subject has asked, and no editorial reason to keep the revision). However, none oversighters are online at the moment, so a selective deletion can be done in the interim. Thank you for your help. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Per a libeled or attacked users request a specific revision of any page onwiki can be specifically deleted or oversighted. As such (and as an uninvolved admin) I have complied with NVS's request to have this attack removed from User talk:Bluegoblin7 as is his right. I apologize to the community however, as I was in the middle of (and still am) changing many block settings and so had the flood flag on when I did as it did not occur to me that I had it on. I'll be more careful in the future. fr33kman ^talk 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 re-done in an other way. Best --Barras || talk 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NVS asked while waiting for an OS to come along. Cheers! fr33kman ^talk 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mythdon/Attack titles

To all administrators, please add User:Mythdon/Attack titles to your watchlist. Thank you! Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this would be a better place to add requests (unless talk pages are fully protected also). Griffinofwales (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this request page is a minor consensus, if anything, for now, and it would be a bit too confusing if it were there. Since it doesn't just cover attack titles, it should be moved to User:Mythdon/Requests for title blacklisting. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing? WP:AN fulfills the purpose, and the talk page can be a secondary option. No need for a user page that nobody knows about. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I plan to propose that this become a community process in the future, and move it to Wikipedia:Requests for title blacklisting. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We would never use it. We don't usually have open proxies engaging in war with this wikipedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could it serve a better purpose at the English Wikipedia? Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No clue. I didn't know that blacklists existed until I came here. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Me either. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It'd be pointless on English Wikipedia as well for all the reasons I pointed out on the talk page for this user subpage. Either way (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved it. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Should this bot have the bot flag? It is a bot after all. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the low amount of edits, the flag isn't required. Now stop worrying about things and write an encyclopedia. It's not your job. Leave these kind of things up to crats. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Be nice. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was being nice. Certainly not meant to be 'not nice'. Sorry if it seemed that way. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not have the flag. CommonsDelinker removes image links from articles. Often, the text may refer to the image or another image should be added. Community consensus has been to not hide CommonsDelinker's edits because they are not minor in nature and should be seen in RecentChanges and Watchlists. Not all bots need a bot flag. See Wikipedia:Bots for more. EhJJ^TALK 21:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be reading it shortly. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies

Blatant vandal IP accounts are often open proxies. Please check to see if they are an open proxy before blocking. Proxies should be blocked for at least a year. Unlike on enwiki, it is difficult to maintain blocks if we only block them for short periods of time. If you don't know if it's a proxy, have a look at the English Wikipedia block log, where it is bound to be blocked already. Thanks, Majorly talk 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly! If in doubt, block for a short time, check that it's a proxy and then reblock. Protection of the project is paramount. Consider a port scanning tool like nmap/zenmap to help you confirm that it is a proxy and enWP hasn't blocked it as one. If you do confirm that an IP address is an open proxy and enWP or meta have not blocked it, let them know! fr33kman ^talk 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. When IPs such as these are vandalizing, it is a sure bet that some persistant vandal is using it to vandalize the Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What key feature identifies an IP as an open proxy? Is there a way to know "for sure" or is it ultimately judgement call? EhJJ^TALK 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One striking feature is the lack of information on a whois report. If the host is a proxy site too, then it is probably an open proxy. However, it's more accurate to use a tool like nmap. Majorly talk 02:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So there is no tell-tale sign, such as a particular open port, that could be checked automatically (say, by a bot)? EhJJ^TALK 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You can do port scans, but proxies can be open on lots of different ports. Another trick is to do a google search on the IP and see if it turns up in any proxy lists. --Chris 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

No administrative intervention needed. Refer to dispute resolution. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Snake311

Snake311 (talk · contribs · count)

Snake311 used to be a decent editor, but as of late he's been extremely unproductive. Some examples of disruption from this user:

• Redirects an article without discussion
• Refers to an article as "crap"
• "Because the last time I tried to write articles with good quality, you were bitching around how it was unsimple"
• "According to Juliancolton's idea, he thinks this wiki should be written at a pre-school level. However this article seems to be more like 7th grade if you ask me."

I'm growing extremely tired of these sorts of uncivil and downright POINTy comments. Any thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I monitored this edits as well. But just the question: Why do you post this here? What do you want to propose? A block or just a last warning by an admin? Please clarify this. Barras || talk 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just some input by other administrators to decide what to do. I don't want to see anybody blocked, but it might be necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern that sometimes happens on this project. Editors become frustrated with what they see as "problems" with the aims of the project or with each other and this sometimes manifests itself in contentious editing. Perhaps this has happened here also. I'd recommend a quiet word with Snake, I'm not sure I'd be in support of any additional action at this time. It's take a lot more for that to be needed. fr33kman ^talk 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if Snake311 gets blocked, that a 24 hour block would be the shortest block necessary. I'm going by the English Wikipedia's civility policy, since I haven't read Simple English Wikipedia's version of the policy, if there is one. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you already been told not to deal with admin things Mythdon? Plus the fact JC said Just some input by other administrators. And we aren't enwp, stop referring to that. Personally I'd have a word with him, make it clear to him his behaviour wasn't acceptable and he should consider this a warning. A block after that if he doesn't take any notice. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This page does not exclude non-administrators from commenting here. Just because it is a noticeboard for discussing administrative stuff does not mean that only administrators can comment. If this were true, the purpose of this noticeboard would be impossible to fulfill. Also, please tell me where I was told not to deal with these matters. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. How did I guess? You got blocked a few days ago? Griffinofwales told you to do your best to stay in article space, JC said above Just some input by other administrators, Djsasso said I wouldn't worry about anything to do with adminship if I were you. Just stick to articles, and Majorly told you to I think you should forget about RFA. Forget about all the things concerning adminship, and that admins do. I saw you tried 3 times on en, without success. You need to wait! Stick to articles. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Be nice. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And Mythdon, while you are welcome to put notices here, this really isn't a discussion board. Please leave administrative actions for administrators to do. Admins have the experience, knowledge and authority to properly take care of things like unblock requests [4]. This noticeboard should be used to alert admins about vandals or possible problem users. I believe Juliancolton's purpose for posting his message was to make the admins aware of what is going on and to seek a neutral admin to assist, not to engage in a discussion. Still, per my policy of assuming good faith, I believe your intention is to help out, and while I (we) appreciate that, please consider being involved in ways that aren't supposed to be done by admins (we already have enough of them!). Regards, EhJJ^TALK 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just have an uninvolved admin leave a note/warning. If it continues, then we can end the disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While I think Snake311 could be a little more civil, I didn't see anything that was outright harmful to the project. He could easily be having a rough week in real life or be annoyed about something on-wiki. A friendly reminder to be kind and assume good faith ought to be all that is required. EhJJ^TALK 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? Discussions like this only add on the stress and drama that has been raging on in this wiki. From my past experience, things like this have happened and usually nothing is resolved with the user being banned from this wiki. All this time, I have put a tremendous amount of effort in trying to write articles in this wiki that was small and needed editors and help. I know most of my contributions are on tropical cyclone-related articles, the same subject Juliancolton edits here and on ENWP. Unfortunately with only two users editing the same thing with opposing views, things like this would come naturally. Because of this, I have tried to edit in other subjects. Blocking one guy just to end the conversation is not going to end this, it only makes matters worse. I have watched other editors go through this. If I was to be blocked, all the time I have spent here would go to waste. All my efforts would have been for nothing. Remember I volunteered my time to edit here. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, just remember to be more civil. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Snake311, you do a lot of work here and I believe you are here for the same reason as all of us: to build a free encyclopedia (in Simple English). I think it would be been better for JC to approach you directly or to go to WP:Dispute resolution, but I think you've gotten the message (that some of your past edits have been slightly uncivil) and that you'll try harder when communicating in the future. I think this can be considered resolved. EhJJ^TALK 22:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Proxy blocks (talk pages)

I don't mean to sound like a broken record. :) Please consider not disabling the talk page editing on these blocks. There is no way for the IP to communicate. Instead, I would recommend using page protection for a short time. These computers can be secured are IP can reassign at any time. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock mailing list

With all these proxy blocks, we need a mailing list for admins to consider unblock requests. I propose unblock-simple-l. There will need to be a consensus before we can file a bug. I volunteer to help listmod. Thanks for considering... NonvocalScream (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

• I think this is a great idea. It allows blocked users to appeal their blocks through email, when their talk page editing is disabled, without going to individual administrators, and allows for a faster response. This will surely be a great idea. Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• fr33kman ^talk 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per below. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see this as being used much, but in the odd times that it is, it's a good idea. EhJJ^TALK 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• I can't think of any real reason not to, given the blocks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neither can I. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

And what happens if they abuse the mailing list? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The WMF software permits for moderation. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Moderation? Moderation of what? The content or the access? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Both. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean block emailuser. Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, listmod. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is that? Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List moderation, there are many methods to determining which emails get thru. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's add a link on ST to this discussion; it's not just one for admins. fr33kman ^talk 02:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "ST"? Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO The proxies will get smart and avoid the filters. @Mythdon: Simple Talk WP:ST. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly? fr33kman ^talk 02:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By changing their comments (i.e. they don't call you a faggot). Griffinofwales (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The mailing list software allows for dealing with these things... it is ok and easy... I promise. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We can handle that. Via list moderation if needed. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ST is WP:ST. I'd ask for a link as a courtesy only. This is a discussion that will only be decided by admins. But the whole community can discuss it. fr33kman ^talk 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

<-I just remembered something. Voting is evil (meta). We should remove the voting sections and move this to ST. @Fr33kman: Admins are users with special buttons, not special people. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil, that's why we're using * instead of # (there is no rule that you can't have "support" and "oppose" sections). Also, not only do admin have special buttons, we get a crappy t-shirt, too :). It really doesn't matter who "decides" the decision, since it should be pretty clear from the arguments what is the consensus. EhJJ^TALK 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's kinda hypocritical to say "voting is evil" when you decided to just vote above with no comment. EhJJ^TALK 03:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah..I see, thanks. On your third point, since 90% of the community is made of admins, it actually doesn't matter (now that I think of it). On your second comment (I have now added a 'per below' to my "vote"), I was going with what Djsasso told me at ST a few days ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)