Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Edit Filter Manager Proposal[change source]

Some time ago, we had a discussion to create the user group of Edit Filter Manager. It would add the following rights: (Same as En.Wiki)

  • Add and remove arbitrary tags on individual revisions and log entries (changetags)
  • Create and (de)activate tags (managechangetags)
  • Enable two-factor authentication (oathauth-enable)
  • Manage edit filters (abusefilter-modify)

With the increase in specific vandalism and the IP hopping, and Socking that is going on, I think we should consider this again. We had at that time a consensus to create the user group but what failed the nomination, is that we had no consensus on the following which we must have to enable the right:

  1. Who will be able to grant the right Admin / Crat?
  2. Will it be left for the Admin / Crat to determine or will it be a community vote?
    1. If its a vote how long will it run?
      1. How is Approval determined, a simple majority, or another consensus level?
  3. Will the right be permanent or subject to limitations?
    1. If there are limitations will it be subject to inactivity like the Admins such as 100 edits in a 12 month period, etc?
    2. Will it be temporary with a Maximum time, subject to renewal?
      1. If this option is picked is renewal a new vote in case of community consensus to grant, or is it left to Admin / Crat if they already had the right?
  4. Are there going to be minimum requirements to apply for this right?

I feel that we would benefit from active editors who have a good knowledge of the Edit Filters, but we need to have a complete consensus on all points to add the group right. I think I have covered all the main topics required on this discussion topic. If I left something out please feel free to add to the list. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_119#Proposal:_Abuse/Edit_filter_managers. --Chenzw  Talk  03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And as for my thoughts about this, I concur that this right should be granted upon community approval, with a bureaucrat closing any such RfP and granting the right itself. The issue of how long the right should stay, however, I believe will be a bit more tricky - as I highlighted in the previous discussion, effective edit filters tend to be changed less often (or perhaps the target vandal is less flexible in their tactics, or both). In fact, from Special:Log/abusefilter we see that 2017 was the most quiet year ever for this wiki in terms of edit filter management - only 7 recorded log actions, and all in the later half of the year. For this reason I think a mandatory yearly review would not be effective, and suggest that we stick to an activity requirement similar to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Of course, a motion to revoke the right can always be tabled by any active member of the community, just like how deRfAs are done. Chenzw  Talk  03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the edit filters we have now, I see that about a third of them have a thousand hits or more; Most of these have not been touched in quite some time. Writing/debbugging edit filters needs some scripting skills. In that context, having a process that would allow to grant such rights would probably be good. If at all I only see someone from another project helping temporarily; I don't see long community discussions about who should be granted the right. So: granting by Crat, auto expiry after 6-12 months. The big question though in the first place: How pressing is the need to get external help with filters? - Our current admin crew manages quite nicely. --Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure we need this right. It is pretty simple to have an admin take care of it for you if there is something you need or to actually become one yourself. We already have a process for selecting admins and thus would have one less process to have to worry about on our small wiki. I note, that there really hasn't been an increase in vandalism. People keep saying that lately, but if anything I have seen a marked decrease in it compared to years past. I see no pressing need whatsoever with this. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To expand on this, what might be a better way of handling this (although Eptalon points out with his link to how often we need to edit them is pretty low) is to just create noticeboard for requests to admins for edit filters, but even that is probably going farther than we need when a simple post to the regular Admin noticeboard could take care of pretty much any needed edits if you didn't wish to become an admin yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Djsasso on this, although I think we should have policies in place (and the technical ability) to grant edit filter manager permissions, in the event it is needed in the future. Currently, I doubt the permission would be of much use, considering that the most active editors are mostly sysops and thus can already deal with edit filter issues. Vermont (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think vandalism levels are a matter of perception, I feel that I have reverted more vandalism, and seen more vandalism reverted then normal. As far as low edit count on the Abuse filters, being used to note low need, there is the other side of that coin. While we have some very technical minded Admins, others may not be. I have a basic understanding of the programming aspect of edit (abuse) filters, but it is not the most comfortable thing for to me do, so I am trying to learn more about them, and become more comfortable. I think low edits, just indicate, a low amount of Admins willing to edit them, to reduce the very specific vandalism we have seen lately. This right would grant us the ability to allow very technical editors the ability to help out more with vandalism by stopping it before it happens. So saying the Admins are capable of handling the issue, they are, but what is the technical ability of all of our admins, and their willingness to edit them? --Enfcer (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That misses the second part of my comment, those people could become admins. If they aren't trustworthy enough to be admins, they aren't trustworthy enough for this right either in my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That is a good point, but there could be people who are trustworthy enough to be admins who don't want the responsibility of the admin job but who would be willing and able to help with the filters. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As Auntof6 said. We have talented editors who may not want the full Admin tools and the extra responsibility that comes with those tools. This will allow the vandal fighters who have the technical knowledge to more then fight with Rollback, and help stop it before it happens. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no expectation of work for an admin, so you can be an admin and only use the tools for changing edit filters and not have any added responsibility. You are not required to do any of the other things admins can do. As volunteers admins are able to choose what tools they use and don't use. -DJSasso (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would also note that this propagates the idea of hat collecting, we already see it with the patrolling right, when we created it, it was only intended to be used so that trusted editors edits wouldn't show as unpatrolled and slowly people started giving it out to anyone so that they could "patrol". This is will only add to the idea that Wikipedia is a vandal fighting game and soon everyone will want the power. You want to edit the filters then put the effort in to become an admin, this right is too powerful not to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well it looks like the consensus has changed to where we really do not have a need to consider the right. I still believe it is a right that we should have available for qualified editors, who do not want to be admins, or are admins or have the similar right on other projects that are trying to help out but are not interested in an adminship here. I am sure this is not the last time we will debate this issue, but I feel that the consensus has changed from 9 months ago when this was tried last. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the numbers: there have been about 10 changes to edit filters this year (2018). Some years back I believed that there would be collaboration between different project as to edit filters. It turns out that this collaboration is very limited. So, we are discussing introducing a flag for eleven edits in 120 days (or one edit roughly every two weeks). Two admins were responsible for these edits. We introduce a process, where people can nominate prospective filter managers. The candidate needs to fulfill certain criteria, for example a number of support votes. In my opinion, this is just overkill. EnWP is alot bigger, for them it may make sense to make a difference between filter manager and admin, for us it does not. It's not worth our time, for probably 30 to 40 edits per year.--Eptalon (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will be honest with you, I really don't see there is a point in having a right here that will hardly get any use, when there are already people who can do the job that this right gives. Not of a practical use to this Wikipedia. DaneGeld (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Add new rights and new protection levels[change source]

Hi! I thinked on adding new user rights to the Simple English wikipedia and some new protection levels:

User rights

  • Auto-rollbacker (automatically obtained if making 1000 changes and be here for two months).
  • Interface editor: to make so all users with this permission can change the MediaWiki pages without need of admin permission.
  • Template editor: Users with this permission can change pages with template protection and add and edit editnotices.
  • Page mover: this users can move pages without leaving redirect and move subpages with main page.

Protection levels

  • Template protection to use on highly-visible templates instead of full protection, and requires template editor permission to change

Please add questions or comments in "Comments" section. :) -- Psl631 talk 06:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments[change source]

  • I don't think these rights are needed, this is a small community. Rights such as rollback should not be awarded automatically. Not everyone editing here also does vandal fighting. This proposal adds complexity and gives few benefits. When protecting pages, the move right can be limited to auto-confirmed users, there is no need for a separate page mover right. Similar observations apply for the other rights mentioned. --Eptalon (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the size of the community, this is additional bureaucracy and simply promotes hat-collecting, what with all of these new user rights available for "collection". Our main goal here is to build an encyclopedia. Chenzw  Talk  07:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And rollback is not easy to handle. For a writer who only contributes in article it can be a burden since it just needs a click. We have twinkle with similar function if needed. Edit count is irrelevant, the kind of work they do matters. Rollbackers need to have good judgement over edits and should assume good faith. We don't need all those user groups. We are a small community, let's keep user rights simple too. Thanks:)-BRP ever 08:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is totally unnecessary here, and really yet another attempt by Psl631 to find a way to collect some hats which has being going on here for awhile now. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Instituting an automatic addition of rollback is simply dangerous, and Psl631's request for this feature seems to me like an attempt to bypass WP:RfP. The other user rights proposed are not needed, as they would very rarely be used in a community of this size, and we really don't need template protection. IP's edit high visibility templates quite often, usually in good faith. Vermont (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no need for this level of rights being segmented out, for the community of our size. -- Enfcer (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No point to any of this, as noted above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    I would add WRT "template editor": the reason this right was created on enwiki was the combination of "many templates are high visibility templates that effectively need full protection [on enwiki]" and "many administrators do not have the technical understanding of template syntax required to handle those templates". Here at SE Wikipedia, there is no history suggesting the corresponding templates here require full protection at all—and there are plenty of people here (like me) who can edit such templates if they are semi-protected. Just no. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Supporting notability in countries with less international news coverage[change source]

We have had quite a few QDs and RfDs for people from South Asia, especially Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. User:MTKASH raises some good points in a comment on this discussion:

"I think this article is Notable cause bangladeshi peoples doesnt have acess to nytimes or international platforms. But he has good references in National TV and National newspapers whih shows the person is notable."

Separate from the merits of this RfD, we want to be more inclusive of subjects from the global south and from Outer Circle countries where English is commonly used. The issue then is trying to figure out which sources are good enough to support notability and which are just fan blogs, PR farms, and gossip sites (Update: Especially for entertainers / entertainment). I don't think we need a policy or list of approved sources, but I could use a better understanding of the media landscape in these countries. Towards that end, I translated a few articles from EnWP. I think these would make a good core of reputable sources for references for notability in Bangladesh.

These seem to be the primary news media in Bangladesh in English. Apologies if I have missed any. Now these should show up linked in references and I hope will make it quicker and fairer to judge these QDs and RfDs and keep content quality high on Simple. Any thoughts, suggestions, or concerns? If this is helpful, I can help do the same for Nepal and Pakistan. -- Gotanda (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Good point, for Nepal
  • I think these can be trusted in Nepal because most of them are recorded in central library. I think there were more but this is all I remember please add or remove any you like. But still this means they are trusted and things in them can be considered true or they are considered as good source but still I think bios need to prove their notability referring to these, just being mentioned is not enough. Thanks-BRP ever 03:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Gotanda, do you think reliable sources in India (though there are many), is it possible to list out majors? There are many unreliable sources and I find them in many articles. If they could be listed they can be identified in article and considered good. There are many confusions regarding sources in India and if trusted sources can be separated it can make things easy. Both Hindi and english sources can work. If it is difficult it is not compulsory. Thanks-BRP ever 04:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
BRPever, I think it would be an excellent idea to try to identify a set of really useful sources from India as well, but I am sure that is a bigger project! This looks like a good start though. You are correct that it can be challenging to tell which sources are really good and which are not. Two recent examples are TellyChakkar and NewsTechCafe. TellyChakkar seems like pretty much gossip and advertising/PR disguised as news. NewsTechCafe seems to be open to anyone to publish, so is probably not authoritative. But anyone can put up a good looking website these days so it is sometimes hard to tell.... -- Gotanda (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I found something in enwiki similar to this. This list might be helpful. I also suggest we make a project page listing the reliable sources of South Asia and update that list. If it is not possible making a user-space listing those sources and updating there. These list can be a great help and keeping it listed like that can make things easier.-BRP ever 05:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking this might be a good subpage under notability. However, if enwiki already has this info, maybe we don't need to duplicate it, just link to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fine, linking may work too since lists aren't all that difficult to read and they have divided those according to country which makes it more easier. But for some other countries like Nepal their list is incomplete and they are not updated. I see only few and they too are not very popular these days.-BRP ever 07:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There are good reasons why New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, Die Welt, Le Monde, Le Figaro, etc. have a reputation for reliability. It is mainly due to their history of being resistant to government and advertisers pressure. In some countries (majority, I think) simply cannot afford to publish anything really critical of their government, and are ultra-sensitive to the wishes of their advertisers. The above sources also employ professional reviewers of films, books, popular culture, etc. That is really satisfactory for our purposes, and something to look for when thinking about news sources in other cultures. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the point you are making mac. That problem is a common problem with news sources here. Still there is a problem when it comes to notability since one can't get enough sources from these country. So, I don't see any other option here. But still those which I've listed above are national newspapers which are stored in Tribhuvan university library, and are treated most trusted nationally. But still I won't deny the advertisement, nationalinfluence and side taking of News sources.-BRP ever 17:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for each country we will have to accept the best that is available as sources to support contributions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to gain access to accounts[change source]

If anybody gets any notifications of a failed attempt to access their account, it might interest you to hear that seems to have happened to a lot of people (myself included). Regards --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We received at least two dozen people at the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel today complaining about this issue, and many of the helpers had it as well. Vermont (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was notified, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
See this for the full scope of the issue. Vermont (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It is an unfortunate reality in today's world; do ensure that you do not use the same passwords on other sites, and consider changing it to a stronger (and longer) one if necessary. Editors with advanced user rights (i.e. >=sysop) should also look into enabling Special:Two-factor authentication. Chenzw  Talk  02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This has happened to me too, someone tried about 9pm UTC last night (May 3rd) to get in via the main English Wikipedia. I have changed my password, but it's kinda freaky why people do this? What do they expect to gain on Wikipedia? Maybe hack an admin account?? DaneGeld (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It was 14hrs ago or something. It was failed attempt so I didn't bother changing my PW. Was it a technical fault or something?-BRP ever 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah this happens every once in awhile here. Make sure you have separate passwords for each site you use. -DJSasso (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we create a template as a notice for copied from enwiki[change source]

Hi everyone! I thinked that create a template as notice if the page is copied and pasted from Enwiki. The template can include simplifying, and if the page is not simplified within a time, it can be deleted instead of QD it directly. The template can include notice "add {{simplifying}} when the page is getting simplified" when it getting changed to get simple. Please, if this page is getting created, please add it to twinkle please. -- Psl631 t a l k 09:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We used to have such a template. We deleted it because it isn't really needed. Remember, we try to keep processes simple here, not just language in articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Which template? Please can you give link to the page, so I remember the template, and is it used by twinkle? -- Psl631 t a l k 09:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't give you a link, because it was deleted and therefore doesn't exist any more. (That's what "we used to have" means.) Since it doesn't exist any more, it obviously isn't used by Twinkle. Let me repeat what I said above: we try to keep processes simple here, not just language in articles. Processes that would in effect be a delayed quick deletion have been turned down in the past because they are more complex that the processes we have now. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I also want to point out that copying from EnWp is not a bad thing; very often it is the first step. Either write from scratch, or copy from EnWP and simplify what you copied. --Eptalon (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, yes, I would agree: I've copied from enwiki many times, but to me this discussion is about a possible template, not about the articles it might be used on. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There is {{enwp based}} and possibly {{based on}}; those are for attribution, though. --Eptalon (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Attrib template: this is what I use. It does everything. You substitute title and the number comes from "cite this page" on the En version. gives the specific version, not some vague hand-waving. It goes on the talk page of the new simple article. If editors worry about QD, then either: a) don't put it up until you have simplified it, or b) put up the inuse flag at the top (but don't leave it there overnight). Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • {{enwp based|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_skepticism&oldid=346768538}}

Something I would like to remind editors and admins alike on. Being identical to en.wiki is not a delete reason in and of itself. If an article is already simple, it can match up with en.wiki completely. The QD delete reason requires the article to be complex for it to be deleted. So I repeat, simply copying an en.wiki article over if it is simple is not a delete reason. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

AdvancedSearch[change source]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. Just what we need. More stuff with advanced features to confuse our users! DaneGeld (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
DaneGeld, this feature will be in beta and not automatically enabled for readers. Vermont (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fair enough, if it's not going to be switched on for everyone to use, that's fine. I am concerned though that on a Wiki where everything is simple and made that way deliberately, what kind of feedback are WMDE expecting? What is the point of making it available on a wiki like ours? DaneGeld (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
However, beta features usually find their way into the standard code. DaneGeld has a point, but on some level we have to keep the base software up to date or it won't be supported. If it becomes unsupportable, the entire Wikipedia could be eliminated, because we are part of a bigger whole that needs to be cohesive. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Naa, might be like improved search in wikidata or something. But I see the good old search pretty perfect so what could WMDE have thought in addition? Old libraries are more valueable but wikiprojects run on software so keeping it upto date is necessary. And it's just beta so we have an option here atleast for now:)-BRP ever 23:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should give it a try. While I do not recall having a problem with search on SE, I do know that the search on EN is uncomfortable. Having said that I think we should give it a try, I find myself at a loss finding out how to test it out! Kdammers (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah its not an issue here because the interface can have its language switched, we don't simplify the software. Only the language and processes etc. Not being in the same place as other wikis would actually end up more complex because readers from other language wikis would not be able to bring their knowledge of how to use the wiki here and so would have to learn new ways of doing things. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Psl631[change source]

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

I am here today to propose a community ban for Psl631:

This proposed ban shall be independent of WP:ONESTRIKE. Over the last few months this wiki has seen multiple cases of disruption from this editor, tying up valuable editorial resources in the process:

"Proposals"
Assuming bad faith
Maintenance tag-bombing
Severe communication issues
  • Cases of he being told not to do some action X -> "Ok, I will not do <some strange interpretation of X which may or may not be the original editor's intention> anymore"
    • Examples are everywhere on the editor's own talk page.
    • To give an analogy, it almost looks like I am interacting with a badly-programmed robot.

There's also this issue where the editor thinks that this is a social networking site, and has increasingly been using a variety of "sad face" emojis in edit summaries. This is reflective of a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the project, and, in conjunction with the above mentioned examples, makes me question their 1) command of the English language, and/or 2) logical reasoning abilities.

en:WP:NOTSOCIAL, with WP:DENY concerns

Before I get accused of assuming bad faith myself, I want to point out that:

  • The user's first edit on the English Wikipedia was in November 2017
  • The user has evaded their block on the English Wikipedia, with a variety of unblock requests that were found to be unconvincing
  • "Assume good faith" does not mean "give them unlimited chances"

I do not see any improvement in this situation without a highly-structured mentoring arrangement, and propose that such a ban be subject to later review no earlier than one year from the ban. Chenzw  Talk  05:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chenzw: No, no, no, please do not ban me from this wiki, i will use correct things and stop using emojis, I will continue revert vandalism here, and what happens if I gets a community ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
A ban is similar to a block, except that the community (the other users) makes the decision instead of an admin. To end the ban, the community would have to agree to let you start editing again. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Where, on which page need I to discuss the ban to get de-banned if I get banned? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That depends on the terms of the ban. We will tell you that if the ban happens. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I will stop making bad changes, and I will still be here, I would rather have a block than a ban, and this block could be indefinite, until I have explained all thing in a discussion on my talk page. I requested quick deletion on User:Psl631/Scary because it is very scary page, and what happens if I get a ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I declined the QD on that "scary" page because it is referred to in this discussion. It is not actually scary: it just has a gif file whose movement could bother people. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What happens if I get banned and what happens if I get blocked? I do not want to get banned, rather a block for 3-6 months/infinite with talk page access to discuss the ban/the things. Ok? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be a ban, not a block. If you get banned, you would not be allowed to edit here during the ban for the determined mimimum ban period -- not on your own pages or any other pages. There would be no discussion until the end of that period. The proposed minumum ban period is one year, not 3-6 months. At the end of the minimum ban period you would be able to ask to have a discussion about unbanning you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Will I be able to change at least one page or will I be unable to change all pages and see an error message while trying? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You would be forbidden to change any pages. If you have any more questions, please read the page on blocks and bans. Anything that isn't there would depend on the terms of the ban, and can be answered when the discussion is over. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6:Will I be able to change my own discussion page when I are banned from this Wikipedia? Can we use infinite block instead of ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I've told you everything I can before the discussion is over. I will not answer any more questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6:Can I still read the pages, but I cannot change the content under the ban?--Psl631 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Read the pages you added in you userpage before, there is every thing. If you are not taking this seriously, you fail as a wikipedian or wikimedian because for me this might be the worse thing that could ever happen and might be same for any serious wikipedian. And Au6 said she won't answer any questions so it's not appropriate to ping her after that.-BRP ever 10:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The "Simple Wikipedia Points" uses I to make some points to interest me with, I will not continue make those things, bad Qds or bad rollbacks, use real warnings and rollback only vandalism using twinkle. NO more notice password, this is not video game, an encyclopedia. NO overtagging or congrating myself. Ok, NO more things there. --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support community ban. The editor does not have the maturity they need to edit Wikipedia, regardless of language or edition. Saying this as a regular of the English Wikipedia proper, I emphatically believe that Simple English Wikipedia is not supposed to be an outlet for editors blocked on the English Wikipedia to continue the same behaviors they were blocked for. The Simple English Wikipedia community should not spend their time "nursing" such editors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I remember when I was scrolling through their user page, noticed their password, and hopped into the stewards IRC channel to report the compromised account. Even prior to that, there had been CIR issues, with his sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia and his 3 RfA's (1,2,3). These CIR issues are exemplified by Psl's lack of understanding of how blocks work on his en.wikipedia talk page. He also formulated something he calls "Simple Wikipedia Points". See User:Psl631#Simple Wikipedia Points, and scroll down a bit for large tables about it. Wikipedia isn't a video game. He also proposed new user rights, including automatic rollback, likely due to him being declined rollback on multiple occasions. He has attempted to make templates for "Need Images", which was ultimately deleted ([1]), templates for administrator rights given/removed which were deleted ([2]), and page protection templates which suffered the same fate. ([3]) He also routinely leaves messages for himself on his talk page, such as this where he congratulated himself on 500 edits and is, for some reason, under the impression that one can request adminship at 500 edits as though it depended on edit count. He has also used much of his editing for his user page and personal editing experience, rather than contributing to the encyclopedia. See these diffs/sections: [4][5][6][7]. Also, see his user page, where he actually gave himself a warning in a large red box about possibly being banned (a few minutes after this discussion was made), and just look at the rest of it. He has about 2,000 edits, 350 of which (20%) are in user space. He has about 370 edits in mainspace, and about 790 in user talk space. Overall, he is more of a liability than an asset to the project, and with his past actions in overtagging and misunderstanding comments from administrators, I support a community ban. Vermont (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Psl631 has been disruptive in many ways, most of which are detailed above. I would like to add that he is even being disruptive in this ban proposal, asking questions after Auntof6 told him to stop. He has regularly received messages on his talk page telling him to stop doing things while he has been here. Unfortunately, the community's patience has run out now. J991 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note: Due to Psl631 continued bad edits, and making unnecessary changes to templates, and creating even more templates while this ban discussion is taking place, I have temporarily blocked that user from editing for a period of 1 week. I left that users talk page editable by that user, should they need to communicate with statements being made here, with a warning that they can not abuse that page in the process to continue project disruption. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - The fact they published their PASSWORD on there USERPAGE is enough for me to support indeffing, We all get off to rocky starts on these projects but this goes above and beyond "rocky starts", The tag bombing and various issues above are also concerning,
I made plenty of mistakes when coming here and I still do but like everyone here you learn from your mistakes and learn from various people .... This editor seems to repeatedly be making mistakes and not learning at all,
In short this editor is more of a time sink and hinderance than of help and benefit to the project. –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure if TPA and email revoking is part of the package but if not as per the discussion below I too obviously support that too, Not entirely sure if this comment is even needed but ah well. –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • per everything above I support this proposal. I requested him many times not to do so myself, every response came as sorry, I will not do that from now on or similar but at last he didn't changed his actions. I mean one makes mistakes but one should correct it after all these chances. This kind of immaturity by a wiki editor and habit of taking Wikipedia this lightly is not acceptable. And also one could see this coming miles away, he was warned about this so many times. I am glad this proposal is independent of "ONESTRIKE" and a year or equivalent ban might be enough time to bring seriousness and maturity in this user as wiki editor. Thanks-BRP ever 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with what everyone says above, including the fact that he gave himself warnings, even on the main/complex English Wikipedia ([8]). There are 15 messages he made on his talk page that starts with something like "Ok, I'll not do this" and "Ok, I'll agf. Ok!" as if there's a badly-programmed robot replying to the community's complaints. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given by others and more. Several times I tried to warn this user that his behavior was likely to be seen as disruptive and could lead to a ban, but the warnings seem to have done no good. Each time a disruptive behavior was pointed out, he agreed to discontinue it (sometimes only after arguing and being told that "But I want to!" is not a good reason), but he kept finding new disruptive behaviors. He seems to look at Wikipedia as a place to play: play can be OK if it leads to something constructive, but in this user's case it did not. Even if the user promised not to be disruptive, I wouldn't trust that he could judge what would be disruptive: hence my support of the ban proposal. If the ban is implemented, I would caution the user against inappropriate or excessive contact during the ban, perhaps specifying that the ban would be extended if those things happen. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Auntof6 - Just a suggestion but wouldn't it be a good idea to revoke TPA whilst they're blocked ?, They have UTRS but I feel completely banning them would be better than just partially doing it, Ofcourse it's just a suggestion and no one has to revoke it but I just feel for the editor as well as for ourselves it would be a good idea atleast for now, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we can do that and even revoke their ability to use the email function, but that wouldn't prevent them from directly emailing our admin email or any users whose email they have. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It currently is blocked, but typically we wouldn't block it during a ban until they abused the access. Just because they do have the right to using the page for unblock requests. We don't use UTRS for anything here really. It is their talk page or directly emailing the admin list. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

After reading through the discussion below, reviewing Ps1631's edits, and noting the comments of other editors, I have placed an indefinite block on this user, which could be reviewed in 12 months. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


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.


Article move[change source]

Hi, Could someone move Sia Furler to Sia (musician) as she's obviously never been known as the former name, The latter title already exists hence why I can't move myself, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Auntof6. –Davey2010Talk 02:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

requested enteries?[change source]

sew should have a page for this. --74.124.128.224 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Requested pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki links seem to be broken on simple Wikipedia[change source]

Help:Link mentions "Interwiki link" and as an example has Wikipedia:MediaWiki. That form of interwiki linking seems to be broken on this Wikipedia.

The Special:Interwiki table seems to be okay. See m:Interwiki map for viewing/updating the raw table. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki links beginning with Wikipedia: will not work as expected because this is a Wikipedia project, and the Project namespace takes priority. I have changed this to a wiktionary link for clarity. Links to other language editions should also be prefixed with a colon, or the entire link will not show. Chenzw  Talk  08:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

too advanced?[change source]

I'm new to simple english wikipedia, and I was using it for an algebra project. I think that the relation (mathematics) page was more advanced. At least, more advanced to the other math pages I visited. I don't know if it's supposed to be like that, or somebody made it too advanced. I'm pretty sure 14 lines of caption is too much for a simple english page. I didn't know what half the symbols mean. If an admin could look over this page, or add one of those "may not be easy to understand" templates. Thank You!

You are entirely right; the whole article is pretty much uselessly complex, using unexplained jargon to discuss arcane questions. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be the last Simple English revision. I'd support reverting to it, then re-adding the categories that Auntof6 did and other constructive edits that took place after that revision. Vermont (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank You! This will help a lot with my project! except, I have no idea how to do that... 2601:5C8:8100:15C4:14C7:BD78:3CA5:8886 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (I'm the one who posted this, I forgot to put the '~'s.)
Would it be okay if I added a Template:Complex to this page? I think it would be a good idea so other users will know it's too complex, at least until another editor reverts it. If so, could you also tell me how to add one of those edit messages that shows what the editor did? Again, Thank you so much! 2601:5C8:8100:15C4:14C7:BD78:3CA5:8886 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hindu gods and Hinduism related pages[change source]

There are some pages related to Hinduism but there is a lot of debateable information like "In Hinduism, there is only one God, named Brahman, but Brahman is said to have taken on many different incarnations. Some of these are Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Shiva, Kali, Parvati, and Durga." By what I know Rama is the incarnation of Vishnu, and the concept of only one and superior god is always debateable since there are many sampradays in Hinduism. As a result I found tug of war going on in some pages. So asking suggestions from the community. I think it would be a good idea to avoid including supreme god while talking about Hindu gods as a whole and include those while talking about sampradays only. And instead talk about Trimurtis, Tridevis, other main gods and family and incarnations of those main gods. Thanks-BRP ever 09:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For the reason of Simplicity: There are many gods in Hindusm. Note that in Christianity: The natute of God led to many splits: First the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (and a few others); the question of the Filioque (Eastern Orthodox, eg.); the Trinity (Chritadelphians, Christian Science, Mormons,...)- in short: The nature of god(s) is not something people easily agree on.--Eptalon (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I thought it would be best not to include supreme or main god while talking about all hindu gods because that would make things more complicated since every branch (sampraday) have different one. It would be best if we include those while talking about specific sampraday only.-BRP ever 10:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone been changing Twinkle?[change source]

Recently when I use Twinkle to warn a user, the usual popup window appears, but all the text and graphics in it are pushed over to the right. There's just blank space in the left two fifths or so of the window. Is anyone else seeing this? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, when I am editing with mobile it often happens. What I do is, refresh the page, zoom out, make the page full size and press the QD again.(often when I mark pages for QD)-BRP ever 08:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually seeing it on my laptop and not on my tablet (I haven't tried on a smartphone). The next time I'm on the laptop, I'll try refreshing as you describe. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)