Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 40

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Large scale vandalism from dynamic UK-IP-addies

Hi simple community, Just a quick report from me as a global sysop. I came to your aide upon request from your community via the steward chat-channel and was given temporary blocking access because of my knowledge of cross-wiki vandalism and ranges. A person vandalised in high speed many userpages and talk pages so immediate measures were needed. The ranges 86.176.0.0/16 to 86.183.0.0/16 as well as 86.128.0.0/16 to 86.135.0.0/16 as well as 109.148.0.0/16 to 109.151.0.0/16 have been blocked now for 24 hours to prevent him/her from continuing. Rest assured - logged in users can still edit of course. I understood now other helpful people from the community are creating blocking filters to prevent future disruption. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made an abuse filter which *should* be able to block the entire range in one go if needed. I'm not sure if the extension allows for blocks over /16 ranges, but if this guy is back after 24 hours it would be worth trying. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Thanks to everyone for their help. :) Orashmatash (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When this vandal returns the following clicks done by a local sysop for 24 hours again will deal with matters:
MoiraMoira (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things a litte more accurate, problem users were in 86.181.251.0/24, 86.181.5.0/24, I have removed the block on the 86.181/16 in favour of the/22's. I will do similar things when I go check through the other ranges, and list my results here.--Eptalon (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

Continue from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 39#Hardcor :

It continues: Swagg Union Heroes, This Is Swag Team. Also Jude Enemy and socks are locked globally. πr2 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Cory Stunna, Crunk Music Enetrtainment. πr2 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may just want to start with Special:Contributions/Bigggggggg and delete everything there.. its all seems to be continuing unnotable self-promotion. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Littlemkifdjmdfsdffdfddf (talk · contribs) and 173.74.174.38 (talk · contribs) as well. One of them is actually even creating the pages with the QD tag already in place.. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swag Team Entertainment? Ally Rapper? πr2 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both from 166.147.64.75. Osiris (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I compiled a list of his articles here (I'm sure there are more...) at User:PiRSquared17/Sandbox2. πr2 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that Tidy Yung was just created by 166.147.64.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). πr2 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Swag Team by 166.147.64.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) looks copied almost directly from en:Take Care. πr2 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's Swagg Union from the same IP. πr2 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swag Team, Basic (entertainer), Basic discography (copied/modified from en:Drake discography), Swagg Union Heroes (group), Crown The King (copied from en:Take_Care I think), BeastMode (also from en:Take_Care, repeatedly recreated). All from Ghhfddfhdf (talk · contribs). πr2 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading on Special:SpecialPages

On Special:SpecialPages, I see you have a heading called "Recent changes and logs". Since you call Special:RecentChanges "New changes", shouldn't the header of that section be "New changes and logs"? Od Mishehu (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there is no way to change the text on pages in the Special: namespace. I looked through the MediaWiki: namespace and nothing came up there. Orashmatash (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here: MediaWiki:Specialpages-group-changes. Goodvac (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Since it seems fairly non-controversial, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi because the article be in quik deletion? plis remove the template of the article ,thanks, all help with the article is welcome,hug Carliitaeliza (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at Hugo (film). Chenzw  Talk  15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now at Hugo (movie). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent edits from blocked user

I believe blocked user User:Carliitaeliza has been posting under IP addresses, asking for help about being blocked. See these diffs: [1], [2] (in that one, the poster states that she is Carliitaeliza), [3] (let me know if you'd like that one translated). I don't know what policy, if any, applies, but thought I'd report here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear block evasion. Goodvac (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One main issues with this is that the edits pointed out are almost valid. That is, the intent is acceptable (a user is certainly allowed to challenge being blocked as long as it is in a civil manner and we have have users here challenge their blocks or atleast deal with them civilly on en:wp by talk pages here (CM16 petitioning Alison for help dealing with matters on En:wp in a totally acceptable manner) but the target off the petition in this matter is an issue. It is one thing to hit the talk page of an admin/b'crat to make your case. And in this matter when part of it seems to be lack of language skills, there is a case to be made (yes or no on the outcome, it is an acceptable matter). The block reason is sound given the situation but the unblock deny validation is (no offence) a bit shifty. Block - being disruptive, Unblock? no - learn to speak the language. Better to point out that the user showed they could not comply to guidelines after being informed repeatedly and was being disruptive and non-helpful to the wiki. In all likelihood, the users inability to communicate in an manner that is understandable is an issue, but the actions that caused the block and the fact that nothing was done to correct those actions (on the users part) should be the key point. Should action be taken to deal with this now? Its annoying at best to deal with dynamic IPs making minor issues like this that are likely best just to ignore rather than requiring a CU to investigate what side-effects the needed actions to stop this might curtail. Ie. range blocking is needed to stop it and it is best to have a CU verify that would not have a negative affect on valid users but at the same time that can be seen as the CU peeking at issues that didn't warrant looking at and invade privacy of legitamate users for no reason and ... it gets complicated. And all that for a couple random unblock comments that are best just ignored at this point (if it continues, action may be needed but for 1-2 comments its probably best to just ignore) - Range blocking R serius bizness. --Creol(talk) 06:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same user appears to have been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia as well. Can someone proficient in the language take a look? Chenzw  Talk  09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, I locked this user for (only) 24 hours because it was going on vandalising and there were no local sysops around, please review my block in accordance with local policies. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. I'm sure he'll be caught again if he vandalizes after the block.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of RFP

I unprotected RFP earlier because it had long term protection applied that was no longer needed. And, it appears to be causing issues with certain folk posting to the subpages. My collegue User:Djsasso objected here and requested that a consensus was needed for this action. My response prior to seeing his reversion of my action is here. Since he had to log off before he started the discussion, as we all should do when reverting, as a courtesy to my friend and collegue I went ahead and posted here. I'm not here to discuss reversion, I'm here to ask permission to unprotect the page. Thank you for considering my request. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should have it unprotected. We should investigate the problem with the rights cascading, not unprotecting it. An IP cannot run for admin, rollback etc so should not need to modify this page at any time. I'd say keep protected. Normandy 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted was simply that I had clearly already stated I was unsure that it should be removed in my comment on the Rfa...since I had objected basically that meant it was already controversial. Anyways the reason I hadn't removed it myself and thought it should be discussed is that the circumstances have not changed any. It is still a very highly viewed page that is still likely to be prone to vandalism. I am completely fine if the community decides to remove the protection. I just thought it shouldn't be done in a willy nilly manor. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible impersonation attempt

I just noticed Drmies (talk · contribs) in the new changes log as a "new user account," not "account created automatically," which seems to indicate this isn't the same Drmies on the English Wikipedia. All edits from the contributions link were imported from the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them to make a confirmation edit on the English Wikipedia. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given this and this, I think it's safe to say it's fine. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, in light of the above diff from Drmies, it looks like somebody should probably block/keep an eye on 122.178.112.184 (talk · contribs). Osiris (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention if there is no SUL on the account people are allowed to have the same name on this wiki as someone on another wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey folks, thanks for the oversight. I just clicked on a confirmation link, but I'd be happy to make a typical Drmies edit... Drmies (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, how's this? Sounds like the kind of thing this Drmies person would do, haha. Hey HurricaneFan, good to see you here. Osiris, "Did You Know...that Drmies once played keyboards (badly) in a metal band called Osiris?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, as far as that IP is concerned, there's a history there, which was indicated to me after their actions on Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu Vellalar), on the English wiki. Click on the history and see the different but similar IPs at work, which have apparently bled over into your neck of the woods. I suggested to Sitush that they figure out if there's socking going on from way back when, and to possibly inquire about a range block. I'm going to block pretty much on sight on the regular wiki. If anything exciting happens, you can drop me a line on my regular wiki talk page. Keep the faith, and Osiris, don't let me great DYK suggestion go to waste! Drmies (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Sitush says it's this one. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll keep an eye out for changes on India-related pages over the next few days, and let you know if anything you don't know about pops up. I'll get right on that DYK— I'm sure we can get an article going Osiris (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template

  • The cascading protection used on Template:Convert is protecting a lot of unrelated templates from non-sysop edits (including template pages that haven't yet been created on this wiki). I realise it might be a bit tedious, but individual protection is a lot less messy.
  • The above would also get rid of this minor error, from when templates protected elsewhere are brought over but not protected here (either protect the pages or remove the template).
  • There are also two protected edit requests on its talk page. Osiris (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of an unrelated template being protected? -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The full list

In the case of the last two, it's preventing those pages from being created by any non-sysop. Osiris (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of disabling cascading protection and individually doing it if completely unrelated templates are being fully protected. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of those should be protected....the solution to the last couple is for me to create them right now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like one is a redirect and the other shouldn't really be on the page in the first place and has been removed. So currently the cascade is protecting exactly what it intended to protect in a less messy way. However in saying that if an admin wants to take the time to do it individually knock yourself out...just makes things harder later if we decide we want to remove protection from them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that all of those above should be or need to be protected—some of them (e.g., magnitude template) are outdated and need improving. But that's a secondary issue.
The convert template is unfinished—some of the subtemplates need to be edited (including the /doc page), especially when new combinations are created. Changes are being made and new features are being added all the time on enwiki and should be here too when required. Take a look at the redlinks in the /doc page for example— any of those or any other combination that would call the parent template cannot be created by non-sysops. I realise it's a lot of tedious work, but it's preventing improvement/expansion and it's a lot more messy. Osiris (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: protect the main template and any of the above-listed templates that need to be protected (doc, precision, mboxes) individually. Most of the subtemplates shouldn't be fully protected (semi is another matter)—those that should will already have {{pp-template}} on them and therefore appear in here. So it's about 80 pages... Osiris (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see its preventing anything. Most active users here are admins so can still edit them, those that are not can easily ask an admin to make the edit for them if there is something that needs fixing. Anything related to convert and could potentially show up as vandalism across hundreds of pages should indeed be protected. We have in the past gotten a lot of that kind of hidden vandalism that affects hundreds/thousands of pages so they definitely need to be protected. The subtemplates are probably the most important ones to be protected. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are we the only project that protects them? On enwiki and other, much larger, projects where changes affect many many times the number of pages than on ours, these templates are free for autoconfirmed editors to improve. Let's overlook the fact that cascading protection shouldn't really be used on templates— vandalism to obscure conversion subtemplates is pretty out-of-the-ordinary (even more so on a project of our size). I appreciate you doing those imports, but there are hundreds more (not counting updates to those we already have); the /doc page could also use examples relevant to our project. I'm not expecting you to do any of that, I'm simply pointing out that our editors should be able to improve these templates when and where they see fit. Some editors improve articles, some improve templates. Osiris (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are a smaller project with less editors to catch vandalism as it occurs. On en there are tens if not hundreds of editors at any given moment watching every new edit with things like Huggle. Vandalism is usually caught there within moments. Here there are gaps sometimes where vandalism doesn't get caught as quick. We are usually pretty good but it does happen from time to time. We have had vandalism to obscure templates in the past which has taken a long time to figure out what was causing it because it was on a sub template of a sub template of a sub template. Believe me I see what you are saying, I just don't think the benefit outweighs the risk when a request to an admin for a change takes all of two seconds. As for the hundreds more that are needed, we've always taken the view that we don't move convert sub-templates over until they are needed. (ie no point having them if they aren't being used) And anything not here already as long as its not linked from the doc page of convert can actually be created still as they aren't linked from the page so aren't protected yet. And really if we don't have it here it shouldn't be on the doc page to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed that today with your imports. I realise you're unwilling, but you suggested above that if I can get another admin to replace the cascade with individual protection, you wouldn't object. Does that still stand? Osiris (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I do not care if someone does it. As long as stuff is still protected. I may even get around to doing it myself...I figured its not that big a deal. Just a lot of work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to ST. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy

Resolved.

Just curious. Someone mentioned a while ago that I could talk to someone... 'devs' or something... about reinserting an email address into my old account User:Kennedy to enable me to go through 'forgotten password' to re-enable my access. For the life of me I can't remember who said it, or if it is possible or who I should talk to. Anyone know if it is possible? Normandy 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% but I think maybe that you could ask a system administrator. Not sure if they can do it or not, but they're the closest people I can think of that may be able to do it. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ok with this. No person should bypass normal security measures. Nomandy, this is not towards you, only the idea. Jon@talk:~$ 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They have been known to do it for people that lose their passwords but I am not sure who they are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They" are the system administrators. -195.194.111.196 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that...I meant a specific name. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon; why? Its my account. Normandy 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The password recovery option was designed to be a 100% gurentee that the person retrieving a new password is the actual owner. Without any kind of public/private key authentication, or some kind of cert pki, something to verify you are who you say you are. I won't accept verification from another untrusted party. I don't think the sysadmins should either.
It is a questionable security practice all together. Jon@talk:~$ 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you believe I am not Kennedy? Normandy 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is possible to get this done, only a trusted person needs to verify that the account is really yours, which shouldn't be much of a problem in your case. -Barras (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. Do you know how I would go about it? Who do I speak to? Normandy 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If the logs are still there, any checkuser should be able to verify both accounts were created from the same IP, or perhaps class C subnet (i.e. same company network). Once this is done, I guess any person with shell access should be able to reset your password to one of your choice. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it for Eptalon to do since he knows what it is he is looking for. I am not sure how to look for that info that far back to when the account was created. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages from user Racepacket's user space


Protection

There seems to have been an attack on Electronic Arts‎. With no immediately available administrator, it was asked of the m:stewards to step in, as this considered an emergency. I semi-protected the page for 12 hours, and I am leaving this note here for there to be a record for local administrators. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also blocked 207.6.50.74 for 3 hours for similar reasons. -- Avi (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction needed

I'm sorry. My IP adress was revealed when I created the article United States Navy SEALs without logging on. Could someone withhold my IP adress, please? Shakinglord (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirects

Noticed there are a number of broken redirects struck out, but they've been there for ages. I thought it was ones already done but actually on closer inspection they are IW redirects such as [5] [6] [7] [8] usw. Not wanting to QD, do we just change to a soft redirect template? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave em but you could change it to the soft direct template if they bother you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Requesting access here for use of AWB. I was originally removed from the list when admin's did not need to be listed there so now I'm not authorized. Plan on dealing with a couple minor annoyances (film -> movie, ==External Links==, American - United States|American) --Creol(talk) 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, happy editing. sonia 08:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 200+ film->movie down, 700 more to look at then the other groups.. oi this is fun stuff here. --Creol(talk) 12:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Youareretarded

Resolved. Blocked by Tdxiang. -Orashmatash (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Youareretarded (talk · contribs)'s username is acceptable... --Bmusician 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Translated" pages from en-wiki

User:Shakinglord has been creating a number of pages with the edit summary "make page translated from english wiki. Hope it works out". For example, Underground Railroad. Is this sufficient attribution, or does a link and revision number to the en-wiki version need to be included in the edit summary too? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice would be to add this template to the articles talk page: {{Enwp based | url= (add full address here) }}. The full address should be obtained by using the permanent link from the left side tool box. This will put the full page and version address into the address bar in the browser window which is then copied and pasted into the template. See Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology for an example of how it works.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'll start adding attributions to my articles immediatley. Shakinglord (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CRRaysHead90


PacificWarrior101

This new user appears to be adding incorrect information or fringe ideas to various articles relating to ethnic groups. His edits have caused problems on here and enwp. He appears to have had a disagreement with several editors over there, and has now brought the disputed content to add here instead. Osiris (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be occupied with articles relating to the South East Pacfic, espicially the Malays. Perhaps a topic ban should be enacted. Shakinglord (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that warrants a block currently, but he does need to look into citing references to substantiate his claims. Chenzw  Talk  16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are for long-term offenders, and agree with Chenzw that there's nothing to warrant a block. The problems with his edits have evidently been explained to him by several users on enwp. Adding the disputed information here instead is not appropriate. Osiris (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry....i've added MANY sources to many posts lacking citations in Southeast Asia. ive cleaned up some unnecessarry crap on Nalays as well. i explain myself on my talk page PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101[reply]

Redaction Needed

One of my freinds apparently thought it was funny to post my first name on my talk page. Could that be redacted and the vandal(s) (so far just User: BigDaddyCactus, but i'm sure there will be more) blocked? I know this guy personally and I know he will not contribute to Wikipedia. Shakinglord (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a warning. On the non simple English wikipeida, Shakinglord has a history of claiming actions of friends which appear to be untrue. You may want to see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord/Archive before spending a lot of time with them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on that, but there isn't anything of substance in the post by BigDaddyCactus so there shouldn't be a problem in redacting it as a precaution. Osiris (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem with that. Was really suggesting you may want to investigate further and consider blocking Shakinglord and anyone else involved as well as removing the content. Seems clear their stories are hard to believe with the history, as you agree here. But choose my words carefully. Did not want to come across as someone from another wiki telling you to block someone else solely because of their activity in my wiki. Or make claims or suggestions which I would need to defend. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for continuing the same behaviour which got him banned on en which was sockpuppeting. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a bunch of his socks have just turned up on en-wiki as well. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. Shakinglord appears to be a troll, starting threads about himself and baiting people into investigating his own bad behaviour. Who's time is that worthless? Osiris (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I feel it might be a good idea for an admin to take a run through the list of 203 users with the rollback tool. Several are retired, long gone and even banned.

Also, as it keeps getting missed, this needs closing. Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this awhile ago and it was felt it wasn't a tool we should remove if people go inactive. It causes no danger. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, understood. And the other issue is still unresolved? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am involved so I can't do anything about it. But I am guessing there isn't enough discussion to really make a call on it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we're closing it as no consensus it would be good for an admin to do so. Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Could someone please protect the following pages?

They've been protected on enwp because of disruptive editing, so the perp has come over here instead. Persistent copyright violations. No point in blocking the IPs, since it seems to jump every few hours. Osiris (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  11:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Thanks. Going to sleep now. Osiris (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Can I please be added to the registered users list for AWB? At the moment, I need it for fixing coordinate formatting here and replacing deprecated parameters here and here. Osiris (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you, however the request page for this is here. -Barras talk 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
! The talk page! Duh! Looked everywhere but. Thanks, Barras. Osiris (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flood flag

Could someone give me the flood flag? I'm clearing out a maintenance category and fear I've been flooding RC. -- An example diff -- Osiris (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dome, please post a message when you are done. --Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Osiris (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Osiris is finished flooding. Osiris (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag broken

Hello fellow admins,

please note that the 'flood permission' (flag) does not hide edits of the respective user in the recent changes log. A workaround is using the bot flag. I have not yet reported an error, awaiting independent confirmation of this problem. --Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's my fault. Am I supposed to log out of AWB and then back in again after receiving the flood flag? I made 2 non-AWB edits on Firefox (a QD tag with twinkle) and they didn't show, but all the AWB edits did. After you gave me the bot flag, the AWB edits continued to show up. Until I logged out of AWB and then back in; now it's working fine. Osiris (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse a non-admin for answering, but yes, the flood flag takes effect the next time you log in after it is set. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! *slap self* My bad. Osiris (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It is an AWB issue, you have to set it before you log into AWB otherwise you have to log out and back in for it to work. It is a long known issue. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This problem occurs because MediaWiki requires "&bot=1" passed in order for an edit to be recognised as a bot edit, even if an account is flagged. AWB retrieves your user information once upon login and caches it for the rest of the session, thus it will not recognise the new bot/flood (flood does work) status halfway through the AWB session. Chenzw  Talk  12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user needs to be made aware of the policies on privacy and user pages. The page has gone beyond WP:UP#NOT; the names of her family members should definitely be deleted. Osiris (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed and deleted the inappropriate revisions and left the user a note. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Orashmatash, although I think you missed some revisions. Osiris (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just noticed. Deleted those also. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. That should be it fixed now. Let me know if there are any others. -Orashmatash (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's done it again, both on her userpage and on her talk page cymru.lass (talk)(changes) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure its not actually her. I removed it again...if she puts it back give her a final warning...then I say block. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable username?

Resolved.

New user User:Fjuck off -- OK or not? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks. -Orashmatash (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QD

Anyone know why Militarism 1 world war isn't showing up in the list of QD'd pages? It was QD tagged on 6 Feb 12 by Tegel but isn't coming up on the cat:

Any ideas? Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some obscure bug (or an issue with our QD template). Purging the cache didn't help. Chenzw  Talk  16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely a cache issue, there is more than one place where you have to purge sometimes if things don't get updated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was purging the cache too. Just hope there aren't others. DJ, did you manage to get it showing on the tree by purging another page? Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw had already deleted it so it was too late. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

Requesting flood flag to clear out a maintenance category. Osiris (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you are going to use AWB, I suggest you log out (if you have already logged in to AWB) and then log in to AWB. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished flooding. Banebdjed (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates to protect

Resolved.

If someone has some extra time, the following all have {{pp-template}} on them, so I assume they need to be protected indefinitely.

They are not protected by the cascading protection on Template:Convert. Osiris (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh! ;) Thanks! Osiris (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first two (top left) are still unprotected. The rest are fine. Osiris (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got them. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

Meanwhile, we're making great headway on this mission. Big thanks to everyone who's been helping out! Osiris (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for bringing this to notice. :) Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a quandry

Got a problem here and as it was caused by an admin action, I post it here. I had a tab open working on a copy of an article for the satelite/cable television network Disney XD. It wasn't a full transwiki translation, just a small expansion of the existing article here. The problem was that the article was tagged for quick deletion because it was an obvious advertisement (g11). The article consisted of the en:wp inforbox and a brief statement about the network (sat/cable, owned by Disney/ABC), a comment on some of its programming (basically giving its style of programming) and the networks it replaces. While there was not a lot of info, I could easily argue there was no real one sided POV push that often defines advert articles. But anyway, an admin felt it was a proper reason and the article was deleted. (The validity of which is another issue that isn't part of this) And that brings up the issue. User talk:Creol/Disney XD is the cleaned up version of the article I had working in the tab. I do not see how it can be an advert and should be acceptable for a stub on the topic, but I do see how it is now totally in violation of policy to post it in main space as it has been made impossible to attribute the base edits it was written from due to the deletion. It is only in a very small part based on the English article (and much of that bit could just as easily be attributed to TV Guide or a host of sources that list programming info) and mostly based on the information provided by a user whose edits where deleted as advertising and can no long be attrib'ed.

So the issue - Tag it for QD since it now clearly can not be validly used without being a copyright violation? Even keeping it in the userspace for now could technically be seen as copyvio since all attribution has been deleted and no longer exists. --Creol(talk) 05:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, I should make a comment. Your rewrite of the article is quite acceptable as a stub. The only thing in common between the dleted version and your new version is the copied infobox. To deal with the attribution issue there are several things that could be done. The QD could be reverted and the new version copy pasted into it. Or a an attribution could be made on the talk page. Or the template saying the article was based on the En article (or part thereof) could be added to the talk page. My deletion was mainly an info box copied from enwiki, the name of a couple of programs, and a ref to what appeared to be a possibly non-reliable source.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that needs to be done to fix attribution is to move it to mainspace and then undelete the deleted revisions which will merge them back into the article history. (Which I have now done) -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of User Rights from User:Purplebackpack89 Blocked and Bannned User

Resolved. No real need to remove the rights seeing that the user cannot use the flags anyway... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Administrators, need to inform that this user User:Purplebackpack89 has been blocked Indefinitely and banned from Simple Wikipedia as per this [9] and [10] . And indefinitely blocked and banned users are always stripped any user rights if they have (of all types). I kindly request the administrators to remove the rights from the said account, as they can be given again if and when the user decides to return to Simple English Wikipedia after their banned time has expired, if unblock request has been has been approved and the user is trusted with these rights to use them. There is no use keeping such accounts with any user rights. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware that every wiki has different ways of handling things. On simple we don't tend to strip such rights when they are blocked or banned because the tools would still not be able to be used and as such it does not actually harm to the wiki to leave them on the user. A common mistake many people make coming here is that they assume we have all the same "rules" as en.wiki and we have many that are very different. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i understood your message Djsasso, and know that on every wiki the things are handled differently, but i don't understand that why would any user account that has been banned and blocked indefinitely be allowed to keep user rights. As you see, if some user who has been banned and blocked indefinitely and was an Administrator or Bureaucrat or CheckUser, etc. would obviously have their rights removed immediately. But when other users will search for people in the user list for users having the required rights rights and that user account being blocked will cause inconvenience to other editors and in turn waste time and energy. Also there isn't any valid reason given anywhere as to why should indefinitely blocked users be allowed to keep any user rights. Most of the times the rights are removed when a user is blocked indefinitely and this user has both been blocked indefinitely and banned. And anyways as i said above, the rights can be restored if and when the user returns and appeals the block after the ban time, if the administrators will approve the unblock and if the user can be trusted to use them again. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we would remove admin etc because a user who is blocked or banned can still use those tools to harm the wiki. Rollback and patroller do not have the same potential for damage. There is simply no need to add a layer of bureaucracy to things to have to remove and re-add rights. Since the block/ban had nothing to do with the abuse of those tools he is still authorized to use them should he ever return. Removing them just to remove them is adding insult to injury in most cases, as such they have been left on the user. It is a rare day on a wiki this size that anyone is going to search those user lists for anything anyways. We have a whoping 20 active users I believe so its not something that many people would ever do so the addition of a couple of people who are blocked showing up in the list is not ever going to waste much time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behavior on Main Page

On Firefox, I see a normal Main Page. On Chrome (v. 17.0.963.79 Mac OS X) I see a red link "Main Page/Article 8" under Selected Articles. If I click that link, I go to "Changing Main Page/Article 8". It appears I can edit it, but I don't want to mess things up any further. Preview showed a test edit, but I did not save it. Something strange is happening. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange. The selected article rotation system works by automatically going through the pages on Category:Selected articles and transcluding them, but one VGA was demoted. I think they may have to be moved back so that the numbering is correct. I'll keep looking into it. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary fix instated until a permanent fix can be found. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that they're in order? Can't you just redirect it to the latest one and delete /Article 36? Osiris (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting it to the latest one would mean that the same article would appear two days in a row. I don't understand why I would delete /Article 36; that is a redirect to WP:Very good articles/Saturn (planet) which is still a VGA. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Very good articles/Saturn (planet) is the latest one. Osiris (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get what you were saying now. I thought you meant the article that was supposed to appear tomorrow. Done, I think we've found a permanent fix. Good work! -Orashmatash (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should've been a bit clearer. ;) Osiris (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gotanda (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popups broken

Navigation popups are broken. Popups don't look right.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned. There's nothing we can do about it locally since our Navigation Popups is loaded from ENWP. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They work fine on enwiki.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its mostly a case of we just copy their code but don't always have all the backend templates and css implemented that they do. So things like popups here tends to be a "As Is" situation unless someone wants to take on the monumental task of rewriting all of our backend settings and finding all of the templates it might use and updating them all. So yes they work on en.wiki because they were written for en.wiki but they weren't written for simple. Someone just copied it over to get as much use out of it as we can. But we don't have the necessary people to go through fixing it all to make it work here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They also work on meta, frwiki, and MediaWiki.org.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, every wiki has different css and templates etc. Those wiki's might have made sure they all match up. We have not. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did I mention that they worked some time ago (~1 or 2 months) on browsers except IE?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was brought up on Simple Talk back in February and covered by Bugzilla:34480 . It was looked into and found that nothing could/would be done about it. --Creol(talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed this after the Monday Night Comeback issue was resolved. However, User:GoblinBot4 still gives me issues. It gave me 3 warnings about vandalism, just because the quote from Dennis Green that I used had "bullshit" in it. It's not attacking others, like it said, but it's just part of what he said. I even tried censoring it, but it still said that I was attacking others. ZappaOMati (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a tolerance issue with new users.. It let me make the edits without reverting. Just ignore it if you can.--Creol(talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when adding quotes, it's a good idea to include a reference for them, especially if it could potentially be controversial or inflammatory. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoblinBot4 is coded to revert edits by non-autoconfirmed users which match the heuristics. Basically the part of the quote which said "bullshit" matched a pattern. Because ZappaOMati was not autoconfirmed when the edit was made, it was reverted. Just in case anyone was wondering. -Orashmatash is travelling (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most wanted articles: Shangrila?

On the New changes page, in the Page requests section, there is an entry for "Shangrila". I suspect this should be "Shangri-La", which is a fictional place, not a fictional person as listed on Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded/People. Can we remove "Shangrila" or change it to "Shangri-La"? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've taken it off the list and redirected Shangri-La to Lost Horizon (novel). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware this list will eventually just be replaced each time the page is updated with the meta version so making a fix on any of these pages means going to meta and making the fix there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the meta version? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/People --Creol(talk) 09:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin edit some user pages of a user who hasn't been around in a while?

I keep running into things like

  • redlinked categories that are only used on pages with the prefix "User:This lousy T-Shirt/" (see list here)
  • User pages from that same prefix that make up a good percentage of the articles in some existing categories (see Category:Parables of Jesus)

I question whether categories should usually be used on user pages, and these have been like this for some time. Would an admin be willing to edit those pages to eliminate these issues? Changes like [[Category:Xyz]] to [[:Category:Xyz]] would be helpful. I suppose I could just be bold and do it myself, knowing that it could be reverted if the user returns and objects, but I'd like to avoid getting my metaphorical hand slapped.

A side issue is that the prefix on those pages doesn't match any existing user, but there is User:This lousy T-shirt (lower-case "S" on "shirt"). Should those pages be renamed to match the user name? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are supposed to deactivate categories when they are in your userspace. Anyone can edit them so shouldn't take too long for you to run through with your AWB making that switch. And yes I would move them. I don't have time at the moment to make all the changes but if they aren't done when I get some time later I can do it. Otherwise anyone is able to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy to do it. I just didn't want to do something I shouldn't. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]