Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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 WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.

The "Yok Kek Nguan" vandals[change source]

Three anon editors from IPs registered to the US have been repeatedly vandalizing (T·E·H·L·RSudan by changing the president to "Yok Kek Nguan" and vice-president to "Paul Mawein Ajang". I don't think blocking the IPs would stop this so maybe protection would be an alternative. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Before we do that, are we sure that they don't have a new president and vice president? I don't know where to check that for Sudan. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, definitely not. Two news stories: [1] and [2]. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've semi-protected for three months. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I notice that (T·E·H·L·RSouth Sudan and more recently, (T·E·H·L·RUnited Nations have been the target too, so I have range-blocked for 2 weeks. Chenzw  Talk  01:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Now we have an "IP-hopper" on these pages. See the revision history for the vandalizing IP addresses. All of them have done the same thing and this for needs an investigation.««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Thyjyj[change source]

@Thyjyj: Inappropriate username. The username is a completely disruptive username. Psl85 Talk 11:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
it is not inappropriate. I is not needed to be blocked Psl85 Talk 11:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Kindly make up your mind before you start accusing random editors. Chenzw  Talk  11:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[change source]

Hello! (talk) is creating many unnecessary pages, and the IP should be blocked from editing from making unnecessary pages. Psl85 Talk 17:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh no. The IP is now vandalizing their own talk page. The IP should NOW be blocked from editing, and revoke also talk page access for this IP. Psl85 Talk 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting us to the vandalism. However where you first listed it in wp:VIP is correct. You do not need to list it here also. As we are a smaller wiki, we do have active Admin's but we are not on all the time. We will get to VIP as soon as we can. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Moon[change source]

Hello. The article Moon is getting vandalized, or there is being bad contend addition by two IP users within a short time. Please can somewone semi-protect this page? Psl85 Talk 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think blocking the range of IPs that have committed the most recent vandalism would be enough for now. The admins probably wouldn't see this as enough for page protection at this time. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protect this page?[change source]

Hello. This page is getting vandalized very lot in the last weeks. Please can somewone semi-protect this page. Psl85 Talk 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please give us a link to the page? -Barras talk 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The Administrators' noticeboard requesting I to semi-protect. Psl85 Talk 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
IP's are people too. There's a reason this isn't semi-protected already. Vermont | reply here 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, semi-protect only this page if there is many vandalism, or edit warring by IP users. Psl85 Talk 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That probably won't happen. Even though it might be vandalized, it's an administrative page, and it needs to be available to IP users. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Addimg to Auntof6's comment; this is AN. Half of us have it on our watchlist. Vandalism is removed within minutes, and we cannot silence the voice of a significant part of our editing force over such a small issue as a few IP's vandalising the Administrators Noticeboard. Vermont | reply here 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend keeping this and other administrative pages on watchlists. ChenzwBot has been reverting a lot of the bad changes on this page, but not everything. In one case, there were two bad edits in a row by different IPs and the bot reverted only the second one. I'm not sure exactly why (didn't see the first one in time? didn't want to revert the first one back to its own previous change?), but human eyes were needed to catch that. That's where having it on watchlists helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor, can I recommend you spend more time editing and getting used to how things work around here before making demands of the administrators? Kansan (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This page (as well as ST) is on a list which the bot internally calls the "angry revert list". Pages on that list are exempted from the bot's own 1RR logic (the goal here is to avoid locking the bot into an edit war with another new editor over something classified as vandalism). In the above case, it seems that the first IP's edit did not score sufficiently high enough to meet the (manually-configured) threshold for vandalism. The longer-term solution would be to add these edits for training, which I will do once I sort out the issues with the ancient revscoring library the bot is currently using. Chenzw  Talk  00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Becoming an admin[change source]

I NEED to become an administrator. NerdyLady (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@NerdyLady: Why? You haven't done anything here that indicates a need for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This is just a sock puppet of the Jason Smith dude who has been socking a tonne. They are just being disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Global lock of Psl85's account[change source]

Earlier today, in a moment of incredibly questionable judgement, the above user added their account password to their user page, thus effectively compromising the account. Per WMF-wide policy, the account has been locked globally, as, I should emphasize, a temporary measure until the owner is contacted. In this case, the account holder has not enabled email, so Special:EmailUser is effectively useless, and from what I see, there seems to be no effective way to prove ownership since the password has been left out in the open for so long. It is my take that while this user has been problematic on this wiki, the global lock itself should not be seen as a ban of any sort (even de facto), otherwise it would be an abuse of due process. Thoughts? Chenzw  Talk  12:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a global lock is justified at this time. While the email user function may be of no use, local CheckUsers can confirm if a different IP is being used to access the account and determine whether the account has been compromised, or if the user has made a serious error in judgement. --Eurodyne (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
He made an alternative account, which can be used to CU it and Psl85 to confirm their identity. Vermont | reply here 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I have fully protected the user page because it was vandalized. If the account resumes being used, it can be unprotected, but IIRC full protection doesn't prevent the page owner from editing a user page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Cannot create my userpage[change source]

Hello. My new account (Psl631) is very crappy, when i changing pages, I appear logged out, and trying to create a user page for my new account, can somewone help me with this, and move my subpages for my old account to my new? Psl631 12:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you just make new pages, and copy the content from the old pages? Technically, you are a different user, so I'm not comfortable doing what you ask. Copying the content isn't that hard to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Question[change source]

First, please see User talk:Chrissymad#Philadelphia Eagles for a related discussion.

Is there any way to remove or mitigate the indication that this edit was vandalism? It was not vandalism, and I'd like to keep the record clean if possible. I know that I once accidentally reverted an edit as vandalism when it wasn't: I fixed it by undoing my revert with an edit summary that stated that the revert was accidental and the edit wasn't vandalism. However, that doesn't seem to be an option here, so I'm looking for other possibilities. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just an edit made by a bot that adds a reflist template... just leave it alone. If you had just let yourself not worry about it and moved on, absolutely nobody would have seen that edit revision as "vandalism" nor would anybody even probably look at it ever... now that you've asked about it on a user talk page and now here... you're just adding attention to something that was never going to get attention or even a glance by anybody in the first place. If you haven't read about the Streisand effect, I highly recommend that you give it a read... because this is pretty much what you're doing to it now... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting review of administrative actions[change source]

I'd like to formally request a review of Auntof6's (notified here) administrative actions specifically as it pertains to revision-deletions. I ask that an uninvolved steward/crat or other functionary on Simple wiki please review their revision deletions.

This is based on the discussion here. This is absolutely in violation of every policy regarding revision deletion and I am deeply concerned that this user profoundly misunderstands this policy. Additionally, despite my very clear and concise objection, this user has taken it upon themselves to more or less threaten the deletion, as stated here. Aside from this, I'll note that there have been several questionable RD's of basic vandalism that certainly do not meet Simple's own RD policy. See for example: the revisions here which I would argue hardly qualifies under R2. "fuck the U.S. gun laws" is stupid vandalism certainly but it is way over the top to RD that.

More concerning than that, however is the RD of these contributions. While I obviously didn't see all of them, several were just the user blanking the article and adding some silly nonsense "Daniel M. ist ein Lappen" which certainly is not revdelable per the current policy. I can think of several additional examples of this, but I must ask what purpose does RD'ing stupid and silly vandalism serve?

Additional examples: Wikipedia is gay, always eat yor greens is stupid vandalism and not at all RD'able.

The greater concern here is even after pointing out that their attempt to RD my edit summary was against policy, they've persisted but there are several dozen past actions that indicate to me that Auntof6 does not understand or does not care about this policy. I'm sure no one is going to complain about stupid vandalism being RD'd but if minor infractions and completely non-offensive es warrant AO6 abusing this tool, one has to wonder what other content has been deleted because "I don't like it." Chrissymad (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I will also add that while the bot added a reflist, the only refs were part of the vandalism itself, which is an incoherent diatribe from a global LTA and had literally nothing to do with the subject. The article did not contain sources prior to the vandalism. Chrissymad (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A related thread also happens to exist above, but I will consolidate my replies under this thread to keep everything in one place.
  • Philadelphia Eagles: I agree that revdel would be an inappropriate way to handle the situation; in fact, I am not even sure if it falls under "Non-contentious housekeeping" because I don't even see any need for housekeeping. I find it quite unlikely that anyone will think of Auntof6 as a vandal solely because of the contents of an edit summary. In this case, the revdel operation did not happen.
  • Gun: the added content, apart from the fact that it was not "against a person, group or organisation" (per RD2), was also a "mere factual statement". The edit summary was, in my view, a mere expression of opinion by the vandal (no matter how misguided).
  • United States: I agree that RD2 has questionable relevance to the content being hidden.
  • Edits by on List of Egyptian gods and goddesses: I accept that the content may be considered "grossly insulting", but I don't think they were against any "person, group or organisation" in particular, not to mention that it is my view that we should not be attempting to hide undesirable material simply because minors may happen to make up a larger part of this wiki's audience.
  • Edits by on Martin Luther King, Jr.: some revisions may be judged to fall under RD2 (which I will not dispute); however, some were clearly not.
I am leaving the revdel operations untouched until another administrator has looked at them. Per previous community consensus at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 69#Additions of user rights (-sysop) (and formalised at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrat), bureaucrats are empowered to remove the sysop flag only after a successful deRfA, in cases permitted by Wikipedia:Inactive administrators, or in "certain emergency situations". AN should not be used as a platform in lieu of a desysop request. Chenzw  Talk  02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There may be issues with some of my changes, but please be civil and do not assume you know why I made them. I have never deleted or revdel'd anything simply because I did not like it. In fact, there have been times when I declined requests to revdel things that nobody liked because I knew that policy didn't support it. However, one thing I can see that I did wrong was to assume that the brief descriptions of revdel reasons that appear in the dropdown box were sufficient explanation of each criterion: I see now that they are not. For example, option #2 in the dropdown box says only "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". It does not have the text "against a person, group or organisation". I will review the entire policy before I do any more deleting or revdelling.
As for my posts on your talk page, I did not intend what I said to be a threat, but rather a statement that I wanted to appeal to a higher power to review. When I was threatened with reprisal if I requested revdel, I did not request it. Instead, I merely asked if there were any other remedy. If the answer were no, that would have been the end of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
You were not threatened with reprisals, you were informed that your continued failure to respect the revdel policy would result in a request to remove your administrator permission. I would strongly suggest you read through the revdel policy repeatedly and at length, before revisiting all of your revdels and fixing those which are in contravention of the policy. Nick (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Auntof6 Your response here really is concerning. Administrators are not above scrutiny and rather than take responsibility for your actions (note: I'm not saying accepting blame) you're attempting to turn it around on other people. The issue here isn't the description of revdel at all - that's clear, plain and obvious. The issue is your misinterpretation of a very concise, clear policy. Whether it's intentional or not, doesn't really matter as it means you're either ignorant of policy or willfully ignoring it, which I'd say is malicious and since I apparently need to clarify, I'm not accusing you of ill intent, however I am saying there are only two reasons for something of this nature and the other is a lack of competency. I also would request that you refrain from saying that I've been uncivil going forward but also that you provide diffs to substantiate the claim you've made above.
Your claim that you didn't then go attempt to request RD and essentially forum shop, is 100% an outright lie. You were presented with policy by not one, but three separate editors and decided that you would attempt to get someone else to revdel instead. See this diff:Reply to both: it would be to suppress only the edit summary, not the change. It could be done under option 5, as "Non-contentious housekeeping". I'm going to request it even though you object, but I will note this discussion. If the other admins say no, so be it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)" (emphasis, mine.)
I'll also note for the record that this was not a request for desysop, but a check of administrative actions as I thought it would be more appropriate to get an explanation, now that I've gotten what amounts to a "no I didn't!" "But x did y!" response, I'm seriously rethinking it. Chrissymad (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I think everyone involved needs to step back and breath a little. Chenzw opinions above are pretty accurate on how I see the actions as well. Most admins here are well aware that I think revdel is used way to easily here. But its done so by almost all the admins here. There is clearly a less strict interpretation of the policy here than I obviously, as I have stated many times in the past, think it should be used considerably less here than it is, to the point where I often think it should only be used if you can't find an OS and it must be hidden immediately. That being said, I do think Chrissymad went way over the top here and was indeed uncivil as they were the last time they showed up and started editing here and getting quite nasty with admins here. A simply discussion with the admin them self could have cleared this all up if people had kept cooler heads. There was no need to come here and start bashing as was done. We get it, you have never liked Auntof6 but to continually come here bashing them is not at all productive, and this time like last time it appears you went and got people who almost never edit here to come here and join in like you did last time as well. That is plain harassment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Djsasso So now when I ask for review of an administrators actions, it's on me? Please provide specific diffs of me being uncivil. I asked a question and asked for a review as the community cannot (generally) see revdel'd content and administrative actions are absolutely subject to the communities input. I have not been uncivil once and I did not ask a single person to come here. I expect you'll be able to provide evidence of your accusations in the form of diffs as otherwise you are certainly casting aspersions. All I've asked of anyone is what the policy regarding revision deletion is and nothing more. A discussion could have cleared it up, however as I noted, Auntof6 decided to do their own thing and continue on in violation of policy. I have not attacked anyone and to say so with no proof shows your judgement is also questionable.
Your interpretation of bashing is, well, wrong. Asking a question in a civil manner and for a review of actions is not bashing. Questioning a decision is not uncivil. It is not bashing and it is not nasty. Admins are not exempt from scrutiny and scrutiny is often unpleasant when someone points out mistakes but it's life and it's part of a collaborative environment. Demonizing people (as you have done here) for doing so, however, is not conducive to such an environment. Chrissymad (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
You didn't ask a question in a civil manner, that is the point. The way you asked for input is anything but civil. Admins most definitely are subject to scrutiny, however to use your word as it applies perfectly to how you have worded things, demonizing them is not cool. You seem to think things are black and white, they are either willfully breaking rules, or they are totally incompetent. But there is middle ground. You can question someones actions, without declaring them incompetent or abusive immediately. If you want to know the policy on revision deletion and that is it, then no she as the community tends to treat it did not violate the policy. I do not agree that is how the policy should be treated, but the kinds of revisions you have pointed to have consistently been supported and even asked for by the community repeatedly. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Djsasso I will ask this one last time, provide specific diffs and quotes of my uncivil language in this thread or on my talk page. As I said to Chenzw, I did not ask for a desysop, I asked, civilly, for a review, concisely and clearly and gave plenty of opportunity for a discussion, which is what this was until you turned it into an unfounded indictment of my character. Chrissymad (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I would be interested in how you've reached the conclusion that identifying and attempting to discuss the significant and widespread deficiencies in Auntof6 administrative actions can be considered harassment. That reads as nothing more than a blatant attempt deflect attention from the widespread administrative misconduct you've admitted Auntof6 is a party to here on Simple English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a very big difference in trying to discuss something and the type of language they used in their original post here. They clearly went on the offensive and make some pretty extraordinary claims insinuating that the Auntof6 was hiding stuff just because they didn't like it. I do not agree its administrative misconduct, I believe I just wouldn't have made those decisions, as I noted in my comment, this wiki is considerably more lenient on what it is willing to have revdel'd. I have a difference of opinion on how to handle it, but I wouldn't remotely call it misconduct. Getting other people to come here from other wiki's with other standards to attack a user here, which is what this very much is, is most definitely harassment which is why I said for everyone to step back and take a breath and discuss it calmly instead of using inflammatory language. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They clearly went on the offensive and make some pretty extraordinary claims insinuating that the Auntof6 was hiding stuff just because they didn't like it. is correct. That's because it's exactly what Auntof6 asked for. The damn discussion is in the section above this one and Auntof6 explicitly asks Is there any way to remove or mitigate the indication that this edit was vandalism? It was not vandalism, and I'd like to keep the record clean if possible.. Chrissymad is absolutely 100% correct in their initial post, please apologise for the claim that they "went on the offensive" and "made some extraordinary claims" because that's downright incorrect and is perilously close to being a personal attack. Nick (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't at all what she asked for. She asked how to correct a mistake. Chrissymad is implying that they are going around hiding content that they don't like. There is a very big difference. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The evidence presented above would suggest Chrissymad is correct, that Auntof6 is going around hiding content that they don't like. The only other option is that Auntof6 doesn't understand the revdel policy sufficiently well to be an administrator here on Simple. The fact that Auntof6 asked to delete an edit summary they have clearly indicated they dislike, talking about "keep[ing] the record clean if possible". I think you own Chrissymad an apology and I think you need to cease defending Auntof6. Nick (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Asking if there is a correct way to fix something is exactly what we would want an Admin to do if they are not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That only occurred after two administrators from English Wikipedia informed Auntof6 that hiding edit summaries which didn't meet with her approval was very much against the revdel policy. The problematic edits concerning their understanding of the policy are at [3][4]. They're not suggesting asking for advice at this stage, they're asking for an uninvolved admin to break the revdel policy based on their own faulty understanding of the revdel policy, which is where our concern comes from, and from where Chrissymad is drawing the initial conclusion that Auntof6 is deleting edits based not on the policy but on either personal preference (or a faulty understanding of policy). Your defence of Auntof6 either ignoring policy or failing to understand it adequately does yourself a great dis-service. I would suggest instead of arguing, you look into Auntof6's past revdels and recitify the issues raised here. Nick (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They are asking for an uninvolved admin for a 2nd opinion. Do you think if they were asking another admin to break policy for them they would ask if it was ok if they did so? Come on now, assume just a little bit of good faith. They may very well not know the policy well enough, but continually hammering away that they are trying to break policy is over the top. They did exactly what we would expect them to do, go ask another admin for their input. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They're not, they're telling Chrissymad that they're going to ask another administrator to undertake the deletion based on their own flawed understanding of the revdel policy. It's in black and white at [5][6]. Nick (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They specifically say that if the other admin doesn't agree then they are cool with it. That to me sounds like they are looking for the opinion of another admin. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, after our intervention. It shouldn't take administrators from English Wikipedia and Commons to have to come over and explain the revdel policy to an administrator on a sister project. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet. I hope, at the end of this, we get Simple respecting the revdel policy in the same way English does. Nick (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Djsasso etting other people to come here from other wiki's with other standards to attack a user here, which is what this very much is, is most definitely harassment which is why I said for everyone to step back and take a breath and discuss it calmly instead of using inflammatory language. A few problems with this: 1.) Please provide the diffs where I have been uncivil and/or attacked Auntof6 2.) Please provide proof that I have canvassed before continuing to make such accusations 3.) Provide proof of inflammatory language. We're not in kindergarten and there is no nicer way to ask for review than what I have. 4.) Please provide proof and diffs of where I used other wiki policies to bring this to AN. I linked and quoted simple's very own deletion policy. Proof. and for the final and last time, provide proof of where I have harassed this user.
ec but I find it funny that you're saying I implied they were maliciously hiding content when I specifically said otherwise but also that you've now continued on accusing me of canvassing, abuse, incivility and harassment without a single diff. Chrissymad (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Djsasso Okay, per Asking if there is a correct way to fix something is exactly what we would want an Admin to do if they are not sure. if a non-sysop asking civilly, to review administrative actions in cases of suspected misuse, be it intentional or due to a lack of understanding a clearly laid out policy is not appropriate here, but a sysop asking to violate deletion policy (literally, as I've linked you) is a-okay in this forum, where do I take it? Meta RFC? Chrissymad (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of something you wanted a diff of, they didn't ask to violate deletion policy, they asked if there was a valid way to do it. You are totally trying to make it sound as bad as you possibly can and totally not assuming good faith even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Djsasso I provided a diff here, specifically. I note you still have not provided diffs of these incidents of harassment, incivility or attacks on my part. Nor have you answered a single one of my questions. Have you read the discussion on my talk page or are you basing this entirely on the thread above this one? Since Simple does not have an arbitration committee, is it safe to assume this should be dealt with by Stewards on Meta? Chrissymad (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"one has to wonder what other content has been deleted because "I don't like it."" is what I am referring to in this particular discussion, you have since done more like the comment above about asking to violate deletion policy. She asked if you had an issue with her asking another admin. Apparently you take that as being to break policy for her as opposed to a second opinion. The harassment is that you have twice now showed up at this wiki and gotten upset at her only to immediately have people who don't edit at this wiki show up out of the blue to also jump on her. That to me seems like harassment. Happening once is coincidence, twice appears like canvassing. As for your comment about Arbcom, no it doesn't go to Meta. Everything is handled by the community in cases like this, either on Simple Talk or on this board. For actually removing we have a De-Rfa. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Come on now, assume just a little bit of good faith. They may very well not know the policy well enough, but continually hammering away that they are trying to break policy is over the top. They did exactly what we would expect them to do, go ask another admin for their input - and I did exactly what the community should do. I asked a question about an action (several, supported by diffs) that was in violation of policy as it is written currently. I can assume good faith and still question administrative tool use. If you don't like that, I don't know what to tell you but it's not an indication of incivility. I also still expect you'll be providing diffs of your claims in the near future. Regarding your last point, an administrator of such tenure should be expected to know and uphold basic policies. Ignorance of policy is not an excuse for anyone, whether they are a 'Crat or a new user. Chrissymad (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, I think this matter is being stretched far too ahead. First of all calm down. You are making it personal by accusing one another. Yes, there might be some mistakes done by some users but taking it personally and looking their 1 mistakes above their hundreds of helpful contributions was never our policy. I think by going words by words into someones comment and understanding what they mean in wrong way won't lead us to a conclusion.

Can't we just discuss it like this,

Chrissymad you say- "AU6 the edits you just made were against the policy stated here. Will you reconsider your actions??" Or something like that.
And AU6 says- "Oh! That I did was because of this reason. Or may say you are correct, sorry I made mistakes thanks for reminding" or something like that.
What I mean to say is the disagreement is reasonable but wikipedia is not our job we edit it because we like to do so. So please instead of making it seem child's quarrel let's help each other to know one another's mistake and not take it personally. I just said what I had to seeing this long discussion some sentences might there be complex but sorry in advance. Thanks. Regards.-BRP ever 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I have to break this down more:
As far as your claim of harassment, again, proof. You do not get to make these claims based only on your perception. Provide diffs, same goes for canvassing, but have you stopped to think that perhaps a user with nearly 500k edits globally has probably gotten the attention of a few xwiki users? You keep talking about AGF but you've done nothing but berate and accuse me and Nick misbehavior. And as far as Meta is concerned, your insinuation and continued allegations are not a matter for only this community as a certain level of decorum is expected from sysops and crats globally. Chrissymad (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am rather concerned with the direction that this is going:

  • Most admins here are well aware that I think revdel is used way to easily here. But its done so by almost all the admins here. - if this is indeed the case, then it raises more questions. Do we want to accept that:
    • Administrators (even including myself) have been violating deletion policy via their (improper) revdel actions, and this is somehow not being (at least) flagged for discussion,
    • or somehow there was a shift in community consensus/norms such that the revdel actions are now (even if tacitly) accepted by the community, without any corresponding amendment to existing policy pages,
      • (from but the kinds of revisions you have pointed to have consistently been supported and even asked for by the community repeatedly)
    • or everyone has been misinterpreting revdel policy?

The first two interpretations seem to point to groupthink, and in my view it can be partially attributed to the fact that a large proportion of active editors (the community) also happen to be administrators. I am not saying that I am not complicit in this nor am I attempting to excuse this behaviour, but it is something that should be considered, and if an editor points out that we are violating established policy, then such an accusation should be taken seriously. The fact that there was a coincidental influx of editors from other wikis complaining about this doesn't seem relevant to me, because it is a valid complaint that was raised, and how does it matter whether an established editor on this wiki, or an editor from another wiki, made the initial complaint of policy violations?

And here are some more replies to a few issues that have been brought up here:

  • There is clearly a less strict interpretation of the policy here than - this would be consistent with my third suggested possibility, which I am not sure if it's really supposed to happen, given that the language used in our revdel policy came from EN.
  • they're asking for an uninvolved admin to break the revdel policy based on their own faulty understanding of the revdel policy - unfortunately, from my own reading of User talk:Chrissymad, I would concur with Nick's assessment, given that Auntof6's clarification in this thread showed up only after the fact. This means there was a breakdown in communication (of intentions) somewhere on that user talk page. Also, it was my impression that administrators enforce policy, which is in turn determined by community consensus. If multiple members of the community happen to object to a particular decision on policy grounds (which did happen in that thread), which outcome do we think is more plausible?
    • These multiple members of the community misinterpreted policy and therefore we should ask another administrator to (re-)interpret the policy.
    • It was indeed in violation of established policy.
  • they didn't ask to violate deletion policy, they asked if there was a valid way to do it - no matter how I read the message in question, I can't imagine any way that it could be a matter of asking if there was a valid way (to remove the edit summary). Policy makes it extremely clear that revdel is not to be used to hide mistakes. The deletion of an edit summary because it was a mistake of the original editor is, by definition, violation of policy.
    • The above has been struck due to a misattribution. Chenzw  Talk  11:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That to me sounds like they are looking for the opinion of another admin. ... Yes, after our intervention. It shouldn't take administrators from English Wikipedia and Commons to have to come over and explain the revdel policy to an administrator on a sister project. - indeed, administrators on other wikis do not get to claim special authority on policy interpretation on this wiki, and I don't think they have the right to act as "another admin" in this context. Of course, they are perfectly entitled to point out policy violations (which is indeed happening here).
    • Revdel, unlike oversight, is not under the purview of a WMF-wide policy. It is well within the rights of this wiki to make its own changes to the local revdel policy as long as it does not conflict with existing global policy, such as m:Founding principles.

Now, I am not saying that violation of policies by sysops necessitates a desysop, so for the sake of simplicity of the argument let's assume that a desysop is not the intended outcome of this whole discussion. In lieu of that, there is a need to, at least, clarify consensus on the revdel matter, and ensure that policy is updated to reflect changes in community consensus (if any). And although this goes without saying, everyone should re-familiarise themselves with existing policy from time to time. I vaguely remember a similar issue revolving around the wording of the QD A4 reason in the deletion dropdown list (which was later addressed). Dropdown lists in the MediaWiki interface should not be considered authoritative when it comes to policy. Chenzw  Talk  11:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out, as a steward who has been made aware of this discussion but holds no opinion on the actions of local individuals, that administrators not following and enforcing policy are effectively going against the consensus of the community (who at some stage would have enacted the policy).
However, change in consensus often occurs, so I advise that the local community ensures that the revision deletion policy, as written, matches the current consensus. I feel there is perhaps a significant gap between what is written policy and what is actioned policy, which may have gone some way to cause this situation.
I'd like to thank Chenzw for keeping a level head and working through this meticulously and with the best interests of the project clearly at heart - this personifies the expected behaviour of our bureaucrats. If there's anything at all I can do to be of service, please feel free to let me know - TNT 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To start off, I'd like to make clear that I am not here to defend Chrissymad, Auntof6, or anyone involved for that matter. I am simply here to voice my opinion to contribute to the community consensus. Regarding Chrissymad's comments, and her possibly harassment-like accusations towards Auntof6, I agree that Chrissymad has the right to bring up a discussion regarding the actions of an administrator and that it does not read as though her comments were written to be uncivil or a personal attack. We are a community-driven project, and although Chrissymad edits mainly on the English Wikipedia it does not denote that she is not entitled to bring up what she sees as policy violations. Regarding the legality of the aforementioned actions of Auntof6, we have a reputation of having more relaxed rules here than the English Wikipedia, which I maintain we need to try and be rid of. The size of our community, being minuscule relative to the English Wikipedia, unfortunately seems to result in changing of community consensus with simply 5 or 6 users agreeing to a change, whether their consensus be in spirit or in writing. This is what TheresNoTime refers to as actioned policy, as opposed to written policy, which I fully agree with as being a factor in the issues that prompted this discussion. From watching this conversation over the last few days, it has turned from a discussion of Auntof6's administrative actions to a cross-wiki drama. This is needless. I'd support a discussion regarding updating of the revision deletion policy, but I am definitely opposed to continuing this as a heated debate. Vermont | reply here 00:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I should make it clear I didn't actually have issue with Chrissymad being from (especially since I am an editor/admin). The issue was more that Nick who had not had an edit here in 10 years (the ones more recent than that are imports) showed up to a very out of the way discussion on a small out of the way wiki very quickly which was concerning as possible canvassing, clearly someone had told him it was happening here which would be cross-wiki canvassing. Normally I would have shrugged it off except it happened a previous time where if I remember correctly one of those people had actually said they were asked to come and help here. As a small wiki we have to be hyper vigilant to cross-wiki canvassing because it has happened a few times where people from another wiki try to gather people to come here and overwhelm local consensus with editors who never actually edit here. It is why we have actual policies for things like you can't !vote in an RfA if you weren't registered on this wiki before the RfA started etc. People often don't realize that except for a few major overarching things, policies differ from wiki to wiki. TheresNoTime is right, it is likely a difference between written and actioned policy and a discussion on that is more than welcome, as I have stated very many times we delete here way to easily, both revdel and speedy. I am sure many people are sick of me saying, "If its not oversightable, its not revdelable" (which isn't strictly true but a good rule of thumb). I should also note, having more relaxed rules than isn't necessarily a bad thing, has become overburdened by bureaucracy that would be very hampering to a smaller wiki like ours which though many years old is still only in its infancy. As for the heated debate, I think that ended 2 days ago. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I see your point about bureaucracy. If we maintained a strict bureaucracy built in rock-solid policy we would have issues gaining new editors (more than we already have), and it would be hard to regulate this hypothetical bureaucracy with such a small editing force already working on other things. And to note, I realized how late I was to the party so I changed the wording in my comment right after I wrote it from "continue this heated debate" to "continue this as a heated debate". Regarding revision deletion policy, I have little experienxe in this area and will spectate the continuance of this conversation. Thanks, and happy editing :-) Vermont | reply here 11:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I see Djsasso's point here. Given how small our community is, there is a very real possibility of crosswiki canvassing leading to a situation where "the community that decided on policy" is not the same as "the community that actually actively edits here". With that said this thread hasn't actually evolved into a policy-making/deciding thread yet, and from what I see Nick only showed up to point out policy violations. When the issue of revdel is brought up to the community for comment, I trust that the closing administrator will take relative account age and activity into consideration. I intend to start a new discussion on ST soon (while linking to this thread as background info), inviting members of the community to weigh in on our current revdel policies. Chenzw  Talk  13:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection[change source]

Admins are requested to semi protect this page Malala Yousafzai since ips are doing vandal changes there.-BRP ever 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to put this on hold for now; this seems to be an isolated incident, but I will be on the lookout for a worsening of the situation. Chenzw  Talk  11:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's fine. Thanks!-BRP ever 12:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

User:Jack Gaines is vandalizing Alan Jackson and other articles. The user has already been permanently blocked on regular Wikpedia for similar vandalism. TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like blatant vandalism to me, more like subtle incorrect additions. Now, adding a list of associated acts that competes length-wise with the article itself isn't constructive, but it's not something I would consider "vandalism". Remember, WP:AGF. Vermont | reply here 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That's because they are a global LTA causing havoc across several wiki's primarily to BLPs. I've requested glock. Chrissymad (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: They have been global blocked and have a long term history of inserting this vandalism on Wikipedia and It's definitely not an WP:AGF thing. They've been doing this for years and have had a ton of sockpuppet accounts blocked on en.wikipedia for adding the same misinformation. TenPoundHammer (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they were just globally blocked. Thank you for bringing this up TenPoundHammer, and thank you Chrissymad for reporting it to the stewards. When going through the accounts, I noticed an extensive history of problems that I did not when just checking the edits. Subtle BLP vandalism is a problem that, sadly, frequently goes unnoticed. Vermont | reply here 23:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not vandalizing or adding incorrect information, I'm telling it like it is. Isn't the point of Wikipedia supposed to be a source of correct knowledge. In the end, Alan Jackson remains as a total disgrace to country music. It's like finding steak at a vegetarian restaurant. #AlanJacksonKilledCountry --Angela Criss (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Evidently you have a bias in this topic. I will be reverting your edit as it is defamatory and unsourced. Especially in BLP's, we must be careful with adding controversial information. Vermont | reply here 13:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a source. --Angela Criss (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
A mere list of covers implies nothing. Chenzw  Talk  14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Chenzw: The user in question vandalized that setlist as well. TenPoundHammer (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Policies created[change source]

Just an FYI but I created Wikipedia:High-risk templates and Wikipedia:Link rot based on English. I'm certain those policies are the same here but I think it's worth having administrators here have a once-over to reflect actual policy here. In particular, if they want to expand upon high-risk (since it shows up automatically during protection), it's probably better to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerning your High rish templates policy, I am of the opinion that semi-protection is sufficient in mostly every case (main page as the exception), as even in high use templates like Twinkle notifications there can be issues. Regarding the page you created on link rot, it could use some changing to conform to simple English, as some of the words used may sound odd to non-native English speakers. Specifically this bit: "Generally, do not delete something just because the URL to the source does not work any longer." I'm sure you see how the use of the words "source" and "longer" could be easily misinterpreted by a non-native English speaker. Although we assume that our editors have a certain degree of proficiency in English, a Wikipedia-space page on link rot would likely gather substantialf viewership from our IP editors that may stumble upon it in their editing. Note that I am not an administrator, I just noticed a few issues I'd like to comment on. I may be wrong on this, but should this not be posted on simple talk as well, to seek community consensus for new policies? Vermont | reply here 01:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The high risk I've copied but it seems to be used as full protection. The other one, feel free to rewrite. I didn't think of these as new polices. High risk showed up as a red link on a number of page protections automatically and link rot shows up everywhere Template:dead link is used which is quite a lot. If someone thinks the main talk page is better, feel free to post there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article demotion[change source]

We have a proposed demotion from VGA. It has four comments from experienced people, all pointing in the same direction. Someone uninvolved could reasonably take action. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Closed as demoted.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)