Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 43

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Standing stone and Menhir

Sorry about this. I dopily put up Menhir yesterday, forgetting we already had Standing stone [=synonym]. So I've shifted the Menhir content to Standing stone, and substituted a redirect (which should have been there in the first place). Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for template import

Could someone import the template en:Template:Star Fox series here? I've been creating articles on Star Fox games lately, so I think it'll be useful for those articles. Thank you. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Osiris (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag?

I'm going to work on fixing links to dab pages for a while. If an admin would like me to use the flood flag for that, you can give it to me and I'll re-log on. If not, that's fine, too. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess nobody was around. Do you still want it? Osiris (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not now, thanks. I just kept working anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft article

The article on the game Minecraft has some "troll" comments. The ones I've noticed so far were in the History branch (wrong date, disinformation, foul langage (quoting: "shitty graphics")), a "your mum" joke in the NPC branch and the "Adventurer" game mode. Please look into this. I'm a person who can take a joke, but since simple wikipedia is made partially for children, such comments do NOT belong here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.56.191 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for letting us know. I've reverted the vandalism and should be clear now. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please userfy inappropriately-placed sandbox

Please userfy Talk:Heisenberg's uncertainty principle/Uncertainty sandbox to the userspace of the user who has been working on it. That is not the right place for working on an article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam within Special:Contributions/ExtraBart

I am seeing what looks like sly link addition in the edits of ExtraBart. Especially in the new articles there is always a spam link. I fixed one article, but after seeing others like that it seems that someone needs to shake a bigger stick. Billinghurst (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it always the same link that is added? - I looked at two or three edits of the user, and they look ok to me...?--Eptalon (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are using commercial and marketing websites as references. Often home pages. Needs closer inspection. Osiris (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel?

Some admin might want to RevDel this perhaps? --Snow Blizzard 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If something should be RevDel'd don't post a link to it on a noticeboard or simple talk etc. Email the admins or an oversighter so you don't publicise it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fine, I'll do as you say next time though I think this gets a more immediate response (and since the content will be RevDeleted anyway, nobody will be able to see it anyway). --Snow Blizzard 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I saw it only because you pointed it out here. Anyone with this page watched got it pointed out in big bold letters at the same time any admin would have been alerted to the problem. --Creol(talk) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit → change

Hello, could an administrator please change MediaWiki:Wikibase-editlinks per the headline? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Osiris (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hide change

Hello. Can an administrator please suppress 15:36, 4 May 2013‎ and my edit(s) on User talk:7mike5000 please? Because there has been profanic terrible vandalism, so this should be suppressed. Thanks. (But please do not remove my comment.) curtaintoad | chat me! 09:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing there that needs to be suppressed or even deleted. Wikipedia is not censored, and profanity is not something that warrants deletion. Please read WP:RD. Osiris (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CT, I reverted your removal of those comments. They didn't fit the definition of a personal attack, plus we shouldn't be removing a user's comments from his own talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon

Hey folks,

As you may have noticed, Mythdon has requested an unblock. He is blocked, and as far as I can tell, was never officially banned. However, with the block taking place so far in the past, I'm looking for opinions. Reading the statement provided, I am willing to lift the block. Thoughts? --Gordonrox24 | Talk 05:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment, since I'm not familiar with the user's history -- but since nobody else has done so, I'd say you should go ahead with unblocking. The appeal is well-formed, there is no evidence of any other disruption and the user has certainly done their time. Osiris (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Osiris pretty much sums up what I wish to say. It should be alright. Chenzw  Talk  14:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Resolved. By Eptalon. Chenzw  Talk  14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation here, taken from here. Thanks, --Snow Blizzard 17:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Import request

Would an admin please import en:Template:Ancient Egyptian religion footer? Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weth

Please create-protect the above page. It has been repeatedly re-created. curtaintoad | chat me! 06:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for 2 weeks. Chenzw  Talk  08:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move page over redirect

Would someone please move Edit to Editor? Reasons:

  • The page is in fact disambiguating "editor", not "edit"
  • A noun is a better page name than the verb

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template import request

Could someone import the template en:Template:Animal Crossing here? There's a number of Animal Crossing-related pages here, so I think it'll be useful for those articles. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link leads nowhere. Do you mean en:Template:Animal Crossing series? Osiris (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just wanted to make sure. It's done. Osiris (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of redirects being created for no specific reason

Would your excellencies please take take a look at the large number of redirect pages being created by User:Curtaintoad? Although they don't cause a specific problem other than clogging the new pages list, I don't think these redirects are needed on this scale. I have been trying to get the user to explain why he is creating them, but the only thing he says is that he is trying to "improve the wiki". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what MOS says, but a link which works like cats ([[cat]]s) is also a valid way of linking. Apart from that, redirects are cheap, but I personally don't like a situation in which someone goes on a redirect creation spree where there is questionable demand for those redirects. Chenzw  Talk  11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I created those redirects is because per en.wiki (though I know en.wiki is not simple.wiki, or should I say it if correct or not), there are lots of redirects over there to pages -- like the ones that I have done, with plural titles. Is this a valid reason? curtaintoad | chat me! 21:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The software already automatically allows for plural links. Once in awhile creating a redirect that is a plural is one thing. But doing mass creation of hundreds of them is bad. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Could an administrator please look at [1]; we need this permission so Rich can get on with something we are doing. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well he hasn't been granted it because he hasn't detailed the "plan" that you elude to. Unlike en we don't just give out AWB to anyone who wants it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to archive/delete DYK items...

Hello community,

just wanted to let you know that I am in the process of developing a bot to automatically archive/delete stale items on TDYK. I have successfully tested the bot on a local copy of TDYK, and wanted to inquire if anybody is interested in getting the bot to fetch the page from the wiki, and to paste the update? --Eptalon (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User just back from block for not simplifying attributing, is at it again

User:Jani Ortiz has created new articles that appear to be derived from enwiki. Some text has been removed, but the text that remains has not been simplified, and there is no attribution. I leave it to your excellencies whether to take any action. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move page over redirect (Indian)

Please move Indian (disambiguation) to Indian, leaving behind a redirect. This will eliminate double redirects, plus it's more standard to have "Foo (disambiguation)" linking to "Foo" than the other way around. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Osiris (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind doing a few more?

I probably could have found more, but Special:Disambiguations cuts off at 5000 entries. Thanks again. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those are all done. Osiris (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Rap 221

Given the users choice of information, edit style and article selection, a checkuser request is almost certainly going to end in a wp:Duck reply so I brought this here (although a CU may be needed to check for socks):

Abuse of multiple accounts to evade a block: Hissrap1999 (talk · contribs) (indef blocked account)

--Creol(talk) 11:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done And now he has learned to mess around on wikidata... Chenzw  Talk  12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Drangon Rap221 on Wikidata, but you may want to request a lock at m:SRG. --Rschen7754 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importer / Import request

Hi guys! Could I please either be granted the importer right (or be pointed to the page I should ask on). Or could a lovely admin please import meta:Template:User toolserver and meta:Template:User labs to the same name on simple please :) ·addshore· talk to me! 08:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've imported them from enwiki if that works for you just as well...? Osiris (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Thanks! :) ·addshore· talk to me! 20:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for flood flag

I'm taking on the confusion in the athletes and sportspeople categories, especially for American people. It's requiring changing categories on a lot of articles. Would an admin care to give me the flood flag for this? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm finally finished! Whoever would like to can remove the flood flag now. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Flood flag

Hey I want flood flag cause I'm gonna make huge amount of User page edit. The amount will be 1000+. So I think it'll be unnecessary that my userpage edits goes to Special New Changes. Can any admin grant that. For your confirmation I'm a vandal fighter in 6-7 wikis. So I won't vandalize this wiki. Thanks in advance.--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What user page edits do you intend to make? Chenzw  Talk  10:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage edit. I can give you some example. like I'm going to create 300+ userbox and also some other technical userpage thing.Hope answered your question--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold Personally, I would deny this request because the flood flag was not intended for such mass edits. However, because policy remains rather vague on this, I will keep this request open for now.
A few more points/questions:
  • Userboxes may not be created in the Template namespace. Please keep userboxes in your userspace.
  • What "technical userpage thing" are you doing? Rather, are you doing something to your userpage? If so, why would you need to be making 700+ edits to your userpage (1000-300=700)? Chenzw  Talk  12:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chenzw. These don't sound like minor repetitive edits, and since you're not likely to be using any kind of automated tools I doubt you'd be going fast enough to flood RecentChanges. Osiris (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in no way would this be appropriate for the flood flag. Not even sure why you would create 300+ userboxes. I would highly caution against doing so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now a kind of busy, I'll respond to these questions tomorrow, So keep this on hold till that time.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm answering all the questions.
  • Ques no1-- I'll not create templates. I'll create userboxes and they'll be like User:Pratyya Ghosh/Example
  • Ques no2-- I think you missed 1 thing. I said 300+. Not said 300. So it can be 400+ too. I can't be sure. I have a notebook for userboxes. Also I have three themes. Normal Theme, Summer Theme and Winter Theme. So this needs many userpage templates, not template UserPage Templates to be created which I haven't created in this wiki. I just created the normal theme which is too incomplete. And If you visit my English Wiki subpages you'll see a lot of them.
  • Now Answer Question for DJ-- Have you ever visited my userpage? If yes, then I beleive you saw how many userboxes are there in my page. And If no, then visit today.

--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But again, what "technical userpage thing" are you doing? And please mind your language - you sound like you are interrogating DJ. Chenzw  Talk  14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean that. Anyway I'm giving you 5 example

*{{User:Pratyya Ghosh/Top icons}} {{User:Pratyya Ghosh/Display}} {{User:Pratyya Ghosh/Navbar}} {{User:Pratyya Ghosh/Pagestyle}} {{User:Pratyya Ghosh/Tablestyle}}

Watch these you'll understand.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Mass edits to own userspace. Chenzw  Talk  14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This work'll be done within 48 hours I think, but can take more. And in this time I'll not make any article edits.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I will have to remove the flood flag when I go offline, because I will then no longer be able to review your edits. If/when the flag is removed and you need it again, please let another administrator know either here, on their user talk, or in the IRC channel. Instructions for connecting to the IRC channel are here. Do note that administrators reserve the right to not grant you the flood flag if they are not willing/have no time to review your edits. Chenzw  Talk  14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come here after 20-24 hours. So if you are online that time you can grant them again that time. Anyway when I'm online again and don't see the flag I'll notify you about this.--Pratyya (Hello!) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP van

Reporting this edit. --Alex’s SeaSide 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, as the person has already been blocked. But, it still requires admin's attention... --Alex’s SeaSide 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, vandalism is reported at WP:VIP, not here. The process for dealing with vandalism is explained at WP:VANDALISM.--Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deleted content & enWP

Can I get an admin to look into this request and reply appropriately? I haven't been an admin in a while. Your expeditiousness in looking into this manner is appreciated. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong?

I see that change summaries were removed from two edits I made today to User talk:Oregonian2012. Please tell me if I did something wrong -- I don't remember putting anything inappropriate in an edit summary. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't, don't worry. There was a personal attack made by Oregonian2012. I will follow up on his user talk. Chenzw  Talk  03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tish Cyrus

Resolved.

Per a note on the enwiki help desk [2], could someone keep an eye on Tish Cyrus (see history) and make appropriate protections/revision deletions? I've undone the vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet you, I'm Aaqib, So? How many vandals have committed vandalism on the following page? --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, Acroterion. I have hidden the revision. Osiris (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaqib: I just want to put it on the record that I have no idea what you are trying to mean. Please see WP:REVDEL. Chenzw  Talk  06:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move Vascular Dementia over redirect

Please move Vascular Dementia over its redirect Vascular dementia so that the title will be in lower case. Let me know if you'd like me to do the Wikidata update afterward. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, main article now with lowercase. Please update Wikidata links... --Eptalon (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wikidata is updated. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban between Oregonian2012 and MySweetMelissa

In light of recent events (context) and from the personal attack that Oregonian2012 has made (edit has since been suppressed by Peterdownunder), I have placed him on an interaction ban. Please refer to this edit for more details. Administrators may use their own discretion to interpret the term "articles that have been recently edited by her" and to issue further sanctions (ie. blocks, protection) if the conditions of the ban are violated. Chenzw  Talk  03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good call. Does this include commenting about her? Whether or not, he should also be formally warned that another personal attack like that will likely result in a block. Osiris (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually considering that too, but I worry that it will end up being too wide a sanction because legitimate discussions do take place sometimes on project-wide discussion pages (ST). WP:NPA should be able to cover that, though. Chenzw  Talk  04:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(before I forget) He has been warned by Auntof6 already, but that warning has been suppressed from the page history due to another personal attack by Oregonian, ironically. Chenzw  Talk  04:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lovely. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Osiris (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at the attacks but if Peter and Chenzw feel it was bad enough to suppress I think this is probably a good idea. I also agree that on a wiki this small banning them from the same discussion on ST would be a bit much. As long as no attacks are made it should work fine. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing Oregonian does is he nominates articles for deletion which, sometimes are a clear keep.The user does not follow WP:BEFORE when proposing RFD.Reception123 / Receptie123 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a big issue. It is just a waste of time. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a drain on other editor's time. I do think, though, that "clear keep" is a matter of opinion. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sad to say, I believe this restriction was violated with this edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that was done in good faith; Oregonian added a category to an article MySweetMelissa edited before. How do you define "interaction"?--Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I define it the way Chenzw did in the ban notice, which said "This interaction ban applies to her user talk as well as articles that have been recently edited by her." That page had been recently edited by MySweetMelissa. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interaction ban is designed to prevent edit warring/conflict. I do not think this edit creates any difficulties at all.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would modify the ban to say can't modify or add/remove content that was recently added or removed by the other. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That was the original intention, and I am sorry for allowing it to have been interpreted this widely. On a another note, if about a month passes by without further violations/incidents occurring, I think it would be safe to lift this interaction ban. Chenzw  Talk  13:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Issues with Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, I think the Simple English Wikipedia needs to start a massive bot work, which will place the original English Wikipedia language link on top of every "in other languages" wiki page here. It's absurd that people using this wikipedia will have to struggle to find its sister site. Any thought/suggestions about the matter? Also, even though this wiki has reached 100,000 articles, it still appears as if it only has over 10,000 here. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of keeping this topic in one place, please see Talk:Main Page#Two Issues with Simple English Wikipedia for this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user

I think it is time to put some brakes on user:24.218.110.195, but better done by someone other than me. He never listens to anything said, and is very aggressive. His record on English wiki suggests he will not change his behaviour. He has smothered the geology period pages with templates, and on such as Ediacaran the open template completely dominates the page. If the templates were all a) set closed, and b) at the bottom of the page, they would at least be tolerable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have weighed in on the editor's talk page. Let's keep it over there for now, and come back here when the disruption gets worse. Chenzw  Talk  13:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already shrunken the width the templates to the most narrow width as possible. All of those templates on the top right corner are as narrow as it can get. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:40 21 June 2013 (UTC) 8:40pm 06/20/2013 EDT.
But not narrow enough - objections have already been raised over this, so go and talk to the objecting editor. Do note that further edit warring will result in a block from editing. Chenzw  Talk  03:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template import request

Could someone important the template en:Template:Jeopardy! here? I think it'll be useful for the Jeopardy!-related pages, considering that I've done some lately. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregonian

I notice this user is continually removing material from his talk page, material which was placed there by others. It goes way beyond normal tidying-up. Do we have an opinion about this? I don't think a talk page is a user's sole property. See, for example, the almost immediate removal of the template placed by Kennedy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to remove anything at any time from your talk page. It is considered acknowledgement of having read it. The only time you are not allowed to is when its a block notice or an unblock notice while you are actively blocked. That being said being that the block is only 24 hours I wouldn't get to hung up on him having removed the block notice. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on doppelganger accounts

Aaqib has created a doppelganger account and asked me a question about it. I'm not that familiar with the policy on those, so I'd appreciate it if one or more of you would give some input at User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2013#Another account. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move List of European countries by population over redirect

Would someone please move List of European countries by population to List of European countries? List of European countries by population is actually in order by country name, not population, but it is a table that is sortable by any of its columns, including population. List of European countries currently redirects to Europe. Let me know if you would like me to clean up the interwikis after the move. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mac. I've been looking at the various geography lists to see where they can be consolidated. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - The Wikidata part, that is :P --Chenzw  Talk  16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Basil

Could an admin semi-protect this article for at least 12 hours or so? There have been persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy by multiple IPs and new users on this article. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIP could use a bit more attention, too. One of the IPs vandalized this page at least 12 times after his final warning. TCN7JM 03:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toni Basil  Done by Bsadowski1 Kennedy (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't protected VIP because the vandalism is rare - or did you mean the VIP page should be used to report more often? Kennedy (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a bit vague. Sorry. I meant that one of the users vandalized Toni Basil at least 12 times since his final warning and that the reports at VIP could have used more attention. Sorry about that. TCN7JM 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Absolutely correct. I wonder if there is a way to increase the profile of that page, even some of our more regular editors seem to struggle to locate it at times... I'll look into it. Kennedy (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to WP:VIP

Per the thread above, it has become more common that people are not using WP:VIP to report vandalism. The incident above there was a dozen or so vandal changes and not reported. Even recently on this page I note that one of our regular editors had no idea about the page. I propose this change (I've undone it just now). Something to just jog the memory of people, or even IP editors who have no idea how to report seeing something wrong. Thoughts people? Kennedy (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this addition to the sidebar. Although I must correct you on something. You are correct in the fact that VIP needs to be known better, but you misunderstood my comment in the thread above. I did report the vandal, but there were no administrators around to block him/her. Just thought I would clear that up. TCN7JM 11:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the sidebar supposed to be for readers? And new users to a lesser extent. VIP is at the top of RecentChanges (the main page where vandalism is tracked). Osiris (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't change the fact that it's oftentimes missed and should be used more than it is to report vandalism. TCN7JM 11:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true and there are plenty of other places you could link to it, but I think the sidebar should be focused towards the readers and the links for the most basic things. Osiris (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you propose linking VIP, then? It already is at the top of the RC page, but as earlier said, that doesn't seem to be enough. TCN7JM 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest 3 options:
  • Put it in the toolbox - bit trickier with it's coding but makes it always available and still out of the way
  • Limit to only Namespace -1 (special pages) - It is not realy needed on articles and such but would be accessable on RC, New pages, and contributions.
  • Only have it load for IPs and user below auto-patrol level/rollback - Any user trusted enough for auto-patrol or rollback should know where to find ViP.
--Creol(talk) 11:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are good ideas. I like the second one the best. Osiris (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also like option 2, not keen on option 3 but wouldn't be actually opposed to it. Kennedy (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with option 2 the most. I oppose option 3 based on the fact that Kennedy said there's been at least one experienced user recently who didn't know of VIP. TCN7JM 12:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the experienced user above wasn't an experienced user when it came to patrolling or any of our community processes. It was one of the recommendations in their RfA attempt to try and actually learn about community processes like this so it isn't surprising that they would make this sort of mistake. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any issue with users not knowing about WP:VIP. The particular thread above was a page protection request. It so happened that during that time period, no administrator was active to stop the abuse in a timely fashion. When any user edits WP:VIP, a bot in the admins IRC channel will notify us about the edit.
Referring back to the page histories,
By the way, regarding changes to sidebar links, there was once a situation where we tried to add a link to AN in the sidebar, but concerns were raised about its relevance, leading to its removal.
We could also consider moving the existing VIP link in the RC box to somewhere else in that box - listing it under "maintenance" sounds counter-intuitive, at least to me. Chenzw  Talk  13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this is still pretty rare so I don't much see a need to alter how it is currently done. But Creol does have some interesting ideas on how it could be done. But I agree with Osiris the side is for readers I wouldn't add it there except possibly in the toolbox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rollback/delete (NUKE)

Dan Blocker (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked as a VOA. All pages he has created qualify as G2 and all edits, if not outright vandalism, are editing tests. Could an admin please mass rollback his edits, and mass delete pages created? Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bot-rolled back his edits and pages deleted. A lot of subtle vandalism. Chenzw  Talk  03:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruptive editing

Naturally I'm concerned at how we handle persistent and obsessive changes to stable pages by unregistered users. This type of disruptive editing has been difficult to handle. It includes lack of prior discussion, refusal to accept consensus, lack of common sense, unwillingness to listen, and so on. I know this has been a problem on English wiki also, but they make more use of semi-protection and range blocks.

As we know, semi-protection keeps unregistered users off the page, whilst they may still make suggestions on talk pages; range blocks ban disruptive users from particular topics or sections of the wiki.

We have had several obsessive editors here who evidently think "Simple should have everything that English wiki has" combined with a more or less complete inability to simplify the language. To counter this, I'm hoping for a bit of a shift in the direction suggested... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: you're talking about a topic ban, correct? Osiris (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, for 'range block' read 'topic ban'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is for admins to act upon, but as an editor I support immediate topic restriction on the recent disruptive editor, 24. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are something we are able and I think (but forget) we have done in the past. So if someone wants a topic ban on a specific editor they will have to propose it so the community can decide. Topic bans can't really be unilaterally imposed by an admin. So if you want to topic ban someone make a new section below requesting it and present your evidence in the form of diffs etc. Anyone that wants to comment can comment and then we can see if there is community consensus on the specific user. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move Top Level Domain over redirect

Would an admin please move Top Level Domain to Top-level domain? The reason is to fix capitalization and add the hyphen. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kennedy (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Simmons

Looking at the edits by Christopher Simmons (talk · contribs), the user passes the duck test as being a sock of blocked account Edward Cook Jr. (talk · contribs) and yet another version of this guy. --Creol(talk) 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. --Bsadowski1 03:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove user page

Can someone please delete User:Tbennert/Suttner? Thank you! --Tbennert (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obscenity

Obscene vandalism on Evolution by 86.184.201.86 (talk) for your consideration... Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. But don't forget these sort of notices are what WP:VIP is for. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have hidden/removed the respective revision (as 'purely disruptive'). Might be overkill, on the other hand, a few insults don't really add much value.--Eptalon (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget request

There are two gadgets available on a variety of other projects that I would like available here:

  1. The Local time live clock (as opposed to the UTC live clock)
  2. The gadget that puts a link to one's sandbox alongside "My Settings, Watchlist, etc."

Is this possible? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with IRC

Everyone quit IRC, there is a problem, ChanServ quit. What is wrong? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to ask on there. IRC is unofficial. Probably a server split and it will fix itself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. There is no one. I took over as op for the while until a steward or admin comes back. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It's fixed again! Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a netsplit. These are common occurrences and are usually always fixed speedily. -Mh7kJ (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freenode has made some announcements about things being unstable. It has been going on for a few days. Not a major concern. It is just rather annoying. :) --LauraHale (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template import request

Could someone import the template en:Template:Yoshi series here? I'd like to use it on the articles about Yoshi games. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Not that I mind doing it if it's easier, but you can just copy navboxes like that over. They don't need attribution or anything. Osiris (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban

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

This discussion has gone on a week and it is clear there is a consensus to topic ban 24.218.110.195 from all geology pages broadly construed. The decision can be reviewed in 6 months to see if their editing has improved. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bearing in mind the discussion above, I propose a topic ban on user 24.218.110.195, who has so repeatedly violated almost all our guidelines, especially in the areas of geological periods and geology. WP:Simple talk#Geological navigational boxes sets out some of the main issues. I would suggest a topic ban covering Category:Earth Sciences and all its subsidiary categories. A fairly lengthy ban would be useful, because some quiet time is needed for reflection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random bickering between Aaqib and I is irrelevant to the discussion.
My suggestion is an infinite ban, and yes, I have been in contact with this IP's contributions. Especially what he messaged me: "The Administrators are planning a 24 hour block. Now that! Now that is what I call acting like an admin. --Aaqib 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is saying that the admins plan to block you acting like an admin? TCN7JM 17:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you said is not relevant to this discussion of a topic ban. Chenzw  Talk  17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is acting like an admin by planning something that is unlikely to happen. Plus, it really matches the message I put on Oregonian2012's talk page. --Aaqib 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the user is not acting like an admin, and no, this is nowhere close to the message you put on that page. He is not planning for anything, he's saying that the admins are planning to do something to him. TCN7JM 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to ignore this. --Aaqib 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the actual topic of discussion, I support a lengthy topic ban across Category:Earth Sciences and all its subsidiary categories. It may also be worth considering a ban across all Category:Science_navigational_boxes. That seems to be where much of the problem is. Gotanda (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Earth sciences appears to be too broad to me. How about Category:Geology? Otherwise, considering the editor's unwillingness to discuss, persistent pushing of own agenda, and the highly questionable rationale(s) that get thrown out while trying to justify his edits, yes, support topic ban. Chenzw  Talk  17:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have hatted the above irrelevant part of the conversation. Apologies. TCN7JM 20:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 is back at it, replacing removed templates as soon as temporary protection expires. Not listening. Gotanda (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now had to spend time changing 50+ pages back to the way they were yesterday, because all the added templates duplicated information in the Geological History template, which we have tacitly agreed to leave at the bottom of the page. It has a lot of information, but is not showy or obtrusive. Now, the time spent doing this could have been spent putting in new content elsewhere. Really, if admins don't wish to follow my suggestion above, that's quite all right by me, but then they do need to do something. Otherwise, tomorrow night (if not before), 24 will be back again. And again, and again... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Editor warned here. Due to the lack of participation here and the persistent disruption, I am considering that as a "final warning" and the editor's behaviour as violating the spirit of WP:3RR, even though more than 24 hours have passed between edits. Chenzw  Talk  11:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this kind of refusal to accept consensus continues, I definitely support a topic ban, though I am aware this is a belated comment. TCN7JM 11:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found out that all of the the trouble is at Category:Eons and Category:Eras. But here is the thing, would you rather have 3 templates on each article or have 20 unused templates. You guys seem to prefer having 20 unused templates . Each page that belonged to a category mentioned above had to have a graphical timeline or time and map on the top right corner, a template showing a eon/era subdivisons on the bottom ,and a collapsed template linking to all geological period pages.
Templates Geological eon and Eons graphical timeline is useful for showing how much of earths history the eon takes up. Template:Geological era shows how much the periods takes up of its era. Template:Geological period is useful for periods Triassic and younger and epochs Lower Triassic and younger for showing both 1 image and time. All 3 "Geological something templates" show the time in the color box . The template on top the main nav templates purpose is to show the eon/eras subdivisons without having to click show and read the blue cluttered text.
Macdonald-ross you always wanted to put the table templates to the bottom of the page on top of the main nav template, but I had to change format so it won't disturb the images that are over there. Then you decide to blow up your wish and get a new one saying only main nav template allowed and some edit war with me, which ended up over here to this topic ban proposal. This is the cause and effect chain, Why is that you have to blow up your old wish and get this wish up? 24.218.110.195 (talk) 01:13 29 June 2013 (UTC) 9:13pm 06/28/2013 EDT.
Again, why do we need 3 templates when the collapsed template links to "all geological period pages"? Chenzw  Talk  02:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to 24's question is simple: unused templates are not seen by the reader. And, yes, we now have a consensus on using the Geologic history template at the bottom in collapsed form (originally, we did not have any template on those pages). Like that it does not interfere with the text, but is available for those readers who wish to consult it. Basically, our pages are meant to be simple, and we make decisions by consensus. That's the way it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance in his answer. If they are unused, why must we use them? Why not put them up for deletion instead? From what I see, {{geologic history}} already does the job nicely. I don't know what point 24 is trying to drive across, but I do know that he is edit-warring on the geologic history template already. Chenzw  Talk  06:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. When we get some peace & quiet, we should look at deleting unused templates and blocking re-creation of those we definitely do not want to see again. In retrospect, I think the permission to import templates should be reserved to established users with a good track record. On geology, many were brought over, and there was no discussion with editors as to whether they were wanted or needed. We now see some of the consequences. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I was hesitant before, I'm convinced some sort of ban is needed after the last couple of days. There is relentless editing coming from 24 despite clear objections, and they're being without any explanation (not even in the edit summary) or communication with dissenting editors. More than a dozen articles have been switched to having two footer-style navboxes on top of each other - despite the issue being under discussion and a clear consensus against that glaring colour scheme. And they've been stripped of all dates so that there's suddenly less in common between all of the templates to choose from. In some cases, he's resorted to switching over the templates in the actual code instead of the articles where it's more likely to be seen, while the tabular templates have been unilaterally deprecated. Osiris (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macdonald-ross and User:Chenzw when you say "deleting templates and ban recreation ", I guess you don't care about the page Tertiary that had Template:Phanerozoic back on June 20. (There is a link to the page Tertiary back on June 20 in the history page listed as "6:42pm June 18 2013 EDT". The link is here (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tertiary&oldid=4462897)). User:Osiris I added the dates for all those templates execpt the Archaean one.
Oh and all you guys Category:Eons and Category:Eras is all those problems. Spanish Wikipedia put those footer-style with offical color templates on some of it's geological period categories (some have 2). The Germain Wikipedia geologic history article has an open template on the top right corner a little wider then Template:Proterozoic on May 26 (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Proterozoic&direction=next&oldid=4428016). The Dutch Wikipedia has a table template on the top right corner on each geological period article. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 15:01 29 June 2013 (UTC) 11:01am 06/29/2013 EDT.
I fail to see what you are driving at. You added the template {{Phanerozoic}} to the page Tertiary on June 18. Chenzw  Talk  15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did User:Chenzw. Here is the line in the History page of Tertiary "(cur | last) o 6:42pm, June 18 2013‎ 24.218.110.195 (talk)‎ . . (1,181 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Unofficial period to Phanerozoic template. The template includes it) (undo)". Macdonald-ross who puts a page wide footer template on the top if the article Pliocene. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 21:40 02 July 2013 (UTC) 5:40pm 07/02/2013 EDT.
Yes, you added the template, and you created the template, which we have already complained of being unsuitable. I don't see anything wrong with blocking re-creation if you persist, in spite of clear objections from other editors. Chenzw  Talk  03:52, 3 July 2013 (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.


Block guidelines

Greetings, fellow administrators! I was looking for some guidelines on blocking (exactly what merits a block, how long a block should be, etc.), but couldn't find any. Is there anything written about this? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) I know that WP:BLOCK is the blocking policy. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With time, you will develop a feeling for it: start with looking at cases of simple vandalism, which is just removing stuff/inserting nonsense. In most such cases, blocks of less than a day are probably useless; with every offense, double the block time. Spambots/Open proxies isually get indefinite time blocks; I try to bring blocks of 1-6 months to AN. Note that this does not apply to blocks that result from community ban discussions, as in such cases, the block only implements the community ban. --Eptalon (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is always easy to use a minimal block; with school ips and libraries for example, often an hour or two is more than enough as the individual user has moved on. It can also depend on the nature of the problem - if I have to waste time oversighting an edit, then I usually block for a week or two. Sometimes it can also depend on how tired I am, so vandals are lucky if they get me at the start of an editing session, because around 11.00pm I can be tired and cranky and someone must pay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdownunder (talk • contribs)
The most common length duration is to escalate with every block. If you see they have never been blocked before start with 24 or 31, then on the second 48 or 72, then on the third a week, two weeks, a month, three months, six months, a year. With schools as Peter mentions you can go with minimal blocks but if you see it has been happening a lot at the same school I definitely recommend cranking up the length and adding the school block template to the talk page. You tend to get a lot of repeat vandalism from schools. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Module imports

I need en:Module:Infobox and en:Module:HtmlBuilder imported for use in an upcoming {{Infobox road}} rewrite. The modules will not be used to replace {{Infobox}} without community consensus. They will be used only for Infobox road. Thank you. -happy5214 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess. I imported the latest revision, if you want the full history let us know. Osiris (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24 again

As predicted, user 24.218.110.195 has returned, making dozens of changes, almost none of which improve the pages from the perspective of our readers. Almost all the changes are extra details brought over from English wiki, including an obsession with exact numbers (20.03 or 2.886 million years is quite silly. Instead 20 and 2.9 would be sufficiently accurate for almost all purposes). Part of this is ignorance: he doesn't know that scientists only use precise figures when they make a practical difference. But really, the reason the figures are exact is because he finds them on English wiki. He continues to work as though we are English wiki, and ignores the special needs of out audience. Reference sections put in repeat information already on the page, and so on.

These changes often take a lot of time to assess, because amongst them might be one or two useful changes. However, that time is my time, and there is a limit to how much time I can give to such a pointless and soul-destroying activity. I mentioned before how he never signed on to a full belief in our remit, and instead he has been trying to make our pages look like English wiki. He needs to be restrained, because his work runs counter to our general intentions. What is nore, he knows this, and has been editing in such a way as to be difficult to characterise as simple vandalism. Nevertheless, it is truly disruptive. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%.
And I have to wonder: We don't require people to register to edit, but usually if they are going to edit actively they do register. Why doesn't 24 register already? StevenJ81 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody needs to close that topic-ban proposal above. The IP has now been blocked twice for multi-page edit warring. A topic ban might ensure they stay out of trouble and into more productive editing. The suggestion of banning them from geology-related pages is the best way to go unless disruption spreads into other areas. Osiris (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I have third party users under my name and I need to know what I need to do I would like charges pressed I'm gonna take my phone now to AT&T to get them to look at this please get back with me Jennifer robertson — This unsigned comment was added by 76.107.122.35 (talk • changes) on 13:23, 17 May 2013‎.

Proposed community ban for Aaqib

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
  • Result: Banned indefinitely by the community. Aaqib may appeal the ban 1 year from now, but no earlier. Clear consensus to ban. A few dissenting editors objected to a ban, believing that guiding said editor may be more beneficial, but the responses by the rest of the community indicate the community's unwillingness to tolerate further disruption. Furthermore, dissenting editors have made no mentorship proposal; in fact, the last constructive comment on this ban proposal was made on 7 July, 4 days before this proposal was closed. Aaqib may consider contributing to the Sinhala Wikipedia or Tamil Wikipedia, where the language barrier may be less of a problem. However, it should be noted that what happens on other wikis is none of this community's business, and there is no obligation nor reason for us to interfere in the affairs of other wikis. Chenzw  Talk  12:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaqib (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

As I believe most editors are aware, it has now come to a point where the continued presence of the above editor is disruptive to normal wiki operations and a huge expenditure of editorial resources. As such, I propose an indef block for the Aaqib, endorsed by the community, with appeal(s) possible no less than 1 year from the start of this ban. The 1 year is there in the hope that some competency will be gained after then. Chenzw  Talk  04:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support indefblock - I'm sorry, Aaqib, but I feel that after teaching you many of the same things multiple times to no avail, you have learned nothing. After your earlier 31-hour block for rudeness, you almost immediately requested rollback and were rude to other editors once that request was declined. You seem to assume that all IP edits are automatically unconstructive, despite myself and many other editors telling you you're reverting stuff that isn't vandalism. The bad just seems to outweigh the good. TCN7JM 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my views are known on this. Support. Goblin 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor![reply]
  • Support Indefblock Sorry Aaqib, but I will have to say yes. You started of better but you got worse. I checked "your deleted comments" and saw you being rude to 4 users just because they didn't want to give you the rollback feature. I helped you, you helped me but then you started to get rude and not listen to what other users taught you (as TCN7JM said above) I thought that it was time for an indefblock but I wasn't sure. I still don't understand why, all of a sudden you got rude. Why do you think that using 10 exclamation marks will help users to understand? I will have to support the indefblock. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ban type discussions are usually held on this page. Its up to the community to watch this page or not. (but I am sure there have been exceptions so don't go wasting time digging up diffs. :P) -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There are two issues I see here: We have an editor who is willing to contribute, but his contributions entail a high workload. This wiki needs ediors, more than anything. So instead of keeping a willing contributor from contributing, what we should consider is "guiding" that contributor for some time. Instead of a community ban, we should look at imposing "topic bans" to guide the editor.--Eptalon (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That brings up the theory of net positive or net negative. If we add an editor that people have to spend time guiding thus taking them away from activities that improve the wiki are we really improving the wiki by adding that editor. What needs to be looked at is, do they add enough value to the wiki to offset the value they take away from the wiki in other editors lost time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am OK (I am retiring). And Jasper Dang, who is Draubb? --Aaqib 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to sum up, this is my first wiki I have ever been to. And I usually am easily mad. --Aaqib 13:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Can you explain this then? Chenzw  Talk  15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my cousin's actions. --Aaqib 15:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe this is too late ... in principle I am on Eptalon's side here, and oppose a formal ban. My question would be, though, synthesizing with DJSasso's response: would there be a chance to keep this on the net benefit side of the ledger? Based on Aaqib's self-description, I wonder if a year or two vacation wouldn't help all sides.StevenJ81 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I am really sorry if I was disruptive. I didn't know, (I have been here less than 1 month and 15 days). I gave so many awards. I really am crying now. Goodbye. (Never commenting again) --Aaqib 13:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the hope that you are still reading, even if not commenting:
I can't speak for anyone else. I can tell you that I never, for a minute, felt your intentions were bad. You did not want to be disruptive. But you do need to listen to what other editors try to teach. And even if you didn't mean to be disruptive, you were. So that's how we got to where we are now.
If you think that at some point in the future you can come back and contribute constructively, by all means do that. This is an open community, not a closed club. Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't try because I will get banned. --Aaqib 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaquib, the point of this discussion is to find a solution we can all live with. I know I was the first to say that a community ban is not the only solution, and that personally, I would prefer not to ban you. Before this discussion is over, no one is going to ban you, and likely you will also not be blocked.--Eptalon (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he posts private information again that compromises himself. He will be blocked immediately if I see it again for his own protection. I already had to oversight it once in this discussion. And I know someone else has had to do it recently as well. However, that is not a comment on the topic of a ban. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Yes, of course, but blockable behaviour would also lead to a block with any other editor....--Eptalon (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will still be active still. --Aaqib 14:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He is being uncivil to us again. After his 31 hour block expired, he reverted one of my edits and used a bad word in the edit summary. It is in the revision history of Cambrian. He and User:Macdonald-ross wanted (to revert to) smaller images on the geology pages, even through they were small enough that it gets blurred on my screen. I support a 2 month ban of Aaqib (to September 4). When you are mad on this wiki , you really should not use bad words (and including very strong words on simple wikis) on edit summaries. He has gone everywhere on this wiki which is why so many users has commented here. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 15:11 July 4, 2013 (UTC) 11:11am 07/04/2013 EDT.
I was not mad, and how is heck a bad word? --Aaqib 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Heck" is not a bad word here. Individual users may think it is, and that's their right, but on Wikipedia it is an acceptable word. Of course, it would have been better to explain what the problem was instead of just saying "what the heck". --Auntof6 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word is a bad word in edit summaries to me. Users still commenting here every 3-10 minutes has glued me on this page for 30 minutes. There should be a 1 hour break of replying here so I can leave this page and move on to my Independence day stuff. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 15:38 July 4, 2013 (UTC) 11:38am 07/04/2013 EDT.
To you --Aaqib 15:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Does not appear to listen. Is a drain on community time and resources from those who are more involved on the community side. Does not understand some key concepts. Has misinterpreted community actions in a light that makes himself look better, which suggests he does not fundamentally understand the problems he creates and the behavior will not likely be modified anytime soon. Not seeing a net worth content creation wise. --LauraHale (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I really want to help you Aaqib, and not lose you to a community ban, I propose you stick to the following rules, over the next six months (that is: End of 2013):
    1. You don't post any personal info, anywhere on the wiki. This includes your real name, your age, or where you live. This is for your own protection. The internet does not forget.
    2. If you speak to other editors, be polite, and do not WP:BITE them. If you don't agree with them talk about the subject you don't agree with, and not about the people who propose this subject. Also try to write the edit summaries in such a way that they do not insult other editors.
    3. This is about creating an encyclopedia; while edits to user talk pages and community discussion is fine, you should focus most of your efforts to creating and improving articles.
    4. Much like the other editors, you try to stick to the rules and policies we have. --Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a suggestion along the same lines on Aaqib's talk page. No reply so far, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem here: this is too vague to be a mentorship/probation. The above conditions are all part of our standard rules and policies (except #3, maybe), and even #3 is virtually unenforceable. How are we to determine the "maximum level" of interactions with editors through their user talk pages and other community discussion pages? The above rules have all been violated already, and that's also one of the reasons for the existence of this thread. Chenzw  Talk  16:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a couple of other things. One is the suggestion I made on Aaqib's talk page, that he not revert IP editors' changes without checking with another editor first. The other is that he stop deleting from his talk page, but archive instead. I know that editors are allowed to do pretty much what they want with their talk pages, but I think the deletions show bad faith and we could reasonably make this a requirement of a probation. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I appreciate the kind gesture of some editors by offering to mentor Aaqib (and I believe some others do too). However, in light of the more extraordinary circumstances over here, I think I need to bring up a few more things to set the context:

  • As Jasper Deng mentioned, the editor has been involved in a meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry case on en:Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Draubb. I find it hard to believe Aaqib's claim that this wiki (Simple English Wikipedia) is his first wiki. Details are available in my userspace on Meta.
  • The editor hails from Sri Lanka and claims to be living in the U.S. (from his user page). Sinhala and Tamil are two of the most common languages in Sri Lanka. From contributions, it has been more and more evident that he does not understand the English language sufficiently to take part in community discussions. More crucially, there have been occasions when editors have not been able to understand him, and vice-versa.
  • The editor does not appear to be fully aware of the consequences of providing private information. There has been at least one such edit oversighted. Regardless of the success of a future mentorship proposal (or even this ban proposal), if there is continued revealing of personal information which may end up bringing harm to him, he may be blocked as a preventative measure. (see similar case and WP:CHILD)
  • Several editors have been reviewing his contributions on a daily basis. These editors include, but are not limited to, Auntof6, Mh7kJ, and myself. Some of the editors may have even given up already.
  • From Wikipedia:COMPETENCE#The_bottom_line: "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly—but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent."

Wikipedia is a wiki, which anyone can edit. It is in the belief that by encouraging contributions from all, we can continue to promote the growth and development of free content. On this wiki, we further welcome non-native speakers of English in the hope that we allow the broadening of perspectives and allow them to learn more through the (simpler) articles on this wiki. However, it seems to be the case that Aaqib does not know enough English to be able to make him understood and edit articles properly. This is exacerbated by his personality which he admits that he "usually am easily mad". If he has problems working as part of the wiki's community, he may need to head for another Wikipedia in his native language, where editors are better able to engage him; if he has problems with English, he may want to start by reading more content in English. Wikipedia is not therapy. Where there is disruption of the wiki, action must be taken, for "we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior". To quote from that same page: "Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the community to develop or enforce a plan that enables the editor to be successful." Thank you for reading.

By the way, things may have stagnated a bit here - if there are editors who wish to take up the role of Aaqib's mentor, it should be brought up here for community discussion. Chenzw  Talk  16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had other disruptive editors here who were allowed much more leeway. I've usually been in favor of blocking them sooner rather than later. In this case we seem to have moved very quickly from a 31 hour block to a indef/one year minimum for appeal. I would have liked to have seen an escalating series of blocks. Something like 31 hours, 1 week, 1 month, then indef to allow some cooling off time. Gotanda (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, just to settle, I have decided to revert pure vandalism for the next year or two. And start working on what Wikipedia is mainly the purpose of creation, articles!! --Aaqib 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I must emphasize the need for editors to act fast if they still want to propose a mentorship. For ease of readability, it would be good to create a level 3 heading to detail the proposed mentorship. Mentorship is not a "get out of jail free card" and must be agreed to by the editor and endorsed by the community. Pending no further activity on this thread, it will be closed on 11 July, one week after the initiation of this ban proposal. Chenzw  Talk  02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, now. If I make positive contributions such as reverting true vandalism and creating articles. Can those contributions change what other people think about me? Will they somehow, start appreciating my contributions? So far, I have created so many articles on Sri Lankan politicians and created a few important cats. Is this good? --Aaqib 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion really still ongoing? Can I remind some of our older contributors about the 'FastReverter' farce, which this seems to be turning into. Goblin 21:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

An admin has to decide. Is there an indefblock or not? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does my contributions affect this discussion? Because right now, it's pretty slow and no one has been discussing anything. (not being rude). Signed by --Aaqib 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The discussion is meant to end tomorrow (seven days after it started). If admins don't do anything by tomorrow I will leave a message on their talk page. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (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.

WP:VIP archival time

Recently some confusion has cropped up over how long we should be leaving reports intact on VIP - both those which are completed and those which have had additional comments assigned to them. Way back in the mists of time it was the case that if you blocked someone you'd revert the report, and if there was a comment it would normally be removed after a few hours. Later - but still with a fair bit of cloud hanging around - I'm sure we agreed that all reports (whether that be a block or 'other action) should have a comment attached to them and remain in place for 'a fixed time period' - which I believe was 24 hours. More recently, we seem to have entered a state of limbo where there is confusion as to what the appropriate course of action is - some revert, some keep. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way, although I believe that a clarification would be useful for all users, both those who report, those who deal with and those (like me) who clerk. Goblin 12:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ![reply]

That would be useful as there was an argument on my talk page about this. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I remove them as soon as they are acted upon. Only time I leave a comment is if I need a reply. Otherwise I say in my edit summary why I rejected it. So in that respect I don't think there should be any time to keep them around. I do think however that non-admins probably shouldn't be clearing them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I would agree with a non-admin clearing something (being that that's when I touch them) is either if a block has occurred and the blocking admin hasn't noticed the VIP report (does happen) or if a 'stale' reason is given when I'll remove them some time later if no further edits have taken place. Any other reason is, generally speaking, going to require admin intervention for whatever reason. Goblin 13:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
Only reason I say they shouldn't is that the list never really gets that long so it doesn't really need any clerking. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. With me it's just because it's something I've always been in the habit of checking. Anyway... Goblin 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

Bot requests

Hello, could someone please take a look at the requests? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso did and, gave you an answer on that page. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything requires you to comment on it Reception. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get another update please? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_43&oldid=7786164"