Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 33

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unprotect Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace

Resolved. Page unprotected. Goblin 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

I see no need to protect it at all. Since there's no related log, it must have been protected a long time ago. Liangent (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. However, I am sure you can do something much more useful than adding {{outdated}} to the page, such as actually updating it. (And crosswiki transclusion also doesn't work) Goblin 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
Yes, but {{outdated}} can be copied here and I really did so in zhwiki (in a chance where it's needed). Besides, I'm not sure whether I can write correct simple English. Liangent (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want something here let me know and i'll import it. Just because it was done on zh: also doesn't mean it's needed here... We'd much prefer it to be updated. As for Simple, make your changes as simply as possible then ask an editor if they can take a look, either on their TP or the page's TP. Goblin 17:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
I edited it in this way: [1]. How to change it to meet the standard of simple English? Liangent (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the language simple - a good guide is to restrict it to words in the BE850. Take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles for more help. One example would be changing "array" to group, or linking it to either an article or Simple English Wiktionary. I'll drop you the welcome message as it's got all the links on it! Goblin 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
And don't change $wgAllMessagesEn to $messages, it would be $wgAllMessagesXX I imagine, but the PHP code array cannot be changed! Easier to understand though :) - tholly --Talk-- 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GivenThisTime

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

I wish to block GivenThisTime (talk · contribs) as a new account claiming to be Kennedy (talk · contribs). I wish to block the new account for trolling, because 1) No edits to mainspace at the time of this writing, and 2) the new account is going around claiming to be an old user, and that is all the new account is doing, save a couple of edits to a template. Thank you for your consideration. May I have some input? Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 22:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually edited the mainspace, check my edits. Anyway, note on my talk page. GivenThisTime (talk • changes) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No edits to the mainspace. Also, I've blocked the account for admitted intentional disruption. Jon@talk:~$ 22:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His statement says it all. Agree wholeheartedly with the block. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was sorta leaning to allowing him to edit for a bit to see if he was going to help out, but nah. The talk page message was enough to end that quick enough. The user says that Wikipedia is where "kids play games". I think it is now evident that the only one playing games is Kennedy. I felt bad voting to remove your syops/crat rights, don't feel bad anymore.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good block, endorse 110 %. Cheers, Lauryn Ashby (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think we can call this resolved. fr33kman 22:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Import

Resolved. done by Lauryn Ashby (talk · contribs) —Clementina talk 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone transwiki en:Template:Infobox islands and documentation? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lauryn Ashby (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd

Protection declined. Jon@talk:~$ 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since he just died, can we get a 48-hour silverlock on the page? Purplebackpack89 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Did anything bad happened to the article yet? -Barras talk 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Barras. We do not pre-protect. We protect only when there is a sign of abuse. There have been two edits since his death: one by an IP and one by a registered user. Neither are vandalism, so no sign of protection needed. Either way (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do people have to tell you that protection is only for extreme cases of vandalism where blocks have not worked. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it! I ain't some n00b, I've been here a year! In the past, recent deaths had lead to icky situations, and I don't want that to happen with this guy Purplebackpack89 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a recent death, his page will probably be watched more closely than other pages anyway, preventing vandalism from staying on long enough to get picked up by search engines. No need for protection. Kansan (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being here a year doesn't make you less of a noob. You keep making the same requests over and over. And constantly you are told the same thing. So yes, the mark of a noob is to keep doing something when you are told its not correct. There is a point where continually making these requests becomes disruptive. Just because there may have been an issue in the past (and usually there wasn't you just thought there was), doesn't mean we act before hand. Again protection is only for after something has happened that can't be solved with blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continually? I've made about four in a year. Disruption would be making four in four hours on pages that have no real or potential problems whatsoever. Also, watch your tone...it's flirting with AGF/NPA Purplebackpack89
Continually, ie more than once. Most people would stop asking once they have been told something is against policy. -DJSasso (talk)

People, calm down. There is no further reason to discuss this any longer. Protection not needed here. Please go and something else. Thanks, -Barras talk 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

For info

Resolved.

No administrative action required. Jon@talk:~$ 12:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

See here. For information only. Allegedly articles are being created on Simple and moved to en:. Thats good I guess, but I suspect a "game" here and I thought you might like to be aware, as they? may be "gaming" your rules too. Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, that's circumventing a ban on en, and I think that we should let Ottava know that Simple English Wikipedia does not wish to be seen as assisting a ban evasion. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this might be something that should be said to him. Banned users here are on a one chance system. If he is willfully using this wiki to evade a ban on en, that could be seen as using up his chance here. And it sure looks like he is since all his recent editing is in user space and not mainspace. We are not a dumping ground for banned editors. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"dumping ground for banned editors" was not the nicest way to put it. Point of information, the editor is not banned here. Jon@talk:~$ 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is exactly the point. We are seen as a dumping ground for banned editors on en. Its the whole reason we started the one strike policy. To try and clean that image up so that legitimate editors would want to come here. We really need to stop letting users abuse our wiki in order to get back at en etc. We let it happen far to often. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has abused nothing. Jon@talk:~$ 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving articles in his user space to be submitted as DYK candidates on en is not abusing is ability to edit here? Seems like pretty blatant abuse to me. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full stop. What is the editor doing to disrupt this project? Jon@talk:~$ 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, editing done here is usable anywhere as long as it is licensed. I'll not support any action to block or restrict an editor for because his or her material is being reused. I will not support restricting the free flow of licensed free information counter to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation, something is wrong here, and we are going down a wrong path. Jon@talk:~$ 18:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We've gone down this road before with people like CR. Users are not permitted to use this wiki to skit around blocks on en. That is a disruption to this project in a number of ways, not the least of which it contributes to our reputation as a safe harbour for banned users. Which in turn restricts our ability to recruit good editors to this wiki. That is how it harms this wiki. Apart from someone deleting massive amounts of pages, its about the worst way someone can hurt this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NonvocalScream. πr2 (talk • changes) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen them and I am a regular. I have no problem with using subspage to simplify an article. Except these articles for the last month or more have never seen mainspace. There is a difference between starting there and moving it. But no article should sit in your userspace for weeks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It took me 3 weeks to simplify The Author's Farce. Peter Symonds has still not finished simplifying his page. Just because you haven't seen them or that we aren't fast enough for you is not a reason for your statements. And "no article should sit in your userspace for weeks"? That isn't a rule, nor could it ever be one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Symonds has gone on an indefinite wikibreak. He no longer edits here at the moment. As for it isn't a rule. Actually it is. Unsimplified articles that sit in userspace for long periods of time are generally considered G3 candidates for not being in simple english. Users are given a reasonable amount of time to simplify articles and then they usually get deleted out of user space. And just because no one has complained until now doesn't mean you are in the right either. I was only mentioning that I hadn't seen them because you claimed everyone had. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3? No. Not even close. You are speaking where you have no ability to speak on this matter. My pages were brought over with the consent of multiple admin. My efforts here were always very public and done at the consent of multiple admin. Even my edits being moved to en was done by Sj, a Steward and member of the WMF Board. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes G3, we do it fairly regularely if they sit in user space too long. I fail to see where you publicly said you were editing here with the intent of moving your articles over to en while you were blocked there? I don't think any admin would have given consent for that since we have blocked other users for doing such things. -DJSasso (talk)
Please link to these G3 of those pages so I can request that they be undeleted and use them as evidence that you should have your ops restricted from performing such future actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I mean A3....-DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what you mean, then Eptalon would have many of his pages deleted, as he copies over much of his content for DYK. Once again, you are speaking where you have no experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key being he moves them to mainspace. The one I am currently looking at has been in your userspace for well over a month. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he copies the pages directly from en.wiki over to simple, and there were multiple times that -I- had to simplify them and establish they were copied over. By your application, those pages would be immediately deleted. Furthermore, there would be no need for importer rights as any page would be instantly deleted. Then, there is the idea that since the content was created -here- it wasn't -copied- to -here-, not even meeting the definition. Furthermore, half of the content in my user space that wasn't originally created here was put here by well established admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • There is no need for admin action here, Ottava broke no rules. DJ, please move on. Jon@talk:~$ 18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not moving on. This is a very important situation. And quite possibly the best example of how we let problem editors get away with everything here. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then provide DIFFS, otherwise we are pissing in the wind. Jon@talk:~$ 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DIFFS of what? The articles he is leaving sitting in his user space and then getting people to move to en? This isn't a situation where diffs do anything. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of good faith surprises me. If you say he is getting folk to move content, then prove it on the wiki. Having people move content from here to another project breaks no rules. This is just as well, if I take Ottava's contributions and use them on En... can I? I can if I attribute, and I dare anyone to do anything about it. You do understand free license, yes? If you think moving content is wrong, and continually argue that it is wrong, then I think you miss the mission of the foundation... because there is no rule against. And continually arguing that, may be disruptive in itself. Jon@talk:~$ 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous, stop bickering and move on. There was no reason for this even to be brought up here (there is nothing that Victuallers could have done but want to cause trouble). We had a BOARD member decide to copy over at least one of the articles and did so without asking Ottava (I checked with him). This has nothing to do with us, move on and stop acting like asses. James (T C) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I can see no rule that has been broken here. Ottava Rima is not a banned user on simplewiki so he can create articles here. Sj copied the article to en, not Ottava. The fact that he copied it from simplewiki is neither here nor there. It would be not different than if Ottava wrote the article on another website, released it under a free license and SJ copied and pasted it from there. fr33kman 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not actually the copying I have issue with. Its the leaving them sitting in userspace for months where they are of no help to our wiki. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of this wiki as storage space for articles for en. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see what you are trying to say, and if his aim here is to only use us as a scratch space and he has no intention of adding the articles to our wiki, then I fully agree with you. I would expect every article he has in his userspace to be added to simplewiki, and if not, then we have a problem. fr33kman 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • James, please notice that Victuallers was not asking you to take any action, just making you aware of a situation that came up on ENWP that has to do with Simple English Wikipedia. If Simple English Wikipedians decide not to take any action, that's fine, but Victuallers thought (and I agree) that you should be made aware so you have the opportunity to make that decision. Would you really prefer not to be notified when other Wikipedias are having discussions that relate to your project? Cmadler (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with James here. I think DJ may be making a mountain out of a molehill, and needs to tone down a little Purplebackpack89 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that he fully expects to move them all into simple main space. The one he has mostly simplified is (in my mind) ready but I know others have said they don't think it's simplified enough. James (T C) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I better understand the situation now. It appears that Ottava did nothing wrong. I believe A3 applies to works from other wikis, without significant work. While I appreciate that the simplification is hard, it does not seem as if much work is done (just looking at the contribs) regularly. I don't think anything can be gained from the continuation of this discussion. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire DJSasso's wish to keep Simple's honor "clean", but from what I can see, I don't think Ottava did anything really wrong, disruptive, or block-worthy. :) There isn't really a need for this discussion. It would be a good idea if Ottava moved some of his articles (among which several are ready to be moved to mainspace, I think) sometime soon, but a quiet note on his talk page when an administrator feels that some of the articles in his userspace should be deleted, should be enough, instead of a long discussion on AN. Kindly, —Clementina talk 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. (additional comments here.) No further edits should be made to this discussion.


simplifying articles and gaming the system

A brief clarification on the thread about Ottava's articles: I followed links to those two pages from Ottava's foundation-l post. I didn't discuss it with him, I just read the articles, enjoyed them, and updated the en:wp articles with them. They were better than the previous best available freely-licensed articles on the topic, and made good use of familiar sources.

It didn't occur to me that editing in userspace might be seen as suspicious - I assumed that was part of a slow-moving local style guideline for writing/simplifying long pages, which strongly discouraged anything in the main namespace that had not already been rigorously simplified. There is no such policy on en, and so no reason to wait... In the case of The Author's Farce the local simple: process seems to have taken 3-4 months. Was this intentional? Required? is there some other reason why the articles articles listed here are not in the main article namespace?

I agree with Fr33kman, every one of those articles should make their way into the article namespace on simple. And Djsasso makes a good point that simple should not be seen as a haven for trolls and banned users. --Sj (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been closed above, and no admin action is required. Let us allow the English Wikipedia to fix English's articles. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Jon, but as a member of the WMF community, and a member of this community, SJ is perfectly at liberty to speak. Let's not clamp down on people feeling able to speak okay? fr33kman 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he can speak, sure. That is why I moved his comment to the primary AN page, as opposed to the talk page. But I must reiterate that Ottava has not disrupted this project, and the best we can do is ask him to... "hurry up"? Now all of a sudden, there is a deadline. You must quickly do your work and get your articles out of userspace *ESPECIALLY* if you are banned from another project. I don't think I appreciate another project's problems, becoming our own. Let En fix it's own importing issue, it is not our "exporting issue". Best, Jon@talk:~$ 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more imports

Just two pages, please: en:Template:Infobox Prime Minister and en:Lee Kuan Yew. (Maybe there should be a permanent "requests for import" subpage, transcluded onto this one?) Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done a bit of work needed there since the DB pooped out on me during an import, but done, nonetheless. I agree a subpage might be a good idea. Perhaps just create a WP:AN/Import page and have a box that tells us when something is waiting for an admin. fr33kman 09:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (wow, that turned out to be a big "just two pages".) I'll create the subpage now. sonia♫♪ 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Yes, it was 47 pages in total. I need a soda now, thirsty work :P fr33kman 09:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-Don't see the point of a new page. I like everything centralised as it gives us less things to check. No issue in posting here. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would rather people just ask on the talk page of an admin and be patient and wait for them to get to it. The best option would be to not import at all and to actually start articles from scratch as being simple. I tend to think articles from scratch tend to be better quality than when people try to simplify ens. Technically imports aren't even necessary as long as you link to the article you took the info from when you copy and paste over here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought I'd do this, but...

...this week, my talk page has been vandalized by multipe IPs, and my user page and archives have also been hit. So I'd like a two-week semi-protect on my user and talk pages; and a full-protection for Archives 1, 2, and 3; all of which are full and no longer used by me. (If I archive additional pages, they will go to Archive 4 or 5). Thanks, Purplebackpack89 19:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lauryn Ashby (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Resolved. No admin action needed Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. How are my changes so far? Polymathsj (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want Wikipedia:Editor review. This is for things that only admins can do. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame

Resolved. Removed by Griffinofwales (talk · contribs). —Clementina talk 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request all the rights that I have on this site to be removed at this time, as I have retired. Thanks, Razorflame 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Next time, all requests like this go on AN. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you oppose an RFx, then retire? I'm half minded to declare that vote invalid. Seems disrespectful. Jon@talk:~$ 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has the right do to it, as in he has made the required edits to !vote. You might think its rude to do it. But it is an acceptable thing to do. Besides, retiring is a personal choice. Its not like it suddenly makes you unable to edit. That being said looking at the numbers it won't change anything. -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct. It is a valid vote. Does not seem right, but valid technically. (disclosure: I opposed the rfx) Jon@talk:~$ 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Razor opposed on dubious or controversial grounds and then shot off, that would have been concerning. However, as Djsasso says, there seems to be no issue here. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan stub IP blocks

Resolved. Three year range blocks put in place. fr33kman 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today, an IP address was blocked after blatant POV pushing on Pakistan-related articles for abusing multiple IP addresses.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.240.239.51

As we all know, similar edits have come from many different IP addresses, including:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.241.0.193 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.26.182.84 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.241.11.237 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.195.131.162

and others. Some of these IP addresses have been blocked for various lengths. Since the "abusing multiple IP addresses" rationale has been used, we seem to be working under the presumption they are the same user. Given that, should we have more consistency on the block lengths used, rather than one day here, one week there, one month somewhere else, etc.? Kansan (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear that they are socking, and it's a static IP, I think 6 months would be appropriate. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not as easy as it may look at first. Let me explain: A number of IP editors, which are possibly the same user, create or modify Pakistan-related articles. This is to my knowledge the only source of Pakistan-related content here, so if you see changes in that subject area you can be fairly certain where they come from. So far, no communication has been established; the user(s?) in question will not create an account, you can leave something on their talk page, which they usually read -but they do not reply. At times, I wondered what their level of understanding really was, because they sometimes do not understand, so when leaving a message, try to write in simple English. Blocking will not serve much, because after the block expires, the editor(s?) will be back. My personal stance on this has been more and more: I revert what I consider POV-pushing, when I see it, but I do not block (for long times).
Some of the IPs resolve to schools/educational institutions or libraries; avoid blocking these at all cost (ie. do a lookup before blocking). If you look at these IPs, their contributions have been very prolific, they do contribute a lot. In that context, I think it would be better if we could "channel" them somehow. The problem with this is that this channeling needs at least some basic form of communication, which we have not established. --Eptalon (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Flag

Would one of you nice administrators turn my flood flag on? I will be doing (hopefully the last of) flag template maintenance for a couple of hours. I will post a note here when finished. (PS, still waiting for my IRC cloak to come through.) Many thanks, --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Goblin 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
I am finished my maintenance. Thank you for flagging me.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Kansan (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would it be all right for me to delete WP:Account creators without sending it to AfD since it is a flag we don't have and nothing links there? sonia♫♪ 03:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have it just in case. Redirects are cheap. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that I created it when I filled up the redlinks from Special:Statistics. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically we have the flag, we just haven't given it to anyone because there isn't much point when 95% of the editing population has the ability bundled into their admin account. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As DJSasso said, while not a flag that we currently give out, every admin has it bundled with sysop. Personally, I'd rather have the redirect than a red link on Special:Statistics. -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved. Reviewed, and declined
Jon@talk:~$ 10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Friends,

May we have an uninvolved administrator review the block at User talk:Codedon. Note that since the user was permitted to place the template, I have altered the block to permit TP editing until such a time that an uninvolved administrator can review the block. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 10:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This block is a checkuserblock and only a checkuser can deal with it. fr33kman 10:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuserblock template does not automatically mean that a normal administrator can not action it, it is not a magick "off limits" sign.
Especially, if the blocking cu permitted an appeal. It needs to be handled by uninvolved at this point in time. Uninvolved CU? Something.
I think you also mentioned that the block would stand on non CU issues alone, so this should be a simple review on the unblock template. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 10:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: At a quick glance, just about all the active admins bar Mercy are named as involved. (Apparently I am too.) If we are going by Codedon's definition of involved, who is going to review this? sonia♫♪ 10:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going by Codedon's definition.  :) Jon@talk:~$ 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Any admin (preferably uninvolved) is free to review the block regardless of Codedon's choice of admins. He doesn't get to say who will handle it and what they should do because it's up to us deciding what is best for the project and not himself. So it is his loss how he became blocked. Nifky^ 10:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this, I am not "involved". I am merely an admin doing a job and blocking a user. How is that "involved"? At the moment, Codedon is winning, because he has us even discussing this and talking about involved/uninvolved. fr33kman 10:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No person is "winning". We are discussing the best way to review the block. The blocking administrator (Fr33kman), whom I respect, has permitted the user to place an unblock template. Now, no matter how much I respect and like Fr33kman, I have to call that the blocker can not, or rather, should not be the one to review the block. This is only out of a sense of fairness and parity. I don't imagine the user will be unblocked, and I don't imagine the user will have the TP access restored perm, but at least we can say, someone did review this. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin has always been allowed to review an unblock request from a user they have blocked. It has always been thus. It does not make them "involved" no matter what the blocked user manages to get people to think. fr33kman 10:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, however, the user requested someone neutral. I did not believe it would have been such a big to-do to have someone else do it. I mean no disrespect, and in this, I think our opinions differ. However, in the future, I'll message the blocking admin and let them decide if they would like to have an uninvolved admin take a look, and let them decide how to proceed the next time I think someone else needs to review. This is how I will handle this type of case from now on, I think that will minimize the to-do about it next time. Sorry for all the kerfuffle. Jon@talk:~$ 11:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what he wants? Do we allow the blocked user to dictate terms to us now? This block was reviewed by two other CUs, and the entire admin mailing list. Codedon made an unblock request there (and on loads of other wikis (check his SUL contribs)) it was said on the mailing list that we will just ignore him. This makes us look like idiots Jon. Thanks! fr33kman 11:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I am involved somehow. The irony is he tried to use me to support him against Fr33k before the block, so I am guessing when I didn't he declared me rude and bad because I didn't side with him. Clearly he needs to stay blocked. That's my opinion from an "involved" admin. Though how I am involved since I never had any conflict with him is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJ, you are not involved, you can go review the unblock template if you like. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 10:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ, rude!? LOL, but edits like this are what got Codedon banned from enwiki in the first place. And the editor he warned was just reverting vandalism. I guess everyone is rude but him. Once again, simple is made to look stupid! fr33kman 10:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 As an "involved" administrator, I accept Codedon's apology very sincerely, but sadly, I confess I do think a block is justified in this case. I think we can close this discussion now as "declined" and move on. —Clementina talk 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bluegoblin7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved. Both BG7 and PBP are blocked. No further action needed about this particular problem. EhJJTALK 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He called me a liar on his talk page without any substantiated evidence, and then said he didn't care if I took him to AN. He probably should be blocked for that Purplebackpack89 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diffs: [2]. "I've highlighted the ones you're not following", and lying is highlighted Purplebackpack89 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you are both required to ignore each other for the next 24 hours, so you can both just chill. After that time, we will continue with the issue. Ignoring this will lead to admin action against the one(s) violating. Let's both just chill out for the next 24; it's only a web site okay? fr33kman 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 24h editing restriction. Unfortunately, I don't think there is currently another way. Jon@talk:~$ 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am and have been chilled throughout this, so I don't get why I'm the one being told to chill here. I've now blocked the user in question - which I should have done a while ago, to be fair - and if you've got a problem with that, click either here or here - I couldn't care less. Goblin 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
  • sigh* I go away for a few days an all hell breaks loose. For what its worth. Both should have been blocked. BG shouldn't have done it himself. But blocking PBP was correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89

Resolved. PBP has been blocked for 72 hours. EhJJTALK 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not been around much recently but flicked onto recent changes and these two diffs jumped out 1 and 2. The second diff may be debatable, as modern historians believe the naval blockade and the internal unrest in Germany led to her eventual defeat - especially as the US troops had not yet reached the front-line in any real numbers - but the first diff is fairly shocking. Soup Dish (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have talked to him about the first and I believe Nonvocalscream just blocked him for the first. The second is debateable, being Canadian I am probably biased, because the running joke up here is that the US joined the war when it was already mostly done and then claim they won it for us when all the real work had already been done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first issue is fixed. I was referring to both World Wars, not just I Purplebackpack89 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any casual reader of this page and the Simple talk page can misinterpret your comment directly above to reflect a non-neutral bias toward American patriotism and inferiority of the British race of people according to the general opinion that they "almost lost" in the World Wars "if not for the Americans"; therefore, I suggest you do not bring this up again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring anything up again! Purplebackpack89 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did! You assert the dominance of America over Britain in not just one World War, but the second World War as well. Just comment on what you did (as this is AN), not produce inflammatory comments about the validity of whether or not "if the Brits were so good, why didn't they win the wars without us?" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to disengage. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

User:RickK

Resolved. No administrator action needed at present. —Clementina talk 09:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An abandoned and evanescent userpage here on simpleWiki. Suggest indef block (except for TP) per the block on enWiki, which was due to potential hacking. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he's ever coming back. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've only heard tales, like the bards used to sing, about how he was the greatest vandalfighter there ever was. It's a shame that I never got to see him in action. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, but decline as not needed. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import request

Resolved. Nothing that can be done here.

Please see here. Thanks Hoots (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have a Request for Importer. πr2 (talk • changes) 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See policy here. -Barras talk 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Sorry I misread that page and thought it said to ask here. Never mind. :) Hoots (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Resolved. Unprotected by Lauryn Ashby (talk · contribs). —Clementina talk 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need the title "Tosh.0" unprotected so I can move Tosh.o to it. Thanks. —I-20the highway 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and Block Policy

Stop locking talk page access preemptively. That is all. Jon@talk:~$ 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few anon-ip users wreaking havoc, atm. I think short (anon-only) blocks may fix the issues. --Eptalon (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy

Since Kennedy is now a sockpuppeteer, and NotGiven, GivenThisTime, and Hoots are all his accounts, scrambled password or not, the main account should be blocked per policy! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop with your edits already. You are being disruptive. If he could get into it he would have by now. There is zero point in blocking it now other than to make a WP:POINT. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

Hello. may I please have the flood flag? I have some work to do, and don't want to flood recent changes.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type of work? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some templates to add.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you importing them from en? Then no, since the additions of several templates to this wiki constitute major changes. Flood flag is only for minor, noncontroversial edits. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that case. I have templates to add to articles here.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What templates? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give a specific, full description of whatever work you're doing? For example, "I am adding templates A and B to articles C, D, and E and any articles similar to them." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding the orphan template to orphaned articles.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although it would probably be a better job for a bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let a bot finish up for me. I would take forever!  Hazard-SJ Talk 07:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

May I please have the flood flag again? (Any admin.) I'll be flooding, and I'll not flag them as minor edits (because all minor edits will show in RC).  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do? -- Lauryn (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWB, I'm assuming. Please do a dozen more changes, so that we can check everything's working fine first. sonia♫♪ 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I had figured as much, I wanted a more specific answer (e.g. "changing {{stub}} to {{bio-stub}} on appropriate articles"). -- Lauryn (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding the orphan template to orphaned articles, Lauryn Ashby. Ok, Sonia.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) Minor edits should be flagged as minor. Marking them as non-minor does not change whether they are hidden or visible. The best way to hide edits with AWB is to use the bot flag. EhJJTALK 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sonia tried it earlier with openbot, but since they were marked minor, they all flooded rc.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice, rollbacking is auto-classified as minor, and all bot reverting are shown in RC. All minor edits are shown.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said this on ST and I'll say it again: It's not the minor edit that borked it. Rollbacks are shown, but not other minor edits. And if you notice, apparently flood doesn't work with AWB anymore, and you're still flooding despite the flood flag and not marking them as minor. sonia♫♪ 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what can I do?  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get a bot account and get it approved. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Hope it doesn't take long.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cant do. Account creation from my IP is blocked.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What number is your autoblock? -- Lauryn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) × 2  In the meantime, have a little patience, please. There is no deadline, especially not for this sort of thing. As I just told Telecom, it should not be your primary focus. sonia♫♪ 22:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean my IP? 98.14.112.158  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP unblocked. You can create the acc. now. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Meet Hazard-Bot.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Can an admin please add me to the AWB check page? I would like to use the AWB. By the way, which do I download from here? There are three files.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you plan to do with AWB? You should download the latest version. EhJJTALK 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded it, but the bottom says "en.wikipedia". I plan to do different things, not a specific thing.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured how to change it. Can I please be added?  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin please add me to the AWB check page? Any admin...  Hazard-SJ Talk 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(<-)  Done --Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Finally!  Hazard-SJ Talk 21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53 mins was long? fr33kman 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first request was here, then i striked it and placed it elsewhere, on two admin talk pages. I then placed it here.  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point fr33kman was trying to make is still a valid one, please try to be more patient, your request will be handled as soon as someone takes note of it. There's no need to make the same request in several places. -- Lauryn (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bot

Can an admin please add my bot, User:Hazard-Bot to the AWB check page? I would it like to use the AWB (semi-automatically). Thank you.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it has been approved by a bureaucrat; if you need it to use AWB for a trial run, the commenting bureaucrat will add it to the page.. -- Lauryn (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was thinking I should have done it before the request, as I placed the programming language as AWB.  Hazard-SJ Talk 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

Resolved. EhJJTALK 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be authorized for the AutoWikiBrowser please? I am finding many Formula One articles that use inconsistent naming formats and link references. Thank you. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please use it wisely. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QD U1

Resolved. undeleted by User:Lauryn Ashby.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I tagged the wrong page (User:Hazard-SJ/Userboxes/AWB) for deletion. Can someone please undelete it?  Hazard-SJ Talk 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already  Done. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS unblock

Resolved. Consensus is to go ahead with this fr33kman 05:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've engaged a couple of contacts within the OTRS system about the possibility of moving our current unblock requests from the mailing list to an otrs queue. Nothing would change, we would still handle unblocks locally, however, we would now be able to track each req with a ticket number. We would of course maintain the mailing list for communications. The only difference, is the improved OTRS interface. I want to gather the opinions here to see if we could do this. The technical part is taken care of as of this writing. Just want to be sure everyone is on board. This is a positive change and a technical improvement. (It goes without saying that all administrators would be able to access to unblock queue, but not the otrs wiki, or other queues.) Thank you for reviewing, Jon@talk:~$ 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support. I hate mailing lists for unblock requests (both here and on en) they cause constant issues with people writing multiple replies without notice, forgetting to copy in the list etc etc. Doing it through OTRS would make it much much easier to keep everything tracked and easier for all admins to see what was going on. The system isn't perfect, but it is far superior in my opinion. For people interested it is easy to set up so that you get an email notification when a new request or response comes in if you want to which is nice. James (T C) 08:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any issues with it from the little I know about OTRS. sonia♫♪ 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems from my point. -Barras (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, as long as we don't have the full OTRS "provide identification to WMF" requirement (since not all will be willing.) EhJJTALK 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it's a question of whether we'll have access to any personal identifying information, aside from what the person writes in the e-mail and their e-mail address. For example, most e-mails contain the user's IP address in the hidden info. As long as that's not the case, sounds perfectly fine to me (in fact, it would be greatly preferred to the current method!) EhJJTALK 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good portion of normal OTRS agents do not have to identify either, only ones that get access to the most sensitive queues (I'm not actually sure what the queue cut off is because I never had to deal with it since I was already identified). They could all see the email IP so I don't think that will be a problem. James (T C) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think regardless, this will not be an issue. We see the email headers on the list, we will continue to see them in the interface. Jon@talk:~$ 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me fr33kman 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Spain

Resolved. No need. In the future, do not place oversight requests on-wiki. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can an oversight change rev. visibility for the last two edits in Spain made by an IP?  Hazard-SJ Talk 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is some pretty lame and ambiguous vandalism. There is no need for oversight, although I wouldn't object to an admin deleting those revs. Oversight should only be used for a few cases where someone's privacy are in danger. See WP:OS. EhJJTALK 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never post oversight requests in public, under any circumstances. In future, please e-mail an oversighter at oversight-simple-wp﹫lists.wikimedia.org. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an os action nor for revdel. And please keep in mind what Peter said! Mail the list, an individual os or ask an on on IRC. -Barras (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeleComNasSprVen and Purplebackpack89

Resolved. Temp blocks and editing restrictions & warnings given to both users. fr33kman 05:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs) His edits over the past few days are disturbing. Here is a sample of his editing:

  • Continuing to torment Purplebackpack89 multiple times after being warned to stand down diff [
  • Multiple edit-wars, including with editors in their own userspace [3] diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5
  • Removal of content on user talk pages diff
  • Removal of "sockpuppet" tag on a globally-blocked vandal (who had been blocked for abusing mulitple accts.) [4]
  • Abuse of rollback diff
  • Flooding recent changes diff

I could go on. He really needs to learn that there are consequences for bad editing, or I fear he will continue this awful editing. I personally would recommend a one-week block and loss of rollback Purplebackpack89 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Did you just put the first one up to make you look like the victim? Why'd you include that in the list? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said charges seem either false, exaggerated, or rather recent. Doesn't warrant one-week block. I've asked for the flood flag multiple times. I've apologized for the "abuse of rollback". You're playing on everybody's nerves now. And all charges are related to you, so there's bound to be bias there. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're related to me or not is irrevelant. Whether they're determental to the Wiki, which they clearly, is Purplebackpack89 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Do you have diffs? Jon@talk:~$ 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole bunch of them Purplebackpack89 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I don't think a block is the right thing here, it will only antagonize the situation in my opinion. I think you two should try some mediation. I'd be willing to mediate or you can ask someone else. fr33kman 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the edits in question have to do with me; several have to do with other editors Purplebackpack89 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
After examining the history, I'm thinking perhaps some editing restrictions may be in order. Jon@talk:~$ 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to editing restrictions. I should also point out that it is inappropriate to come onto WP:AN and request that a user gets a one week block. It's ok to request admin assistance, but asking to block someone for a specific amount of time, especially someone with whom you've had conflicts, is in itself a blockable offense. Warnings at this time, for both users, would be most appropriate, with preventative blocks issued if disruption continues. EhJJTALK 23:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned both users multiple times. So I am good with some sort of editing restrictions. I did tell them to ignore each other and that clearly hasn't worked because now PBP is here complaining about TeleCom again. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...because he continues to make trouble for me and the rest of the WP community. Purplebackpack89 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a block would be really sufficient in this case. Both Purplebackpack89 and Telecom have had a small dispute, so it seems rather unfair to just block Telecom. I really can't imagine Telecom ignoring people's warnings just because he doesn't want to do this or that. He probably doesn't understand... I'm sure I was very annoying and disruptive at first - okay, I'm still annoying now, of course :P - but it gets a bit better as you adjust to the community and site. If people had blocked me at first when I first came and started making annoying questions, going around interrupting people and flooding recent changes (not that Telecom does all of these), I would have never even had the chance to improve and instead just quit the whole thing - a very imprudent thing to do, yes, but anyway I would have. It's been quite some time since I joined, and now if they blocked me I would indeed be sincerely sorry. But at first, in the first few months, you can't understand it. Telecom just needs time and more explanation, and a block is exactly the kind of thing that would hurt his feelings. I'm just suggesting humbly that why don't we give him another chance? It's not a really big, vandalizing disruptive edit he's doing - just small faults here and there that I'm sure we can all forgive... But please, don't mind this long, silly speech I've been blabbering. I'm sure if I continued on I would end up blocked instead of Telecom - certainly a more well deserved block I suppose :P. So just think carefully about the matter and I leave the rest of the decision freely those wise admins, crats, etc. Thank you if you were even so kind as to read this long, make-you-yawn paragraph, Belle tête-à-tête 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not considering blocking, but some editing restrictions. Jon@talk:~$ 05:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Editing restrictions for both. How's

  1. TeleCom stays away from any pages in other people's userspace, however badly they are "broken".
  2. Both users should not interact with, revert or comment about the other.

I'm not keen on poking around like this either, but I guess it causes no harm. sonia♫ 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia, I've incorporated your restrictions into the set below. Jon@talk:~$ 06:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied the following from User talk:TeleComNasSprVen, on request of the user) --Eptalon (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first charge is rather ridiculous, almost to the point of insanity. I could have pointed out a similar event: 'Continuing to torment TeleComNasSprVen multiple times after being warned to stand down diff'
  • The second charge is debatable, to which my accuser may or may not have a COI
  • The third charge has an appearance of bad faith; I made the first reversion, and the second one should have been discussed per WP:BRD.
  • The fourth charge is entirely false, and the action warranted: I tried to explain the nature of the sockpuppetry through checkuser, and the proper process to go through for it to work, but my explanations had gone unnoticed yet again.
  • The fifth and sixth charges are arbitrary. I explained thus, "To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes?"

This is more or less asinine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Restrictions

Editors Notified of editing restrictions in force. [5] [6]. Jon@talk:~$ 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Findings of fact

Principle

  • Editors must collaborate in a calm atmosphere with respect for each other.

Remedy

  • User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to revert each other, even once.
  • User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to interact with each other outside of article and project talk space, however, either is not limited to consensus building discussion within article talk and project talk space.
  • User:TeleComNasSprVen is directed not to edit other users' userspace, excluding talk space.
  • User:TeleComNasSprVen is restricted from making any semi automated or automated edits, including the use of AutoWikiBrowser.
  • User:TeleComNasSprVen will not make repetitive changes so fast as to flood the recent changes.
  • All remedies are effective for six months from today.
  • Remedies are enforceable by blocking, for 24 hours, increasing 24 hours each event, up to a week.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Endorse with caveat: Either user may be blocked for any amount of time (including more than one week), if they are in violation of our regular WP:Blocks and bans policy. The above block rules only apply to the additional restrictions listed above. EhJJTALK 16:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few comments of mine:
  • Editing restrictions need to be symmetrical; what applies ot one editor should also apply to the other. If it doesn't it should at least be balanced.
  • Editing talk pages: We clearly need to let the editors edit talk pages of admins, to inform about abonrmal situations. To limit the impact, I propose we limit this editing to the talk pages of bureaucrats; as to the no picking on one another, the same rules obviously apply.
  • Fixing other people's user pages (excluding talk pages) should not be done, with the exception of the removal of "personal information" or other "inappropriate content". This removal will be done by admins, in general (usually: Oversighters, stewards, and Foundation staff)
  • Article talk pages/Project pages: We should not restrict the editors from participating in discussions as long as they remain on-topic, focused on the article's subject.
  • This "agreement" is in addition to the normal blocks/bans policy. Blocks and bans outside the agreement are not affected by it.
  • The agreement should run for three months, not six months. WP admins are not babysitters.--Eptalon (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, this is not an agreement, but a topical ban designed to prevent further disruption to the project. Since the editors brought it here for administrative actions, the administrators took action. There is nothing symmetrical, there is no parity between the two, because the two don't have the same issues upon deep examination of the editing behavior. The two editors were looked at seperatly. For example, if editor a has no problem with bot like edits, then it would go forward to say editor a should not be retricted from doing so.
  • The restrictions permit the editors to interact with each other if they are building consensus on article and project talk pages. The restrict them from interacting with each other on any other talk page. They are permitted to edit any talk page they want, just so long as they don't interact with each other. Suffice it to say, if the editors game the system, the block can be resulting. If editor a starts a new section on Eptalon's talk page, about a redirect... and editor b comes to start another section asking Eptalon for help on a VGA, this is ok. If they edit the same section, ands reference each other or interact, then they run afoul of the restriction.
  • Fixing other folks userspace (not user talk space, user talk space was not part of the restriction) is forbidden. If there is an issue (BLP, PII) then they need to find another editor (or admin). This was another locus of the dispute.
  • As above, the restriction is a postive worded restriction, that is, is allowed them to both participate in the same consensus building discussion on the same article or project talk page, since there was little issue here. The restriction was worded to permit that.
  • Other blocks and bans (for example 3RR, and other issues) remain unaffected by this topical ban. I hope that I have adequetly addressed your concerns. Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

 (change conflict)  I take the wording very seriously. Can we change "any" to "other user's" and add "Proposed" next to "editing restrictions"? I just imported this and I'm on a deadline, so please don't make me miss it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the first of those changes, but it apparently got lost in change conflict. Restoring. Your deadline is, frankly, irrelevant to this discussion. sonia♫ 06:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
double (change conflict)  --  (change conflict)  Maybe he does mean "any" (except yours, of course).  Hazard-SJ Talk 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for you to edit any userspace outside your own, and I fear, it is going to take these draconian measures to keep this project on track. And there is nothing proposed about this. If there are no significant objections from the other administrators, say in 24 hours or so, these remedies become effective. Jon@talk:~$ 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By semi-automated, do you mean my regular habit? Please clarify. And I don't use AutoWikiBrowser, whatever the heck that means. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the restriction to more accurately address the behaviors. Jon@talk:~$ 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins will grant it, some will not. To clarify my statement in the diff of mine you quoted, I was asking you to throttle your edits, not offering to flood you. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Dear Telecom, remember, we appreciate your good intentions and energy, but please, slow down! :) There's no need to mass-welcome users or make many botlike edits. In my opinion, one quality edit that enlarges Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is better than ten quick, tiny edits, besides being much more fun...why not come to Category:Stubs and try expanding some? :) The restrictions seem sensible, though I agree with Fr33kman that I'd really like PBP and Tel to try to talk nicely to each other. When there is once conceived a prejudice against each other, the smallest trifles can become flint and fire (as in this case - I don't see why either Telecom or PBP should have become heated over such inconsequential things). Kindly, —Clementina talk 08:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I respect my colleagues, Mr. Fr33kman and Ms. Clementina, I do not believe the mediation is appropriate for this, due to the full spectrum of behavioral issues we are attempting to address. Mediation was more designed for article dispute (where a single point is the locus), and the spans beyond that. I respectfully posit that editing restrictions will help us move past this with a minimum of disruption to our goals here at the Simple English Wikipedia. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose you're right, Nonvocalscream. More discussion on Wikipedia might probably create more disputes than solve any. Perhaps they can try talking to each other offwiki, like on IRC sometime, though this can be at most only a suggestion and not a proposal. I do think the restrictions are reasonable though, and feel they would be a safe guide to follow as of now. Cordially, —Clementina talk 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC) And on a wholly unrelated note, I am a Miss. ;)[reply]

May I suggest Purplebackpack89 avoids making changes to try and introduce a more "global" feel to pages? He is at danger of coming across as wanting to add a pro-American bias to pages. Just a thought Soup Dish (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean by that? sonia♫ 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to create a global view, Purplebackpack89 risks drifting into creating a bias. This diff shows the user has a clear bias Soup Dish (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that it is better for PBP not to attempt to create a global view? sonia♫ 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because his attempts at creating a global view sometimes revert in a neutral view becoming an American view. I do feel sympathy for TeleComNasSprVen, to an extent, because from an outside view, it looks as though he was the one being goaded by Purplebackpack89 Soup Dish (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editing restrictions don't really delineate a ban on talking about the other on third-party sources, such as other user's talk pages (though apparantly not AN, as I have been criticized as "asisine" there). However, it has been interpreted as such (even for my edit that really didn't have anything to do with him), hence why both of us are blocked right now. I propose interpretation as such be stopped. It seems perfectly reasonable to come to another user if you have an issue with something but can't do anything to edit it Purplebackpack89 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Copied from user talk:Purplebackpack89 by Lauryn Ashby at user's request. @Lauryn (parlez) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB/bot edit restriction

Perhaps suitable for Hazard, whom I assume you had in mind when writing it. Would it be possible to create restrictions for him as well? (No flooding/unauthorised bot edits, no interference with blocks) sonia♫ 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 (change conflict) He's finished with his "list" of orphan tagging, so far as I know. But he has picked up my habit, so to speak. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain we're at that point with him yet. Perhaps, if it comes to it, it might be better to simply remove him from the AWB checkpage and tell him to alter his editing pattern. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had totally mistyped. I'm attempting to address the mass welcoming that had flooded RC... but perhaps that restriction needs to be removed? I think creating restrictions for Hazard would require separate thread, something I don't think I'm prepared to do until we resolve this one. :) Jon@talk:~$ 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a comment on that, I thought that was covered under "bot-like edits", which I'm sure that we can all agree that 30 out of 50 recent changes being a user welcoming others certainly falls under. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To go from a slightly different angle, maybe he should just not welcome every IP that makes a first edit in the previous (day/week/since he last edited)'s changes. I have no issues with IPs that have just edited or logged-in users, but what he's doing seems a bit over the top. sonia♫ 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we used to generally not welcome any IPs and only welcomed registered users who had made a few edits other than their userpages because we didn't want the wasted talk pages created...but thats been lost along the way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) This issue really doesn't belong here, as the above section only covers me and <username> per se. B) I don't think administrative attention is required for Hazard-SJ just yet, just some notes and warnings. He's still relatively new here, and he's done with his orphan tagging. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_33&oldid=8893289"