Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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


Shortcut:
WP:AN
WP:ANB
WP:ANI
WP:AN/I
WP:RFPP

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.


Fellow admins, please weigh on an issue from WP:VIP[change source]

A couple of editors (@Chrissymad, There'sNoTime:) have disagreed with my decisions not to take action on a couple of vandalism reports. It could be that I need to be educated on handling cross-wiki issues, so I'd appreciate input on this from more experienced admins, especially those with experience in handling cross-wiki issues. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6 Responding to your last comment: I wasn't implying it should be blocked because of an old edit, but that it's not punitive when there is a proven, consistent and continued disruption to the project, as I've clearly demonstrated. Take a look here for a preview of just a bit of what they've done here, including an edit that has sat since April and was nothing but their conspiracy theory garbage vandalism. Chrissymad (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And as for why declining the block of the other cross-wiki abuse and LTA, please see this block which is directly related to what I reported for the second LTA. So not only is it cross-wiki abuse, it's a local block evasion. See also: 79.69.141.76 Chrissymad (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Chrissymad: do you know of range blocks that occurred on the English Wikipedia related to these IPs? Let me know and we can implement similar range blocks here. If range blocks were already done there, it'd be easier to just mirror here instead of blocking individual IPs or calculating out a range. Only (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Only: English Wikipedia admin and previous cross-wiki admin here, yes this has had a rangeblock (173.67.160.0/21) relating to the LTA on the English Wikipedia. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I've blocked that range for a month here as well. Is there a range block associated with User:79.69.131.175 at this time? Only (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Only I believe so but there are about 2 dozen different ranges they're in and they're all mobile. Give me a bit to look for them. Chrissymad (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Thanks, Chrissymad. That's why I'm hoping there's a range block already in existence that we can just mirror here, otherwise it'll be a little effort to get the appropriate ranges; if we've already done that work on English then it makes it easier/quicker here. Thanks! (Note: I'm not going to be around most of the rest of the day and off and on in the next few, so if no one else implements a block in the next few days, let me know on my talk page and I'll look into it). Only (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, former admin/global sysop here. Personally for each of the two cases I would have collated the other IP addresses involved and calculated rangeblocks; this would not be punitive for the reasons @Chrissymad: has already outlined. With regards to the warnings (or lack thereof): the point of warnings is to try to get a vandal to cease and desist before a block becomes necessary; these are both cases of long-term abuse, so warnings will almost definitely be futile, which is why LTA blocks are usually issued without need for them. With regards to cross-wiki abuse generally: cases of cross-wiki abuse across multiple projects are best handled with locks or global blocks, but if the abuse is limited to only two projects (as seems to be the case here), then local blocks would be more appropriate. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For everyone's convenience, I've created two LTA pages for these IPs in question, with only their edits to Simple Wikipedia, to demonstrate the need for not only a single block, but a range block and for admins to be a little more discerning when experienced editors report LTA and cross-wiki abuse. User:Chrissymad/IPBlankersimpleonly | User:Chrissymad/ACALTA (these are in no way complete, I got tired of looking at ranges after I got so many hits from the first 5.) And to clarify, I'm in no way upset my block request was declined; I'm concerned by my experience here and what seems to be either a willful ignorance to Wikipedia norms and policy or incompetence and I think allowing such behavior to continue, both LTA and others, is only continuing to serve as a great detriment to this project. Chrissymad (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I can only really echo the above - I'm shocked and disappointed at the level of incompetence shown here. It's not a one off, and if it continues we should be worried about the future of this project. Coming from the English Wikipedia, I can appreciate things are different here and would like to take a moment to thank all the anti-vandalism patrollers and content creators who have kept things going the best they can. I've only been active with the Simple Wikipedia for less than a month, but in this time have seen enough to deeply worry me. I take no joy in recommending the desysop of Auntof6 as they are making fundamental errors of judgement, are unaware ofe key Wikipedia policies and are negatively affecting the project -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Your experience in dealing with LTA and crosswiki abuse is helpful to our small admin team. However to describe us as wilfully ignorant, or incompetent, are comments that do not help. Our admins have a range of skills and experiences that assist this project, if you can bring new skills to positively assist us with the project then we can all move forward for the benefit of the whole project.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Peterdownunder: I appreciate your comment, but would just like to clarify that I don't find everyone here to be anything near the words I use above (in fact, the majority of administrators here are a joy to work with, and I have a feeling you fit into that category) - this is aimed directly at one individual. As for helping out here, we're trying but there's only so many times I and other experienced editors will put up with silly roadblocks -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think User:Auntof6 is far too easy on vandalism cases. But she's a very good administrator, and I would not in the least support desysoping her. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't agree with you there - perhaps you could link to a couple of examples of good administrative actions? As far as I can see, there is very little administrators have to do bar anti-vandalism so not being competent at that is a real issue. Goes without saying that being incompetent at a role isn't the end of the world, it just means the role isn't suited to them - having reviewed Auntof6's earlier edits it's clear they're a talented and committed editor, but perhaps she should have remained as such. Adminship is not a big deal and shouldn't be held on to for dear life - I stand by my suggestion that the community calls for a desysop, and allows Auntof6 to request it again when they can show a valid need and the required competence for the tools -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we are overlooking one other aspect of LTA & Crosswiki Vandalism. Not only can a range block be issued at the individual project level, but globally by the stewards. In fact it is often more productive to reach out for for those blocks as they protect all projects. And if an individual project feels that the user is a beneficial contributor, they can be white listed local by an admin. I know when I block an IP, and then notice that another IP any where in a /16 range, I try to at least issue a short term block on that range. That being said, Auntof6 does block IP's. I am not sure what technical level Auntof6 has, but figuring out an appropriate range is a somewhat technical function. It is not a requirement of an Admin to know everything about all tools, and not to get involved beyond their comfort level. That is why we have other Admins. If one feels something should be done, another Admin can do it. We all have had other Admins review our actions, and have even asked what we were thinking. But by no means, does that make any one Admin a bad Admin, or less capable. We never ask anyone to do anything beyond their comfort level. I would suggest reaching out to Auntof6 in a civil manner, and seeing if a side conversation on how range blocks work would address the range block issue. Also not all Admins work on other projects, and as such, may see cross wiki issues, as a lesser issue, and only focusing on what happens on this wiki. Looking at the request for RevDel, that is definitely a LTA-Sock that has been plaguing this wiki. I have been blocking on sight for Sock-Puppetry and or LTA anytime I have seen them, and local checkusers are working on it also. As for desysoping, I do not see the need. You are applying En.Wiki standards, to a non En.Wiki project. We are separate and have a different set of guidelines. None of which I have seen that would cause a need for desysoping. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
in a civil manner - I can only apologise if my statements have been seen as anything other than a civil concern into the administrative efforts of the project. I was asked to contribute here to help out with an influx of vandalism, and only want to see your project grow into a quality source of information - the only thing which matters here is the reader, that's why we do all this. Auntof6, I apologise profusely if you believe I am attacking you on this matter, and I would happily help you understand some x-wiki global policy if you're not familiar - it was wrong of me to assume you would just know. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Its ok, you have fallen into the trap far too many en.wiki editors make coming here. We are very very different from there and have very different standards for many situations. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this wiki need so many vandal warning levels?[change source]

I wonder if there's a central Wikimedia rule that all wikis have to use four levels of warning templates. If there isn't, then I don't understand why this wiki has copied the very elaborate Enwiki system with four levels and lots of different templates. This wiki is meant to be Simple, and that system is anything but simple. I understand and agree with "assume good faith", but I think in most cases of unhelpful editing, one warning plus an openness to dialogue would be enough. A good faith editor would either stop and do something else when warned, or ask a question about why their edits were bad. 95.250.150.56 (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The warning levels are fine in my opinion, it's just how they are interpreted - you don't need to follow the consecutive warning system for someone who is obviously a x-wiki LTA. They should be blocked on sight, warning or no warning - the issue here is lack of active admins (an LTA is currently having free reign whilst the report is sat at VIP) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In so many cases, most disruptive editors get the message before we go through the all the warnings. For many young editors, they may miss the first couple. It is a guideline however, and not a firm rule, so admins have the discretion to block at any time, with or without warning.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I do feel, however, that sometimes we are too rigid with making sure each user gets levels 1 to 4 before they are blocked. It's okay to start at level 2 or 3 sometimes when the user is blatantly a vandal or they've made numerous bad changes before someone got around to warning them. Only (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I personally see no issue with the warning system - For me if they're a blatant vandal they'll get a Template:Uw-vandalism4im and then a report at AIV if it continues or if I give a Template:uw-vandalism1 and they blank their tp and carry on vandalising then I'd go to AIV - I tend to shortcut the system on all wikis if I feel it's necessary - It's all about common sense really - If you know they're NOTHERE then it's pointless giving them 4 chances to pack it in but anyway in short I think the system is fine here. –Davey2010Talk 13:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - I've had some times that my warning is after a Level 4. Am I supposed to report at VIP? Because it is usually over several days, so it's not really "in progress". --Tbennert (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example User talk:93.44.195.252. User:September 1988 already issued all the warnings, plus there were more that I reverted. I didn't leave a message because hers were there for the same day. Tried AGF after several more reverted changes over a few weeks. The IP continues to input the same information on several articles. --Tbennert (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Depends on the circumstances. If it's a named account then definitely report to VIP. For anonymous users it depends upon the edit pattern. If it's clear the user is likely the same person again (maybe they're editing the same articles or making the same type edits) then report. If there's a long pattern of edits from the IP that are vandalism then report. If it's unconnected edits and it's only the second or third spat of edits from the IP then I say start with level 2 and report if it reaches level 4. Note: this is my belief of how we should work and operate. Some admins might require them to receive a full set of warnings each different day. I don't agree with that. Only (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Good summary -Peterdownunder (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor here, but I remember seeing vandal reports declined at VIP because the warnings were started at too high a level. There was no question that the edits were blatant vandalism. I don't have a diff, sorry, but I'm sure others have also seen this. Shouldn't the admins come to a consensus and tell everyone else to be consistent? 95.250.150.56 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, if that consensus includes a time after which existing warnings to an IP are considered too old, could a bot be used to remove them from talk pages? It could delete sections that only contain standard templsate warnings. Maybe after 24 hours with no edits from that IP, unless it is blocked? Hard to see the point of a permanent wall of shame, if warnings need to restart from the lowest level in any case. 95.250.150.56 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It's important for us to see past warnings to see if there's a pattern there more easily. I'm not going to go through every past edit an IP has made, but if I see on their talk page that there's warnings from May and March and January, I know that this account has had problems before. Only (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Warnings are 100% editor judgement. No one has to follow any set number of warnings depending on the situation. However, more often than not atleast one should be given. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

83.24.99.100's edits[change source]

Can others please look at the edits of 83.24.99.100 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log) and clean up some of their mess? I'm on mobile right now and not comfortable handling some of the cleanup that's needed on my phone. It'd be easier to handle on an actual computer. The user is already blocked, but made a mess with archives and such. Thanks, Only (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of it all now. -Peterdownunder (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I couldn't take care of the clean up, but wanted to at least stop it with the block. Sorry to leave it to others to clean up! Only (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion needed[change source]

The edit summaries of this revision and this revision need to be RevDel'd - they are completely obstructing the page history. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 13:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are valid revdels. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request for African-American people[change source]

Should be semi-protected - has been vandalized by multiple IP's within the last few weeks. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The level of vandalism has not risen to the level of even the last time it was semi-protected. We only semi protect if blocks, and or the amount of vandalism is more then the local community can handle. This is not the case at this point. It is worth keeping an eye on this article, but right now is not enough to warrant being semi-protected. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Class assignment - Shanghainese food[change source]

An FYI for interested admins/editors - it appears there is a class assignment going on at Shanghainese food (see Mr Spear's user page). So far the following accounts seem involved:

I'll leave a link to WikiEd on the instructor's talk, though I'm not sure they support this wiki -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems your Schools Gateway is really well done and should suffice Face-smile.svg -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Only: I'm a little concerned with this (see the recent history of this page) - I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a class assignment and instead a recently blocked good hand bad hand editor finding a legitimate way to bring in some socks (given the technical data would be rather similar). I'll assume as much good faith as I can, but normally argumentative behaviour like that points to something malicious going on. Would be happy to hear your thoughts (also, join IRC some time?) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to assume some good faith here. We'll all obviously be keeping an eye on this set, though. I was also a little taken aback by the combativeness. We shall see. We will also have to figure out what to do about the article eventually. Might need to be merged into the main Shanghai page.
As for IRC, I used it for awhile a few years ago, but wasn't a major fan. Only (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: The next time you want to bring something to the attention of all editors like this, not just admins, it would be better to post at WP:Simple talk instead of here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Will do, thank you for letting me know - I think perhaps now it may be a good idea for some admins to have a look at it, but you're right I should have posted to Simple talk initially -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Combating sockpuppetry is, of course, a valid concern. It should have been mentioned with the initial post here to alleviate the bad impression you're going to cause inexplicably and unusually listing children's accounts. (No similar list or treatment is dealt with here and educational projects are listed elsewhere if there's a need for that.) Before I post any extensive reply to the assume-no-good-faith, bite-the-hell-out-of-the-newbies treatment I just endured, though, Auntof6 and Only, is there some good policy reason that my previous posts and concerns here have been deleted by TNT without any warnings or admonitions being directed their way? One swallow doesn't make a summer, but they certainly don't seem to have the temperment for admin work unless you're very shorthanded. I explained precisely my valid concerns, linked to the valid location for the accounts in question, and had them removed amid accusations of vandalism. Mr Spear (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Spear I would strongly recommend amending your edit to remove the reference to them being children's accounts as no one else here had any idea of age and that borders on outing. Chrissymad (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not 'outing'. They listed that on their own pages and I, on their behalf, would request better treatment than what I've received here. This has been atrocious from beginning to end, which is a damned shame given that they were really enjoying the experience of sharing their culture in another language. Mr Spear (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 (change conflict) I've struck my last comment after viewing their user pages. Mr Spear as their teacher, I would strongly advise you ask them to remove personally identifiable information from their user pages as they are public and it is viewable by all and in fact, should be oversighted. Chrissymad (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
How about you lot just stop jumping up and down on the newbies and focus on improving the project instead of harassing new users until they abandon it in disgust? It's fine to have sockpuppet concerns, but this list should be at the education project if anywhere, which was my entire concern in the first place when being accused of 'vandalism'. Mr Spear (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Mr Spear The privacy of minors is a global issue and one based in policy. I have not been nasty with you, nor warned you. I have pointed out that as a teacher of children you should understand that them publishing personally identifiable details about themselves on a public website puts them in danger. Chrissymad (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Chrissymad You have absolutely been civil and largely correct in your concerns. This is actually a safer forum since, afaik, there are no PM functions and I can even see deleted postings on their pages. My actual concern is precisely the unpleasant abuse that is continuing to occur from unpleasant users. You're quite right that none of it has come from you, and apologies some ire got directed into my response to your valid concerns. I agree the list should be elsewhere, if anywhereMr Spear (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Mr Spear I fail to understand your issue with the list. As this is a public encyclopedia, the content is viewable by anyone. Condensing it into one notice on a noticeboard is kinda what the purpose of a noticeboard is. Chrissymad (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Chrissymad Precisely the increased risk of these kids getting drawn into needless unpleasantness. They're listed on my page and at the page they're working on if admins are concerned about SOCK or issues with that particular page. This entry is only needless, as you say, outing that serves no terribly compelling administrative purpose.Mr Spear (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your combativeness has been the only atrocious thing here - I welcomed you, you called it spam, I notified the admins here so that the confusion which happened on one of your "student"'s accounts wouldn't happen again, you removed it, I reverted you and left you a message detailing why, and you flew into some childish rage. I'm not convinced you're a teacher, and if you are I pity your students. Grow the fuck up and go "teach a class" -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
So, for the adults in the room, is there a different forum for deadministration requests? I know I'm a new account here, but this one is failing WP:ADMINCOND pretty badly. Mr Spear (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator here, however for a new account you're rather good at using x-wiki links - you're a sock or a LTA, no amount of good faith is going disguise that one -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, my mistake, but I guess that's a bullet dodged. Mr Spear (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
So, how many accounts have you had? You're way too proficient at markup to be a new user, so you're not fooling anyone - shall we get a checkuser? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to review WP:SOCK. If this account gets involved with any fishy voting or editing, you're correct to consider it problematic. In the meantime, being able to cite chapter and verse regarding your misbehavior (my comments remain deleted above, apparently without admin warnings similar to those I received) isn't against policy.Mr Spear (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah so you've had/have previous accounts, and are aware that they could be technically legitimate per WP:SOCK as long as they are not disruptive? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned above but as a heads up to the admins, I just reviewed Tony's talk page and found out he had created something like five four other accounts. That looks fishy, I'm sure. He's just going to be using this one and you're welcome on my behalf and his to delete those other "Tony" accounts. He'll just be using this one for my class and doesn't really have a reason for any others.Mr Spear (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB request[change source]

Can someone please review my request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It already shows you as a authorized user AWB Checkpage -- Enfcer (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. It was my understanding that I needed to make a new request for each instance I wanted to use it. --Tbennert (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tbennert, Enfcer: You have to have each kind of thing you want to use it for approved. If the specific task was already approved, then you should be fine. If you're asking for permission to add the municipality-type links, I'll approve you for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I read it, and didn't completely process it. After re-reading it, yeah, I realized my mis-read the first time. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks on lesbian related pages.[change source]

Lesbian related pages should be protected to prevent these socks of long term abusers from messing with these pages. Look at the history below, it's ridiculous.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian_feminism

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbianism_in_erotica

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Lesbian_kiss_episode

--— This unsigned comment was added by Wikihistory (talk • changes) at 20:55, 8 July 2017‎.

I think if you checked the pages you would see that were protected several weeks ago.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

working for Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

I've been on Simple English Wikipedia for near seven years. I wanna become an administrator sometime between August 2017 and June or July 2018. I wanna help the Simple English Wikipedia in more ways than one. However, right now, I've gotta work on five articles, three I userfied myself, and two that got userfied by somebody else (I ain't gonna mention their name). The problem, though, is I don't know exactly which words in those five articles are complex. I need help simplifying these articles, and if I don't have help, I cannot simplify these articles that I created between May and July of this year. Can someone help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@September 1988: Is there a particular reason you addressed this to the admins? I don't see anything here that specifically requires an admin. As far as helping with the articles, please be patient. You asked me for help with three of them less than half a day ago. I userfied the other two even more recently than that. People here can't be expected to immediately have time to help you with five articles. I'll look at at least a couple of them now, and I'll address some other issues on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser insight still needed[change source]

MiloDenn removed the discussion about checkuser insight when he removed his unblock request. I want to make sure that the need for checkuser input doesn't go forgotten because of the removal of the conversation. To summarize, two vandals/impersonators, User:MiloDinn and User:Caleburn, were blocked. Seven minutes after the MiloDinn block, User:MiloDenn requested an unblock saying he was caught in an autoblock caused by the block of MiloDinn. He said he knew who the vandals were and that they share the same proxy server network. User:Peterdownunder has stated that he looked at some of the checkuser data but is seeking a second opinion. @Eptalon, Bsadowski1, Djsasso: could you take a look at the issue and offer a second opinion?

MiloDenn is back to editing normally, but I am very concerned that someone is sharing a proxy server with two vandal accounts and is editing within minutes of those vandals. Only (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes - this would be good. I would like to clear my name as soon as possible. Also @Only: I would appreciate it if you could just chill a bit - this is Wikipedia not a criminal investigation! I am entirely happy to cooperate, but can we do so calmly please. Yours as ever, MiloDenn (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how I've been anything but calm. Only (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I am fairly stressed at the moment. I didn't really want to share this but basically I have really bad depression, and at the moment in particular it is really bad (hence why I am on here, as it relieves some of the stress). I would really appreciate it if you could tell me what is going on as soon as possible, just because this is one of the few things that I still have and I really want to know soon. Thanks, and apologies, MiloDenn (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Only I think the question also needs to be asked why the proxy isn't blocked and IPBE requested? Chrissymad (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
At this point I am not seeing a proxy, though that could just mean its not a public one, which means it isn't something we would block. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I just was alerted to this as I was heading to bed. I want to give it a good look through so I will take a look in the morning when I have a more clear head. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, was on vacation so not online all day like usual. -DJSasso (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MiloDenn:, I would like some more information on who you say did this and why you think they are using the same proxy as you. In other words do you have a friend that is sharing a proxy with you personally? Or are you using a public listed proxy? Feel free to send it as an email for privacy reasons. On first glace it seems silly that someone trying to sock would impersonate themselves, but it wouldn't be the first time it has happened. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Only: In talking with MiloDenn the proxy is moot as they are in the same house so would have the same IP anyway. It is definitely a situation that could be seen as blaming some mythical person who also lives in the house. That being said I am inclined to believe him, as he would have to be incredibly stupid to impersonate himself to cause mischief. I am however leaving it up to the admins who started this case to decide on whether or not to block the user. There is no checkuser information that would help with this case. He admits freely that they are in the same location so the fact that their IPs etc match is not surprising. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello all, here is my take on it: What I see are a few different IP adresses; these IP adresses are used by MiloDenn, and the two blocked users, there are also a few edits as IP. The IPs are operated by a hosting company, so they could be shared. My take on it: the two users causing mischief have been blocked, and there doesn't seem to have been more problems. This wiki being short in manpower, I think, we don't need to do more than we already have. If we notice that there's vandalism/mischief for the IPs, we might require the users operating from there to log in. Plus perhaps add a block exemption for the legitimate user.--Eptalon (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So to summarize: Unblock Milo Denn; if there is more trouble block the offending user(s), and disallow anon editing from the IP addresses in question. And yes, the vandalism from my IP addesss was the unicorn sitting next to me... :)--Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You are a little late to the party, he is already unblocked and editing. Even tried to do an RfA. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Import template[change source]

Hi, Apologies if this in the wrong place,
Could an admin import this template from EN please?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Enfcer (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Enfcer much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010 I think I got all the sub templates that go with it also. Let us know if I missed any, and one of us will get it added. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much!, Nope I think all works fine so thanks for doing that - much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Can he do that?[change source]

Hi. Hope you can help. A user (Stevietheman) deleted most of the contents of our organization's wiki, The Western Kentucky Botanical Garden." He said in his comments it was too brochure-ish. Is this something he has the right to do? Can I block him from doing it again? Our article was stub and incorrect. I simply added up to date information for anyone who might want to visit. Please advise and thanks. I'm currently trying to revert to the old page. Thanks! — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:fcc8:ae85:fd00:fda1:cede:99d1:c19f (talk • changes) at 20:15, 11 July 2017‎.

You are on the wrong Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. The changes you mention were on the "regular" English Wikipedia. You need to ask for help there. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I came here to say the same thing Auntof6 said. Additionally, yes he can make those edits and you cannot block him from doing so. I agree with Stevietheman, though; your edits were not what's expected from an article and it did read like a brochure. Only (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs a block[change source]

Specifically, User:Doyouimplyacalp?srfsrs. I blocked him on en-wiki, and he came here to tell me something unsavory, which y'all could maybe rev-delete. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. By the way, the usual place to report vandalism here is WP:VIP. That helps us keep all the reports in one place. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

flood flag please[change source]

Can I please get a flood flag for an approved AWB task? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tbennert: Please be specific. Exactly what will you be doing, how many changes will there be, and how long will you need the flag? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I will be making the changes you approved at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for municipalities. I have no idea how many changes there will be, if I could count them I wouldn't need AWB or a flood flag. It is possible I don't technically need the flag but I cannot be sure. I do not know how long it will be, and I may do it in a few batches. I won't make any other changes. Once done I will request the flag removed. Thank you.--Tbennert (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Done, with expiration of one day in case we forget. To activate, you need to log off and back on. You'll need to do the same when the flag is removed.
Note: it's really helpful to the admins if you can specify the task and duration with your request. The info won't remain on the page you linked forever, and it's helpful for us to know if we're going to need to stay up late or something to turn the flag off -- we're in all different time zones after all! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Tbennert: I've removed the flag since you seem to have stopped editing. Please be sure to log off and back on, and let me know if you'd like any help resolving those duplicate links. If you need the flag again, just leave another note here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like to know how to get AWB to count the number of pages that you'll be changing, I can tell you how I've done that in the past. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Import template[change source]

Hi, Could an admin import this template from EN please ?, Templates in this template may also need to be created or imported tho, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Doing... --Enfcer (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done Davey2010 Looks like just the main template on this one :). Let me know if there is more. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks Enfcer :), –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for help here made at English Wikipedia[change source]

Could an admin here please take a look at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Looking for someone with admin rights on Simple English and or Commons? Help needed here was made there. Od Mishehu (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Replied there that IP has been blocked here for 72 hours. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

118.148.154.106's edits[change source]

This IP, 118.148.154.106, has created several articles. These articles usually compare different topics, for example, Australia and New Zealand, and to me, the articles seem quite unnecessary. Could an admin look over these articles, and if necessary, delete them?

I also apologise, I don't know the talk page guidelines for the Simple English Wikipedia. (I edit regularly on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) Zhangj1079 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zhangj1079: Thanks, articles have been deleted. What talk page guidelines would you like to know about? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Assuming etiquette is the same as the English Wikipedia, is Simple English required in talk pages? (yes?) Zhangj1079 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say required, but I would say heavily encouraged. We try to be in everything we say and do here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

TohaomgBot[change source]

After discussion on User talk:TohaomgBot I had an impression that admin Djsasso is interested only in finding excuses to block my bot (first he blocked it after only six edits, then blocked it again after I asked if we can omit the trial period, because every other wiki did). I would like to know what other admins think about this. --Tohaomg (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who blocked it the first time. Since you did not take the time to find out what our policies were from the bot page first, and you are already blocked on Commons for not going through there Approval process, it show that you do not follow policies, or think they do not apply to you. Each project is different, and because some decided to not make you go through a trial, that is their prerogative, but we always have a trial period, to ensure proper functionality. -- Enfcer (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I will go through trial period, but was it that hard to write "No, we can't omit it, it is compulsory" instead of "You dared to discuss my decision, you are blocked"? --Tohaomg (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write that. I didn't block you, I denied your bot. Your trying to use here before getting approval, and then your flippant comment about not needing a trial, and now I see commons also blocked you leads me to a very comfortable decision not to approve your bot. Next time I suggest finding out what the procedures on a wiki are before you just do your own thing. Bot operators need to be some of the most trusted editors on a wiki because they can cause a lot of damage quickly if they go rogue or even through plain ineptitude. Showing you couldn't take the time to find out the proper procedures, and then trying to side step them when given a second chance to show that your bot works causes there to be a problem with trust. It is already hard enough to evaluate a user who doesn't edit here locally. So when our only interaction comes across so poorly we are always going to err on the side of caution and not approve. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
English-language projects (en.wikipedia, simple.wikipedia, commons) have developed an enormous bureaucracy (commons has astronomic size bureaucracy, so I preferred my bot being blocked there to dealing with this bureaucracy) when you need to ask administrators permission for your every step, which then causes administrators to develop Napoleon complex in their minds. Any other non-english project (including the top-20 of them) have everything easy and understandable, I nearly never faced there difficulties (for some of them even not knowing their language), as I do in english-language projects. Administrators there are happy to help and always assume good-faith, unlike in english-language projects. If I, being an experienced user, broke the leg in your rules, new users will do it for sure. This will, or already did, force new users to abandon editing which will make your project stagnate in the future. Think about it. --Tohaomg (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Tohaomg, there are quite a few things that are different on this Wikipedia, as compared with English Wikipedia or others. We usually don't give rights until a user has done a fair amount of work here and presumably become familiar with some of those differences and with this project's practices and procedures. In view of that, I think it's quite reasonable to require trials when bot flags are requested. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to deny a bot based only on the operator's lack of experience here: when I checked a few minutes ago, you had only 13 edits here, plus half a dozen or so by the bot.
Personally, based only on your comment saying that you didn't think you needed a trial, I think I would have just said you should do one anyway. Maybe asking to waive the trial, with an actual question, would have come across better than saying you thought it wasn't necessary: it's hard to perceive "tone of voice" online, so the way you responded could be perceived as argumentative, or "flippant".
Your best path forward might be to do some work here under your non-bot account, including but not exclusively the type of work you want to do with the bot. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archive[change source]

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)