Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 33
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives |
---|
Unprotect Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace
I see no need to protect it at all. Since there's no related log, it must have been protected a long time ago. Liangent (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. However, I am sure you can do something much more useful than adding {{outdated}} to the page, such as actually updating it. (And crosswiki transclusion also doesn't work) Goblin 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
- Yes, but {{outdated}} can be copied here and I really did so in zhwiki (in a chance where it's needed). Besides, I'm not sure whether I can write correct simple English. Liangent (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you want something here let me know and i'll import it. Just because it was done on zh: also doesn't mean it's needed here... We'd much prefer it to be updated. As for Simple, make your changes as simply as possible then ask an editor if they can take a look, either on their TP or the page's TP. Goblin 17:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!
- I edited it in this way: [1]. How to change it to meet the standard of simple English? Liangent (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the language simple - a good guide is to restrict it to words in the BE850. Take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles for more help. One example would be changing "array" to group, or linking it to either an article or Simple English Wiktionary. I'll drop you the welcome message as it's got all the links on it! Goblin 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!
- And don't change $wgAllMessagesEn to $messages, it would be $wgAllMessagesXX I imagine, but the PHP code array cannot be changed! Easier to understand though :) - tholly --Talk-- 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the language simple - a good guide is to restrict it to words in the BE850. Take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles for more help. One example would be changing "array" to group, or linking it to either an article or Simple English Wiktionary. I'll drop you the welcome message as it's got all the links on it! Goblin 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!
- I edited it in this way: [1]. How to change it to meet the standard of simple English? Liangent (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you want something here let me know and i'll import it. Just because it was done on zh: also doesn't mean it's needed here... We'd much prefer it to be updated. As for Simple, make your changes as simply as possible then ask an editor if they can take a look, either on their TP or the page's TP. Goblin 17:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!
- Yes, but {{outdated}} can be copied here and I really did so in zhwiki (in a chance where it's needed). Besides, I'm not sure whether I can write correct simple English. Liangent (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wish to block GivenThisTime (talk · contribs) as a new account claiming to be Kennedy (talk · contribs). I wish to block the new account for trolling, because 1) No edits to mainspace at the time of this writing, and 2) the new account is going around claiming to be an old user, and that is all the new account is doing, save a couple of edits to a template. Thank you for your consideration. May I have some input? Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 22:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have actually edited the mainspace, check my edits. Anyway, note on my talk page. GivenThisTime (talk • changes) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- No edits to the mainspace. Also, I've blocked the account for admitted intentional disruption. Jon@talk:~$ 22:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- His statement says it all. Agree wholeheartedly with the block. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Was sorta leaning to allowing him to edit for a bit to see if he was going to help out, but nah. The talk page message was enough to end that quick enough. The user says that Wikipedia is where "kids play games". I think it is now evident that the only one playing games is Kennedy. I felt bad voting to remove your syops/crat rights, don't feel bad anymore.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good block, endorse 110 %. Cheers, Lauryn Ashby (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Was sorta leaning to allowing him to edit for a bit to see if he was going to help out, but nah. The talk page message was enough to end that quick enough. The user says that Wikipedia is where "kids play games". I think it is now evident that the only one playing games is Kennedy. I felt bad voting to remove your syops/crat rights, don't feel bad anymore.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think we can call this resolved. fr33kman 22:54, 26 June 2010 (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.
Import
Can someone transwiki en:Template:Infobox islands and documentation? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Robert Byrd
Protection declined. Jon@talk:~$ 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
For info
No administrative action required. Jon@talk:~$ 12:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
simplifying articles and gaming the system
A brief clarification on the thread about Ottava's articles: I followed links to those two pages from Ottava's foundation-l post. I didn't discuss it with him, I just read the articles, enjoyed them, and updated the en:wp articles with them. They were better than the previous best available freely-licensed articles on the topic, and made good use of familiar sources.
It didn't occur to me that editing in userspace might be seen as suspicious - I assumed that was part of a slow-moving local style guideline for writing/simplifying long pages, which strongly discouraged anything in the main namespace that had not already been rigorously simplified. There is no such policy on en, and so no reason to wait... In the case of The Author's Farce the local simple: process seems to have taken 3-4 months. Was this intentional? Required? is there some other reason why the articles articles listed here are not in the main article namespace?
I agree with Fr33kman, every one of those articles should make their way into the article namespace on simple. And Djsasso makes a good point that simple should not be seen as a haven for trolls and banned users. --Sj (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- This has been closed above, and no admin action is required. Let us allow the English Wikipedia to fix English's articles. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Jon, but as a member of the WMF community, and a member of this community, SJ is perfectly at liberty to speak. Let's not clamp down on people feeling able to speak okay? fr33kman 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes he can speak, sure. That is why I moved his comment to the primary AN page, as opposed to the talk page. But I must reiterate that Ottava has not disrupted this project, and the best we can do is ask him to... "hurry up"? Now all of a sudden, there is a deadline. You must quickly do your work and get your articles out of userspace *ESPECIALLY* if you are banned from another project. I don't think I appreciate another project's problems, becoming our own. Let En fix it's own importing issue, it is not our "exporting issue". Best, Jon@talk:~$ 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
more imports
Just two pages, please: en:Template:Infobox Prime Minister and en:Lee Kuan Yew. (Maybe there should be a permanent "requests for import" subpage, transcluded onto this one?) Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done a bit of work needed there since the DB pooped out on me during an import, but done, nonetheless. I agree a subpage might be a good idea. Perhaps just create a WP:AN/Import page and have a box that tells us when something is waiting for an admin. fr33kman 09:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! (wow, that turned out to be a big "just two pages".) I'll create the subpage now. sonia♫♪ 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Yes, it was 47 pages in total. I need a soda now, thirsty work :P fr33kman 09:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! (wow, that turned out to be a big "just two pages".) I'll create the subpage now. sonia♫♪ 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
<-Don't see the point of a new page. I like everything centralised as it gives us less things to check. No issue in posting here. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I would rather people just ask on the talk page of an admin and be patient and wait for them to get to it. The best option would be to not import at all and to actually start articles from scratch as being simple. I tend to think articles from scratch tend to be better quality than when people try to simplify ens. Technically imports aren't even necessary as long as you link to the article you took the info from when you copy and paste over here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Never thought I'd do this, but...
...this week, my talk page has been vandalized by multipe IPs, and my user page and archives have also been hit. So I'd like a two-week semi-protect on my user and talk pages; and a full-protection for Archives 1, 2, and 3; all of which are full and no longer used by me. (If I archive additional pages, they will go to Archive 4 or 5). Thanks, Purplebackpack89 19:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My edits
Hello, everyone. How are my changes so far? Polymathsj (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- You want Wikipedia:Editor review. This is for things that only admins can do. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Razorflame
I request all the rights that I have on this site to be removed at this time, as I have retired. Thanks, Razorflame 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done - Next time, all requests like this go on AN. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- How do you oppose an RFx, then retire? I'm half minded to declare that vote invalid. Seems disrespectful. Jon@talk:~$ 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- He has the right do to it, as in he has made the required edits to !vote. You might think its rude to do it. But it is an acceptable thing to do. Besides, retiring is a personal choice. Its not like it suddenly makes you unable to edit. That being said looking at the numbers it won't change anything. -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. It is a valid vote. Does not seem right, but valid technically. (disclosure: I opposed the rfx) Jon@talk:~$ 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Razor opposed on dubious or controversial grounds and then shot off, that would have been concerning. However, as Djsasso says, there seems to be no issue here. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. It is a valid vote. Does not seem right, but valid technically. (disclosure: I opposed the rfx) Jon@talk:~$ 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- He has the right do to it, as in he has made the required edits to !vote. You might think its rude to do it. But it is an acceptable thing to do. Besides, retiring is a personal choice. Its not like it suddenly makes you unable to edit. That being said looking at the numbers it won't change anything. -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Pakistan stub IP blocks
Today, an IP address was blocked after blatant POV pushing on Pakistan-related articles for abusing multiple IP addresses.
http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.240.239.51
As we all know, similar edits have come from many different IP addresses, including:
http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.241.0.193 http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.26.182.84 http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.241.11.237 http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.195.131.162
and others. Some of these IP addresses have been blocked for various lengths. Since the "abusing multiple IP addresses" rationale has been used, we seem to be working under the presumption they are the same user. Given that, should we have more consistency on the block lengths used, rather than one day here, one week there, one month somewhere else, etc.? Kansan (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it's clear that they are socking, and it's a static IP, I think 6 months would be appropriate. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not as easy as it may look at first. Let me explain: A number of IP editors, which are possibly the same user, create or modify Pakistan-related articles. This is to my knowledge the only source of Pakistan-related content here, so if you see changes in that subject area you can be fairly certain where they come from. So far, no communication has been established; the user(s?) in question will not create an account, you can leave something on their talk page, which they usually read -but they do not reply. At times, I wondered what their level of understanding really was, because they sometimes do not understand, so when leaving a message, try to write in simple English. Blocking will not serve much, because after the block expires, the editor(s?) will be back. My personal stance on this has been more and more: I revert what I consider POV-pushing, when I see it, but I do not block (for long times).
- Some of the IPs resolve to schools/educational institutions or libraries; avoid blocking these at all cost (ie. do a lookup before blocking). If you look at these IPs, their contributions have been very prolific, they do contribute a lot. In that context, I think it would be better if we could "channel" them somehow. The problem with this is that this channeling needs at least some basic form of communication, which we have not established. --Eptalon (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Flood Flag
Would one of you nice administrators turn my flood flag on? I will be doing (hopefully the last of) flag template maintenance for a couple of hours. I will post a note here when finished. (PS, still waiting for my IRC cloak to come through.) Many thanks, --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done Goblin 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
- I am finished my maintenance. Thank you for flagging me.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Kansan (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
Would it be all right for me to delete WP:Account creators without sending it to AfD since it is a flag we don't have and nothing links there? sonia♫♪ 03:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd rather have it just in case. Redirects are cheap. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just mentioning that I created it when I filled up the redlinks from Special:Statistics. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Technically we have the flag, we just haven't given it to anyone because there isn't much point when 95% of the editing population has the ability bundled into their admin account. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would say keep, as we do actually have the flag.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- As DJSasso said, while not a flag that we currently give out, every admin has it bundled with sysop. Personally, I'd rather have the redirect than a red link on Special:Statistics. -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Block review
Bluegoblin7
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He called me a liar on his talk page without any substantiated evidence, and then said he didn't care if I took him to AN. He probably should be blocked for that Purplebackpack89 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the diffs: [2]. "I've highlighted the ones you're not following", and lying is highlighted Purplebackpack89 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you are both required to ignore each other for the next 24 hours, so you can both just chill. After that time, we will continue with the issue. Ignoring this will lead to admin action against the one(s) violating. Let's both just chill out for the next 24; it's only a web site okay? fr33kman 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse the 24h editing restriction. Unfortunately, I don't think there is currently another way. Jon@talk:~$ 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am and have been chilled throughout this, so I don't get why I'm the one being told to chill here. I've now blocked the user in question - which I should have done a while ago, to be fair - and if you've got a problem with that, click either here or here - I couldn't care less. Goblin 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
- sigh* I go away for a few days an all hell breaks loose. For what its worth. Both should have been blocked. BG shouldn't have done it himself. But blocking PBP was correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am and have been chilled throughout this, so I don't get why I'm the one being told to chill here. I've now blocked the user in question - which I should have done a while ago, to be fair - and if you've got a problem with that, click either here or here - I couldn't care less. Goblin 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
- Here's the diffs: [2]. "I've highlighted the ones you're not following", and lying is highlighted Purplebackpack89 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89
Not been around much recently but flicked onto recent changes and these two diffs jumped out 1 and 2. The second diff may be debatable, as modern historians believe the naval blockade and the internal unrest in Germany led to her eventual defeat - especially as the US troops had not yet reached the front-line in any real numbers - but the first diff is fairly shocking. Soup Dish (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have talked to him about the first and I believe Nonvocalscream just blocked him for the first. The second is debateable, being Canadian I am probably biased, because the running joke up here is that the US joined the war when it was already mostly done and then claim they won it for us when all the real work had already been done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the first issue is fixed. I was referring to both World Wars, not just I Purplebackpack89 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Any casual reader of this page and the Simple talk page can misinterpret your comment directly above to reflect a non-neutral bias toward American patriotism and inferiority of the British race of people according to the general opinion that they "almost lost" in the World Wars "if not for the Americans"; therefore, I suggest you do not bring this up again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't bring anything up again! Purplebackpack89 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you did! You assert the dominance of America over Britain in not just one World War, but the second World War as well. Just comment on what you did (as this is AN), not produce inflammatory comments about the validity of whether or not "if the Brits were so good, why didn't they win the wars without us?" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both of you need to disengage. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you did! You assert the dominance of America over Britain in not just one World War, but the second World War as well. Just comment on what you did (as this is AN), not produce inflammatory comments about the validity of whether or not "if the Brits were so good, why didn't they win the wars without us?" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't bring anything up again! Purplebackpack89 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Any casual reader of this page and the Simple talk page can misinterpret your comment directly above to reflect a non-neutral bias toward American patriotism and inferiority of the British race of people according to the general opinion that they "almost lost" in the World Wars "if not for the Americans"; therefore, I suggest you do not bring this up again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the first issue is fixed. I was referring to both World Wars, not just I Purplebackpack89 17:36, 19 July 2010 (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.
An abandoned and evanescent userpage here on simpleWiki. Suggest indef block (except for TP) per the block on enWiki, which was due to potential hacking. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt he's ever coming back. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I've only heard tales, like the bards used to sing, about how he was the greatest vandalfighter there ever was. It's a shame that I never got to see him in action. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, but decline as not needed. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I've only heard tales, like the bards used to sing, about how he was the greatest vandalfighter there ever was. It's a shame that I never got to see him in action. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Import request
Please see here. Thanks Hoots (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have to have a Request for Importer. πr2 (talk • changes) 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- See policy here. -Barras talk 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Sorry I misread that page and thought it said to ask here. Never mind. :) Hoots (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- See policy here. -Barras talk 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Unprotection
I need the title "Tosh.0" unprotected so I can move Tosh.o to it. Thanks. —I-20the highway 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Protection and Block Policy
Stop locking talk page access preemptively. That is all. Jon@talk:~$ 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are a few anon-ip users wreaking havoc, atm. I think short (anon-only) blocks may fix the issues. --Eptalon (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Kennedy
Since Kennedy is now a sockpuppeteer, and NotGiven, GivenThisTime, and Hoots are all his accounts, scrambled password or not, the main account should be blocked per policy! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would you stop with your edits already. You are being disruptive. If he could get into it he would have by now. There is zero point in blocking it now other than to make a WP:POINT. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Flood flag
Hello. may I please have the flood flag? I have some work to do, and don't want to flood recent changes. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What type of work? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have some templates to add. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you importing them from en? Then no, since the additions of several templates to this wiki constitute major changes. Flood flag is only for minor, noncontroversial edits. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not that case. I have templates to add to articles here. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What templates? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please give a specific, full description of whatever work you're doing? For example, "I am adding templates A and B to articles C, D, and E and any articles similar to them." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am adding the orphan template to orphaned articles. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, although it would probably be a better job for a bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, although it would probably be a better job for a bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am adding the orphan template to orphaned articles. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please give a specific, full description of whatever work you're doing? For example, "I am adding templates A and B to articles C, D, and E and any articles similar to them." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What templates? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not that case. I have templates to add to articles here. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you importing them from en? Then no, since the additions of several templates to this wiki constitute major changes. Flood flag is only for minor, noncontroversial edits. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have some templates to add. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please let a bot finish up for me. I would take forever! Hazard-SJ Talk 07:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Flood flag
May I please have the flood flag again? (Any admin.) I'll be flooding, and I'll not flag them as minor edits (because all minor edits will show in RC). Hazard-SJ Talk 22:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What are you going to do? -- Lauryn (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- AWB, I'm assuming. Please do a dozen more changes, so that we can check everything's working fine first. sonia♫♪ 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I had figured as much, I wanted a more specific answer (e.g. "changing {{stub}} to {{bio-stub}} on appropriate articles"). -- Lauryn (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am adding the orphan template to orphaned articles, Lauryn Ashby. Ok, Sonia. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I had figured as much, I wanted a more specific answer (e.g. "changing {{stub}} to {{bio-stub}} on appropriate articles"). -- Lauryn (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- AWB, I'm assuming. Please do a dozen more changes, so that we can check everything's working fine first. sonia♫♪ 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- (change conflict) Minor edits should be flagged as minor. Marking them as non-minor does not change whether they are hidden or visible. The best way to hide edits with AWB is to use the bot flag. EhJJTALK 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Sonia tried it earlier with openbot, but since they were marked minor, they all flooded rc. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you notice, rollbacking is auto-classified as minor, and all bot reverting are shown in RC. All minor edits are shown. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I said this on ST and I'll say it again: It's not the minor edit that borked it. Rollbacks are shown, but not other minor edits. And if you notice, apparently flood doesn't work with AWB anymore, and you're still flooding despite the flood flag and not marking them as minor. sonia♫♪ 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, what can I do? Hazard-SJ Talk 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Get a bot account and get it approved. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, what can I do? Hazard-SJ Talk 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I said this on ST and I'll say it again: It's not the minor edit that borked it. Rollbacks are shown, but not other minor edits. And if you notice, apparently flood doesn't work with AWB anymore, and you're still flooding despite the flood flag and not marking them as minor. sonia♫♪ 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you notice, rollbacking is auto-classified as minor, and all bot reverting are shown in RC. All minor edits are shown. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Sonia tried it earlier with openbot, but since they were marked minor, they all flooded rc. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. Hope it doesn't take long. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cant do. Account creation from my IP is blocked. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What number is your autoblock? -- Lauryn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- (change conflict) × 2 In the meantime, have a little patience, please. There is no deadline, especially not for this sort of thing. As I just told Telecom, it should not be your primary focus. sonia♫♪ 22:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What number is your autoblock? -- Lauryn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cant do. Account creation from my IP is blocked. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean my IP? 98.14.112.158 Hazard-SJ Talk 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- IP unblocked. You can create the acc. now. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Meet Hazard-Bot. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can an admin please add me to the AWB check page? I would like to use the AWB. By the way, which do I download from here? There are three files. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- What do you plan to do with AWB? You should download the latest version. EhJJTALK 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I downloaded it, but the bottom says "en.wikipedia". I plan to do different things, not a specific thing. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured how to change it. Can I please be added? Hazard-SJ Talk 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can an admin please add me to the AWB check page? Any admin... Hazard-SJ Talk 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured how to change it. Can I please be added? Hazard-SJ Talk 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I downloaded it, but the bottom says "en.wikipedia". I plan to do different things, not a specific thing. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- (<-) Done --Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Finally! Hazard-SJ Talk 21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- 53 mins was long? fr33kman 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- My first request was here, then i striked it and placed it elsewhere, on two admin talk pages. I then placed it here. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- The point fr33kman was trying to make is still a valid one, please try to be more patient, your request will be handled as soon as someone takes note of it. There's no need to make the same request in several places. -- Lauryn (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- My first request was here, then i striked it and placed it elsewhere, on two admin talk pages. I then placed it here. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- 53 mins was long? fr33kman 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Finally! Hazard-SJ Talk 21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My bot
Can an admin please add my bot, User:Hazard-Bot to the AWB check page? I would it like to use the AWB (semi-automatically). Thank you. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not until it has been approved by a bureaucrat; if you need it to use AWB for a trial run, the commenting bureaucrat will add it to the page.. -- Lauryn (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I was thinking I should have done it before the request, as I placed the programming language as AWB. Hazard-SJ Talk 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
Could I be authorized for the AutoWikiBrowser please? I am finding many Formula One articles that use inconsistent naming formats and link references. Thank you. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Please use it wisely. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
QD U1
Help! I tagged the wrong page (User:Hazard-SJ/Userboxes/AWB) for deletion. Can someone please undelete it? Hazard-SJ Talk 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Already Done. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
OTRS unblock
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've engaged a couple of contacts within the OTRS system about the possibility of moving our current unblock requests from the mailing list to an otrs queue. Nothing would change, we would still handle unblocks locally, however, we would now be able to track each req with a ticket number. We would of course maintain the mailing list for communications. The only difference, is the improved OTRS interface. I want to gather the opinions here to see if we could do this. The technical part is taken care of as of this writing. Just want to be sure everyone is on board. This is a positive change and a technical improvement. (It goes without saying that all administrators would be able to access to unblock queue, but not the otrs wiki, or other queues.) Thank you for reviewing, Jon@talk:~$ 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would support. I hate mailing lists for unblock requests (both here and on en) they cause constant issues with people writing multiple replies without notice, forgetting to copy in the list etc etc. Doing it through OTRS would make it much much easier to keep everything tracked and easier for all admins to see what was going on. The system isn't perfect, but it is far superior in my opinion. For people interested it is easy to set up so that you get an email notification when a new request or response comes in if you want to which is nice. James (T C) 08:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see any issues with it from the little I know about OTRS. sonia♫♪ 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problems from my point. -Barras (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No objection, as long as we don't have the full OTRS "provide identification to WMF" requirement (since not all will be willing.) EhJJTALK 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that will be a requirement, we won't be answering emails on behalf of the foundation in the unblock-simple queue. Jon@talk:~$ 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems it's a question of whether we'll have access to any personal identifying information, aside from what the person writes in the e-mail and their e-mail address. For example, most e-mails contain the user's IP address in the hidden info. As long as that's not the case, sounds perfectly fine to me (in fact, it would be greatly preferred to the current method!) EhJJTALK 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A good portion of normal OTRS agents do not have to identify either, only ones that get access to the most sensitive queues (I'm not actually sure what the queue cut off is because I never had to deal with it since I was already identified). They could all see the email IP so I don't think that will be a problem. James (T C) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think regardless, this will not be an issue. We see the email headers on the list, we will continue to see them in the interface. Jon@talk:~$ 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A good portion of normal OTRS agents do not have to identify either, only ones that get access to the most sensitive queues (I'm not actually sure what the queue cut off is because I never had to deal with it since I was already identified). They could all see the email IP so I don't think that will be a problem. James (T C) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fine with me fr33kman 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know very little about OTRS, but from what I've read here it looks like it would be a positive.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Me too... —I-20the highway 20:39, 5 August 2010 (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.
Can an oversight change rev. visibility for the last two edits in Spain made by an IP? Hazard-SJ Talk 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is some pretty lame and ambiguous vandalism. There is no need for oversight, although I wouldn't object to an admin deleting those revs. Oversight should only be used for a few cases where someone's privacy are in danger. See WP:OS. EhJJTALK 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Never post oversight requests in public, under any circumstances. In future, please e-mail an oversighter at oversight-simple-wp lists.wikimedia.org. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- No need for an os action nor for revdel. And please keep in mind what Peter said! Mail the list, an individual os or ask an on on IRC. -Barras (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
TeleComNasSprVen and Purplebackpack89
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs) His edits over the past few days are disturbing. Here is a sample of his editing:
- Continuing to torment Purplebackpack89 multiple times after being warned to stand down diff [
- Multiple edit-wars, including with editors in their own userspace [3] diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5
- Removal of content on user talk pages diff
- Removal of "sockpuppet" tag on a globally-blocked vandal (who had been blocked for abusing mulitple accts.) [4]
- Abuse of rollback diff
- Flooding recent changes diff
I could go on. He really needs to learn that there are consequences for bad editing, or I fear he will continue this awful editing. I personally would recommend a one-week block and loss of rollback Purplebackpack89 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Did you just put the first one up to make you look like the victim? Why'd you include that in the list? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Said charges seem either false, exaggerated, or rather recent. Doesn't warrant one-week block. I've asked for the flood flag multiple times. I've apologized for the "abuse of rollback". You're playing on everybody's nerves now. And all charges are related to you, so there's bound to be bias there. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whether they're related to me or not is irrevelant. Whether they're determental to the Wiki, which they clearly, is Purplebackpack89 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note: Do you have diffs? Jon@talk:~$ 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whole bunch of them Purplebackpack89 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Administrator note: I don't think a block is the right thing here, it will only antagonize the situation in my opinion. I think you two should try some mediation. I'd be willing to mediate or you can ask someone else. fr33kman 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not all the edits in question have to do with me; several have to do with other editors Purplebackpack89 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Administrator note: I don't think a block is the right thing here, it will only antagonize the situation in my opinion. I think you two should try some mediation. I'd be willing to mediate or you can ask someone else. fr33kman 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
After examining the history, I'm thinking perhaps some editing restrictions may be in order. Jon@talk:~$ 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- No objection to editing restrictions. I should also point out that it is inappropriate to come onto WP:AN and request that a user gets a one week block. It's ok to request admin assistance, but asking to block someone for a specific amount of time, especially someone with whom you've had conflicts, is in itself a blockable offense. Warnings at this time, for both users, would be most appropriate, with preventative blocks issued if disruption continues. EhJJTALK 23:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've warned both users multiple times. So I am good with some sort of editing restrictions. I did tell them to ignore each other and that clearly hasn't worked because now PBP is here complaining about TeleCom again. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...because he continues to make trouble for me and the rest of the WP community. Purplebackpack89 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think a block would be really sufficient in this case. Both Purplebackpack89 and Telecom have had a small dispute, so it seems rather unfair to just block Telecom. I really can't imagine Telecom ignoring people's warnings just because he doesn't want to do this or that. He probably doesn't understand... I'm sure I was very annoying and disruptive at first - okay, I'm still annoying now, of course :P - but it gets a bit better as you adjust to the community and site. If people had blocked me at first when I first came and started making annoying questions, going around interrupting people and flooding recent changes (not that Telecom does all of these), I would have never even had the chance to improve and instead just quit the whole thing - a very imprudent thing to do, yes, but anyway I would have. It's been quite some time since I joined, and now if they blocked me I would indeed be sincerely sorry. But at first, in the first few months, you can't understand it. Telecom just needs time and more explanation, and a block is exactly the kind of thing that would hurt his feelings. I'm just suggesting humbly that why don't we give him another chance? It's not a really big, vandalizing disruptive edit he's doing - just small faults here and there that I'm sure we can all forgive... But please, don't mind this long, silly speech I've been blabbering. I'm sure if I continued on I would end up blocked instead of Telecom - certainly a more well deserved block I suppose :P. So just think carefully about the matter and I leave the rest of the decision freely those wise admins, crats, etc. Thank you if you were even so kind as to read this long, make-you-yawn paragraph, Belle tête-à-tête 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We are not considering blocking, but some editing restrictions. Jon@talk:~$ 05:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think a block would be really sufficient in this case. Both Purplebackpack89 and Telecom have had a small dispute, so it seems rather unfair to just block Telecom. I really can't imagine Telecom ignoring people's warnings just because he doesn't want to do this or that. He probably doesn't understand... I'm sure I was very annoying and disruptive at first - okay, I'm still annoying now, of course :P - but it gets a bit better as you adjust to the community and site. If people had blocked me at first when I first came and started making annoying questions, going around interrupting people and flooding recent changes (not that Telecom does all of these), I would have never even had the chance to improve and instead just quit the whole thing - a very imprudent thing to do, yes, but anyway I would have. It's been quite some time since I joined, and now if they blocked me I would indeed be sincerely sorry. But at first, in the first few months, you can't understand it. Telecom just needs time and more explanation, and a block is exactly the kind of thing that would hurt his feelings. I'm just suggesting humbly that why don't we give him another chance? It's not a really big, vandalizing disruptive edit he's doing - just small faults here and there that I'm sure we can all forgive... But please, don't mind this long, silly speech I've been blabbering. I'm sure if I continued on I would end up blocked instead of Telecom - certainly a more well deserved block I suppose :P. So just think carefully about the matter and I leave the rest of the decision freely those wise admins, crats, etc. Thank you if you were even so kind as to read this long, make-you-yawn paragraph, Belle tête-à-tête 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...because he continues to make trouble for me and the rest of the WP community. Purplebackpack89 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've warned both users multiple times. So I am good with some sort of editing restrictions. I did tell them to ignore each other and that clearly hasn't worked because now PBP is here complaining about TeleCom again. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Editing restrictions for both. How's
- TeleCom stays away from any pages in other people's userspace, however badly they are "broken".
- Both users should not interact with, revert or comment about the other.
I'm not keen on poking around like this either, but I guess it causes no harm. sonia♫ 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sonia, I've incorporated your restrictions into the set below. Jon@talk:~$ 06:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(copied the following from User talk:TeleComNasSprVen, on request of the user) --Eptalon (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The first charge is rather ridiculous, almost to the point of insanity. I could have pointed out a similar event: 'Continuing to torment TeleComNasSprVen multiple times after being warned to stand down diff'
- The second charge is debatable, to which my accuser may or may not have a COI
- The third charge has an appearance of bad faith; I made the first reversion, and the second one should have been discussed per WP:BRD.
- The fourth charge is entirely false, and the action warranted: I tried to explain the nature of the sockpuppetry through checkuser, and the proper process to go through for it to work, but my explanations had gone unnoticed yet again.
- The fifth and sixth charges are arbitrary. I explained thus, "To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes?"
This is more or less asinine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Editing Restrictions
Editors Notified of editing restrictions in force. [5] [6]. Jon@talk:~$ 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here are a few comments of mine:
- Editing restrictions need to be symmetrical; what applies ot one editor should also apply to the other. If it doesn't it should at least be balanced.
- Editing talk pages: We clearly need to let the editors edit talk pages of admins, to inform about abonrmal situations. To limit the impact, I propose we limit this editing to the talk pages of bureaucrats; as to the no picking on one another, the same rules obviously apply.
- Fixing other people's user pages (excluding talk pages) should not be done, with the exception of the removal of "personal information" or other "inappropriate content". This removal will be done by admins, in general (usually: Oversighters, stewards, and Foundation staff)
- Article talk pages/Project pages: We should not restrict the editors from participating in discussions as long as they remain on-topic, focused on the article's subject.
- This "agreement" is in addition to the normal blocks/bans policy. Blocks and bans outside the agreement are not affected by it.
- The agreement should run for three months, not six months. WP admins are not babysitters.--Eptalon (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, this is not an agreement, but a topical ban designed to prevent further disruption to the project. Since the editors brought it here for administrative actions, the administrators took action. There is nothing symmetrical, there is no parity between the two, because the two don't have the same issues upon deep examination of the editing behavior. The two editors were looked at seperatly. For example, if editor a has no problem with bot like edits, then it would go forward to say editor a should not be retricted from doing so.
- The restrictions permit the editors to interact with each other if they are building consensus on article and project talk pages. The restrict them from interacting with each other on any other talk page. They are permitted to edit any talk page they want, just so long as they don't interact with each other. Suffice it to say, if the editors game the system, the block can be resulting. If editor a starts a new section on Eptalon's talk page, about a redirect... and editor b comes to start another section asking Eptalon for help on a VGA, this is ok. If they edit the same section, ands reference each other or interact, then they run afoul of the restriction.
- Fixing other folks userspace (not user talk space, user talk space was not part of the restriction) is forbidden. If there is an issue (BLP, PII) then they need to find another editor (or admin). This was another locus of the dispute.
- As above, the restriction is a postive worded restriction, that is, is allowed them to both participate in the same consensus building discussion on the same article or project talk page, since there was little issue here. The restriction was worded to permit that.
- Other blocks and bans (for example 3RR, and other issues) remain unaffected by this topical ban. I hope that I have adequetly addressed your concerns. Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments
- (change conflict) I take the wording very seriously. Can we change "any" to "other user's" and add "Proposed" next to "editing restrictions"? I just imported this and I'm on a deadline, so please don't make me miss it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I made the first of those changes, but it apparently got lost in change conflict. Restoring. Your deadline is, frankly, irrelevant to this discussion. sonia♫ 06:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- double (change conflict) -- (change conflict) Maybe he does mean "any" (except yours, of course). Hazard-SJ Talk 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to edit any userspace outside your own, and I fear, it is going to take these draconian measures to keep this project on track. And there is nothing proposed about this. If there are no significant objections from the other administrators, say in 24 hours or so, these remedies become effective. Jon@talk:~$ 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- By semi-automated, do you mean my regular habit? Please clarify. And I don't use AutoWikiBrowser, whatever the heck that means. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've altered the restriction to more accurately address the behaviors. Jon@talk:~$ 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some admins will grant it, some will not. To clarify my statement in the diff of mine you quoted, I was asking you to throttle your edits, not offering to flood you. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've altered the restriction to more accurately address the behaviors. Jon@talk:~$ 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- By semi-automated, do you mean my regular habit? Please clarify. And I don't use AutoWikiBrowser, whatever the heck that means. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I made the first of those changes, but it apparently got lost in change conflict. Restoring. Your deadline is, frankly, irrelevant to this discussion. sonia♫ 06:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dear Telecom, remember, we appreciate your good intentions and energy, but please, slow down! :) There's no need to mass-welcome users or make many botlike edits. In my opinion, one quality edit that enlarges Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is better than ten quick, tiny edits, besides being much more fun...why not come to Category:Stubs and try expanding some? :) The restrictions seem sensible, though I agree with Fr33kman that I'd really like PBP and Tel to try to talk nicely to each other. When there is once conceived a prejudice against each other, the smallest trifles can become flint and fire (as in this case - I don't see why either Telecom or PBP should have become heated over such inconsequential things). Kindly, —Clementina talk 08:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst I respect my colleagues, Mr. Fr33kman and Ms. Clementina, I do not believe the mediation is appropriate for this, due to the full spectrum of behavioral issues we are attempting to address. Mediation was more designed for article dispute (where a single point is the locus), and the spans beyond that. I respectfully posit that editing restrictions will help us move past this with a minimum of disruption to our goals here at the Simple English Wikipedia. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose you're right, Nonvocalscream. More discussion on Wikipedia might probably create more disputes than solve any. Perhaps they can try talking to each other offwiki, like on IRC sometime, though this can be at most only a suggestion and not a proposal. I do think the restrictions are reasonable though, and feel they would be a safe guide to follow as of now. Cordially, —Clementina talk 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC) And on a wholly unrelated note, I am a Miss. ;)
May I suggest Purplebackpack89 avoids making changes to try and introduce a more "global" feel to pages? He is at danger of coming across as wanting to add a pro-American bias to pages. Just a thought Soup Dish (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you mean by that? sonia♫ 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- In an attempt to create a global view, Purplebackpack89 risks drifting into creating a bias. This diff shows the user has a clear bias Soup Dish (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that it is better for PBP not to attempt to create a global view? sonia♫ 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because his attempts at creating a global view sometimes revert in a neutral view becoming an American view. I do feel sympathy for TeleComNasSprVen, to an extent, because from an outside view, it looks as though he was the one being goaded by Purplebackpack89 Soup Dish (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that it is better for PBP not to attempt to create a global view? sonia♫ 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- In an attempt to create a global view, Purplebackpack89 risks drifting into creating a bias. This diff shows the user has a clear bias Soup Dish (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The editing restrictions don't really delineate a ban on talking about the other on third-party sources, such as other user's talk pages (though apparantly not AN, as I have been criticized as "asisine" there). However, it has been interpreted as such (even for my edit that really didn't have anything to do with him), hence why both of us are blocked right now. I propose interpretation as such be stopped. It seems perfectly reasonable to come to another user if you have an issue with something but can't do anything to edit it Purplebackpack89 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Copied from user talk:Purplebackpack89 by Lauryn Ashby at user's request. @Lauryn (parlez) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
AWB/bot edit restriction
Perhaps suitable for Hazard, whom I assume you had in mind when writing it. Would it be possible to create restrictions for him as well? (No flooding/unauthorised bot edits, no interference with blocks) sonia♫ 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- (change conflict) He's finished with his "list" of orphan tagging, so far as I know. But he has picked up my habit, so to speak. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not certain we're at that point with him yet. Perhaps, if it comes to it, it might be better to simply remove him from the AWB checkpage and tell him to alter his editing pattern. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had totally mistyped. I'm attempting to address the mass welcoming that had flooded RC... but perhaps that restriction needs to be removed? I think creating restrictions for Hazard would require separate thread, something I don't think I'm prepared to do until we resolve this one. :) Jon@talk:~$ 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I may make a comment on that, I thought that was covered under "bot-like edits", which I'm sure that we can all agree that 30 out of 50 recent changes being a user welcoming others certainly falls under. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- To go from a slightly different angle, maybe he should just not welcome every IP that makes a first edit in the previous (day/week/since he last edited)'s changes. I have no issues with IPs that have just edited or logged-in users, but what he's doing seems a bit over the top. sonia♫ 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah we used to generally not welcome any IPs and only welcomed registered users who had made a few edits other than their userpages because we didn't want the wasted talk pages created...but thats been lost along the way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- To go from a slightly different angle, maybe he should just not welcome every IP that makes a first edit in the previous (day/week/since he last edited)'s changes. I have no issues with IPs that have just edited or logged-in users, but what he's doing seems a bit over the top. sonia♫ 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I may make a comment on that, I thought that was covered under "bot-like edits", which I'm sure that we can all agree that 30 out of 50 recent changes being a user welcoming others certainly falls under. @Lauryn (parlez) 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A) This issue really doesn't belong here, as the above section only covers me and <username> per se. B) I don't think administrative attention is required for Hazard-SJ just yet, just some notes and warnings. He's still relatively new here, and he's done with his orphan tagging. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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.