KidzSearch Encyclopedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 38

Crats

Can we please use {{status}} for all requests on WP:CHU? Using it on some types of request, but not others is troublesome for us old people. :) fr33kman 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, I was under the impression that it served no purpose and added extra work for me. Jon@talk:~$ 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just find it easier to see if something has been taken care of or needs doing. Maybe it's just me? :) fr33kman 00:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is easier for you, then I'm ok using it. I could take it or leave it. :) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I liked it before we had it per the discussion on the talk page there. I would rather people just use the {{done}} template at the end of the section to make it clear its done. Using the status template makes things more complicated. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way, but if it could be kept the same for all requests on that page, it'd be good. It's not simplewiki's issue, but I've got a lot of pages I have to watch/scan, and they all use different versions of "completed" or "go away" :) I'm cool with Dj's comments, but let's stick to one lane. fr33kman 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection on Valve Corporation

Valve Corporation is undergoing massive vandalism by IPs and newly registered editors. Semi-protection would be appreciated. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Call of Duty series as well. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• And Electronic Arts and Dragon Ball. I think there's a 12-year-old slumber party somewhere that's decided that vandlizing wikipedia is a great party game. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Template:Toolbar should probably be fully protected in general. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done on the template and the others have ceased to be vandalized so haven't done it for them. If it starts up again can go from there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for flood flag

Could I have a flood flag, please? I want to do some stub sorting. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finished for now. Go ahead and remove the flag. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Steward elections

Hey fellows! There are soon Steward elections on meta. If there is someone who always wanted to become a steward and fulfils the criteria then feel free to nominate yourself. Nominations can be submitted between 21st August and 7th September. We need more helping hands. If someone has questions what it means to be a steward, we have many people locally who can answer this question. Maybe someone from our community decides to run for this position. Best, -Barras (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag, please?

Could I have the flood flag? I want to do some stub sorting. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done let us know once you're through :) James (T C) 21:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'm finished for now. Go ahead and remove the flag. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

request for flood flag

Could I have a flood flag, please? I want to do some category diffusing. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - Let us know when you're done. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm finished now. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Jon@talk:~$ 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please un-flood me

I was given the flood flag earlier, and I am now finished editing. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. -Barras (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

request for flood flag

Please give me the flood flag so I can do some stub sorting. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 03:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm done now. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Has been removed by Sonia. -Barras (talk)

Flags

Hi fellows! As you all (or at least most of you) may know, I've been an oversighter, bureaucrat and checkuser here (RfO, RfB and RfCU). I dropped the crat and os rights quite some time (4 or 5 months?) back and about one and a half months ago the cu right. I just needed a little break from those stuff. I just talked to a cu and he said help would be good. So I'd now like to request my 3 additional flags back here, if you still trust me and want me of course. (Please note that I might be away until Saturday evening, will sadly not know until tomorrow morning. So if a reply from me is needed here, please be patient.) Best, -Barras (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with you having them. But do you need them all? Probably only really need more hands in the CU area. (only ask this because the last person that gave them up then asked for them back went pretty much idle after asking for them back) -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have Done the crat flag here, and pushed the OS and CU rights requests upstream to meta since you are already authorised. Jon@talk:~$ 22:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know it was asked here to make sure the community still wanted him to have them right? -DJSasso (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not read it that way. Regardless, it is not needed, since the request is so close to the resignation of the flags, there has been no significant change in the editor, and no significant span of time between the resignation and request here today. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks people. However, a bit surprised that it was done that quick as there is no rush anyway. -Barras (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Although I have no objections to this particular case I think that such a large gap there should be a longer discussion to ensure that there is still community consensus. Things can change in 6 months or so, therefore I think it would be better to discuss. Again I reiterate that I don't have any objections in this instance, just a general opinion. Ydennek ^(talk) 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'm fine with him having all back. He is one of our most active editors, and if he can help in areas where that help is needed, by all means. Yottie ^=talk= 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• This really is a trip. We are not going to have a discussion if someone takes a break and wants any type of flag back (unless a significant amount of time passes). The community discussion that granted this flag still applies. Wow. Jon@talk:~$ 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• We have had discussions in the past when someone gives up OS and CU. These are more serious flags than admin/crat. The community may treat them differently and feel we do or don't need more at a given time even if the person had them before. Not saying this is the case now, but 6 months is enough time to have an informal discussion yes. Not everything on here needs to be treated like a race. There is no cookie for doing something first. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll play. Trasnclude a permissions request, let it run the seven days, use the requirements at m:checkuser for voting. You can't have your cookie and eat it too. Either these things get pushed to a full permissions requests with the m:checkuser standards attached, or we do it how we have done it in the past. There is no OS and CU informal discussion, foundation policy is clear with this. Do you trust your crats? Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• My point is that where theres a large gap I think it would be foolish just to re-assign the tools without hearing a general opinion. If it means we have to do a RfA then so be it. If there are no objections it may SNOW quickly. My preference would be to allow a short space of time for any objections or comments to be made. Normandy ^(talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can understand the issues here and was actually myself surprised, that I got the rights that quick. A liitle discussion never hurts and there was and is no rush anyway. Actually, this way of gaining tools back (when resigned uncontroversial) is fairly common and I think that another RfX is not needed. However, people should learn not to rush. (Other people got their tools back te same way after even longer breaks... Fr33kman, James etc.). Sorry for typos and stuff, but it's all my mobilephone's fault ;-) Barras (de) (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• First, I have no objection to Barras getting his flags back. Second, if we are to hold a discussion for returning CU and OS rights, let's make it policy so that we can follow the same standards for every request. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for flood flag

Could I have a flood flag, please? I want to do some category diffusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm through for tonight. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag?

If there are any admins around, could I have a flood flag to do some category diffusion? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You now have it--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All in favor of giving Auntof6 a permanent flood flag say aye. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thanks, but I should probably just work within the procedure as it is! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm through messing things up editing for tonight -- un-flood me! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Grunny (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at 4chan

I can spot multiple vandalism changes from 2 weeks ago. Should this page be protected from changes by IP addresses so that when the IP addresses return, they can't vandalize the page? NYMets2000 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh they hit plenty more than just 4chan. Dragon Ball, Valve Corporation, Space Invaders, and Hello were also favorite targets. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be. I personally believe anything that's been repeatedly and consistently IP vandalized should be silverlocked. But, since most mops around here think it's not vandalism unless it's several times a day, it probably won't be Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Can I please have access to the AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ±  03:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Those requests should be made here and a reason would also be good. -Barras (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done.  Hazard-SJ  ±  04:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I have a flood flag, please?

I'd like a flood flag so I can do some category cleanup and stub sorting. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. sonia♫ 04:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You can remove it now. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed. -Barras (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming

As per my conversation here, I am requesting renaming of the categories listed below. They need to be renamed to have "movie" in the name instead of "film". Please let me know if I can help with any of the process.

Film organizations Film festivals Film actors Film production Film characters Film terminology Film templates Star Trek films English film directors Canadian film actors Film score composers

English-language films British film actors American film directors Italian film directors British film producers Armenian film directors Canadian film directors British film directors Indian film directors French film directors American film score composers

--Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually an easy way for admins to do this? I only know about removing the incorrect and re-adding the correct category to the page and then delete the old category. -Barras (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If not, I'd be happy to do it with AWB. That would at least be less painful than doing it manually. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pybot's category.py allows you to move categories. It will create the new category page with the same content as the old, change all pages in the old category to the new one, and if you're an admin offer to delete the old category all in one go. I can run this script on these if no one objects? Cheers, Grunny (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Should be OK. As Djsasso said on ST, this should be uncontroversial as we normally use movie anyway. But please don't rush here. Better to wait one or two more days to see if someone objects here. -Barras (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This has now been done. :) Cheers, Grunny (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at Greater_Moonrat redirect page

I emailed this directly to Bsadowski1, but looks like I should have posted it here.

I cannot figure out how this is being done, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Moonrat page redirect has been vandalized in some way that is not showing up in the edit history or code. The redirect is to Moonrat, but it looks like it is being hijacked in some way. I could not figure out how it was being done.

-- You can get to it by going to the URL above. Please note the picture on that page is NWS (very NWS)

The HTML code is below:

Uhh, I cannot post it here because it ended up hijacking this page. But if anyone needs the actual HTML that's being generated, let me know. Loiosh (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

-- I'm starting from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinaceomorpha and going to 'Greater Moonrat' from the link (which looks like a normal redirect). I also contacted the wikipedians on #wikipedia-en to see if it's something on my end. I'm seeing it in all my browsers, but I haven't tried from work yet. I'll try that in about a half-hour here. Loiosh (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This was resolved thanks to the wikipedia-en IRC group. It looks like part of the template fix done for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IUCN&action=history was not applied to the Erinaceomorpha page. Once it was purged the vandalism disappeared \o/ Loiosh (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for flood flag Aug 31

Could I have a flood flag, please? I'm working on category diffusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, however, to save you and me time, I recommend creating an alternative account for the sole purpose of doing these types of tasks. Simply ask a bureaucrat for the bot flag on the alt. account, and he will give it, provided that the flag is used properly. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you can take the flag off now. I'm sorry if I've been a pest asking for the flood flag. :) I will look into setting up an alternate account as you suggest. Should I ask a bureaucrat directly, or make the request at Wikipedia talk:Bots? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed. -Barras (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was actually rejected for a bot flag, (though I might be thinking of someone else). Generally want this work approved each time they do it instead of a blanket bot flag because the admin giving the flood flag is supposed to check the edits afterwards/during. That being said I would rather it was just done unflagged...but some of y'all get upset about flood. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never asked for a bot flag, or used any account other than this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries I didn't mean anything bad by it...I just know I had recently not given a flag for a bot to someone who does the same kind of edits you do. Couldn't remember if it was you or not. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, no offense taken. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When I did it on my account, I requested at WT:Bots with an initial request, and for each additional request for a new task, I asked a 'crat personally. As for DJ's approval each time so as to make sure there's no abuse, IIRC, when I did it, a 'crat checked the edits every day or so. As for the flood, it really does annoy me, and makes fighting real vandalism much harder, even on the IRC channel, because of the volume of edits. With the bot flag, we can add the account to the bot list, and ignore it on there also. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can hide minor edits the same way if you weren't aware. Doesn't help for the IRC channel but it does the same thing for recent changes. But I also think people overblow the vandalism issue...we get so little vandalism that flooding is almost never going to be a problem. Especially since we have many users who are very anal about looking at every edit from non regulars anyways. It would be a rare day that some would slip through. That being said the way we handled your bot was a good one. That is definitely an option. I had forgotten about that. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just btw, there are very nice tools which are more helpful for watching the RCs than any IRC channel or the RCs itself. It highlights IPs and other stuff. -Barras (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Speaking of flood flags, I'm done with mine, if an admin would kindly remove it. Thanks. -Avicenna[[Special:Contributions/Avicennasis| Reason: we don't know that everyone in the category is a star; also, we don't have Category:Movie stars, we have Category:Movie actors. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd support this, particularly as 'stars' in this context is hardly simple. Those bright things in the sky?! Common sense really, good one for bringing it up. Goblin 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Or even just put them in the regular actor categories. We don't distinguish other actors by the types of movies they act in. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User creating tiny articles with no meaning

In the last hour or so, User:213.107.74.132 has created several articles that have little or no meaning. Here is a list of at least some of them:

• Red or black
• Rev limiter
• Kazunori Yamauchi
• Polyphony Digital
• World Rally Championship
• Sim racing

Is some admin action in order? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, their action on RfD is not constructive. Can an admin please address this user? Gotanda (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#User reported --Auntof6 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Could someone move Tadpole shrimp to Notostraca, as in enWP. They are neither shrimps nor tadpoles! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, though the image given somewhat resembles a shrip; I left a redirect, as our users will porbably look for the "common name"... --Eptalon (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with this move. The scientific name is certainly less simple than the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just a question of simplicity. Higher categories are generally given the latin names because they may contain members given different common names, and furthermore, often different in different countries and languages. Here, with only two genera, there are still two 'common' names. Neither are actually common, because no normal person even knows these critters exist! It is different with everyday animals like mammals and birds, where people do know them under common names. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize there were two "common" names for this creature since I only saw one on the page. If there are two then its probably ok. -DJSasso (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't care much if the common name is a redirect to the latin one, or the other way round, but we should keep in mind that most people here will probably be looking for comomn names, no matter how "accurate" they are. I doubt except for bilogists who use probably use it as a model organism, no one is really interested in lancelets. I was also not aware, that there are about a dozen different species, in two famililes... --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Where is the proper place to get help with a dispute with another editor? An editor has been undoing quite a few of my changes because s/he disagrees with them. I will go into detail when I know the correct place to do so. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Emailing an admin is probably the best way to go. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? This is more a case of needing to get a consensus on which viewpoint should be followed, not a case of vandalism. Sorry I wasn't more clear. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article, or on that users talk page. You need to try to work it out with him before coming to the admins.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been discussing it on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. If you feel the community needs to talk about it, Simple talk is always a good option.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tools.

Hey guys. Two months ago I pretty much became inactive, because I was busy planning to move across the province, and last month I had my admin tools removed because I was actually moving and didn't have internet, except for my smartphone. I didn't think I would have internet again for a long time, however, good news, I was able to get it hooked up last week. So long story short, was wondering if I could have my sysops tools back to help out. Thanks guys :) (Yeah I feel kinda bad asking for them back only a month later, but I really didn't expect to be back online so soon.)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

HELPME!

A bot is thinking a page I made is an attack page! It is not intended to be an attack page. What do I do now!?!? HELPME QUICK!!!!!!!!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't just blindly delete pages, y'know. Quick deletion declined; the bot clearly made a mistake there. Howeer, I'd say that article needs a bit of work still in order to be of much use. sonia♫ 09:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Phew! I was worried I would get blocked for making an attack page!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for your work! sonia♫ 09:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin renamed

Hi there!

Just letting you know that I renamed Either way (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) this evening to Only (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes). This means, there is no new admin appeared from nowhere here, but just a new name for an (old) admin. -Barras (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Coolchristy29

Coolchristy29 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Coolchristy29 is vandilsing (blanking) iPhone, and World.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Coolchristy29 is a vandalism-only account. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it best to block him/her?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think he's a vandalism-only acct, report him to WP:AIV Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

URGENT NOTE

Jeff Mills has a QD. How can I improve the page beore it gets deleted? QUICK!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, this IP has been blocked for 6 months on En Wikipedia For "trolling". Please advise. Racepacket (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped doing bad things. Please do not block me. What bad things am I doing? That's history.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using all caps. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MOST URGENT

Administrators IMMEDIATELY needed at Lord of the Rings, my Rollback in TW isn't working, and the user keeps on vandalising, the page will need protected and reverted. I can't do it because I can't seem to get the Undo function to work with me. Orashmatash (t • c) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, incident resolved. Orashmatash (t • c) 16:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

user has vandalised again, and needs a block. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Orashmatash. Next time twinkle doesn't work, you can just use the undo button. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but he had vandalised so many times I couldn't find what revision to undo, so I came here. Goblinbot4 took care of it, but, as Macdonald-Ross said, the user has vandalise again, and I agree when he said a block is needed. Orashmatash (t • c) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi, could someone delete this page? I've been trying to get it working but it isn't so i'll just stick to the non-working Twinkle for now. Orashmatash (t • c) 20:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, if you want one of your subpages deleted you can add {{QD}} U1 to the top of the page. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, but because it was a css page, the template didn't work and it just came up as text, so I came here. Orashmatash is travelling, the alternate account of Orashmatash. (t) 07:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Same strange bot behavior with two different bots

Both ChuispastonBot and MystBot have done the same kind of bad change recently. It looks like they were trying to add multiple interwikis, but they ended up wiping out most of the pages. The diffs are here for ChuispastonBot and here for MystBot. Just thought I should report this somewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one from Rubinbot. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• User:DSisyphBot has done the same thing. I've contacted the owner. I don't know why so many bots are doing this... Could it have something do to with the software update?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  It would be because they are all using pywikipedia so either it has a bug or the new interface affected something...I think its more likely a pywikipedia bug. I will look into it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of editors at WP:PR

Currently there are seven articles (four of mines, sowwrry) that are in need of a peer review from experience editors. The oldest one has been sitting there since 11 August 2011. It will be helpful if we have someone there to review articles that are trying to reach WP:GA or WP:VGA status. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I know I'm not an admin, but I was looking over the ANI and I came across this. I would be more than happy to give you some peer reviews, I will definitely review the one from 11th August, I'm surprised nobody else did if it's been there for more than a month, though. Orashmatash (t • c) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to review articles. Just need experience editors who can give us critical feedback on what needs to be fixed. Thanks! Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Things like peer review don't really function here all that well since as you have noticed we don't really have the editors to support them. Prior to this most recent set that has been put up there I can't think of when we really had any on there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the best bet (depending on how you feel) is to actually submit these articles at WP:PGA. At least they will get some scrutiny there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But its a requirement that articles gets a PR. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant to suggest the same as TRM. I don't think its a requirement here, and if it is as long as you do you best to have a complete article and don't expect others to finish it for you then no one minds if you go straight to PGA. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a requirement, never has been, never will be. Clearly you've still not read up on how our PGA process actually works. How many times does this need explaining? Goblin 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

Actually it is. An article is identified as a potential candidate. It should be listed on the peer review page to allow other editors to make improvements. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Subtle difference I know...but it only says should...doesn't say has to. It is just a suggestion. The requirements are in the section above that. The quote you take is just from a section of suggestions on how to make sure your article is good. Perhaps you are just caught up in formalities having come from en. We are far less formal here and tend to follow "spirit" of the law more than "letter" of the law here whereas en is the opposite. -DJSasso (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Djsasso, if you feel so strongly that there aren't many editors at Peer review, I will regularly check the page and write reviews. It's only one user, but 1 is better than none I suppose... Orashmatash (t • c) 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out either. However, I will limit myself because I'm not that good at reviewing articles. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying people can't do it. I am just saying its not out of the ordinary for them to sit there not looked at for a long time. Was just trying to indicate that for the most part here, the PGA and Peer Review happen at the same time at the PGA. A lot of processes and other things on this wiki are more streamlined like that due to less people among other things. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Oh, okay. Orashmatash (t • c) 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fecebook

Can someone please delete that article? The author keeps removing my QD tags. It was tagged under section G3 - Complete vandalism. Orashmatash ^{(t - c)} 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done by an admin Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New pages patrol

Up to half our new pages are not being patrolled, leaving an increasing backlog. Patrolling is an important duty, and should be a higher priority. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most people have long since said literal page patrolling isn't important here because most people do patrol the new pages but don't actually click the little patrolled link since our recent changes move so slow we don't need the process like en does. I know I certainly do check pages but never check them as patrolled. We don't as far as I know have an official page patrolling function here like on en. We only mark people as patrollers here so their edits don't show up as unpatrolled. I know this has been discussed a number of times with most people thinking its not that big a deal here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Macdonad-ross. If we don't give out the flood flag often, stuff gets tossed to far back, and people don't check. I've recently been going way back and finding tons of vandalism not being caught for days. I'll start patrolling new pages more often.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When I am around, I spend a little time patrolling pages; note however, that I usually don't patrol the celebrities/albums/songs pages we get. It would perhaps be better to look at the number of pages in the log, rather than the date of the last unpatrolled page.--Eptalon (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon, if you're talking about how Special:RecentChanges gets flooded, you could try looking at Special:NewPages instead. That shows only new pages, not changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Here's an edgy but solutions-oriented proposal: half of all the new pages or more come from only a handful of editors. Just give those editors patroller or autopatroller rights, and you'll have much less of a patrol backlog. Oh, the backlog might go down, as someone who had a lot of new pages is blocked at the moment Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd happily patrol pages, but I'm not a patroller. I used to patrol on ENWP, but my concern here is that my own articles aren't being patrolled. I want other user's input on them, and the lack of patrollers isn't allowing that. I agree with Macdonald-ross, It's an important duty and needs to be taken more seriously than it is. I do understand that many people already patrol pages, but like Peer Review, it's not exactly... Popular. Orashmatash 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody give this man patroller, please Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've granted our friend here patroller rights. Use them well.-- Tdxiang 06:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm not sure whether someone with less than 100 edits to the mainspace really needed this right or has sufficient experience to use it. Either way, what has been done has been done, just use it well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I personally think I can be trusted with the rights. If you are still unsure, feel free to watch my mainspace edits shoot up thanks to the patroller rights allowing me to spot unpatrolled pages, patrol them, add maintenance tags if necessary, and fix problems. I appreciate the rights, and I promise to use them wisely. Orashmatash 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Chemistry!

The issue is that it also now exempts you from having your pages patrolled. Which someone with only 100 edits should not have. We have seen little in the way of that kind of work from you. Patrollers are supposed to be people with article creation experience which you are lacking. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the "New changes" page and would be willing to try page patrol. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I exercised my personal discretion in doing so, taking into consideration Orashmatash's work as a rollbacker and am confident that he will use the tools well in this respect. Either way, my actions are open to reversal and I'm open to recall if there are grave doubts about my abilities as an admin.-- Tdxiang 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all issues raised here. If the community is unhappy with me having the rights, please revoke them. I will NOT accept rights without the community feeling comfortable with it, after all, patrollers should be trusted. Orashmatash 20:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Cookies!

Spoof new pages...

... by User:85.12.79.6 need deletions, and immediate blocking. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome IP vandal

Special:Contributions/180.95.3.121 has been blocked two times before and is now on a Level-3 warning and if this continues a block will be needed. This IP has not made any constructive edits. BlowingTopHat (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

Both parties are reminded that further edit warring after protection expires may result blocks. Also, both editors are reminded to please resolve the dispute without involving administrators if possible. Jon@talk:~$ 01:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests to edit protected pages

Resolved. done by chenzw fr33kman 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone look at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests? I posted a request on 19 September for template {{Infobox country}}, and I haven't seen a response yet. Thanks in advance for checking. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to chenzw! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user editing?

Resolved.

:) Jon@talk:~$ 09:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

edited Adolf Hitler yesterday, despite being blocked. Please check this link to the page history. If this user has, for whatever reason, been unblocked, might I suggest you remove the "Blocked" template from his/her user page. Orashmatash (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

His edit took place 7 hours before his block. He's not unblocked. Only (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Orashmatash (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kazunori Yamauchi...

Resolved. not a deletion candidate fr33kman 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

...Is directly copied from ENWP. I am not going to QD it, given its size, but I am bringing it here so that if an admin feels that it should be deleted, (s)he knows that it is here. Orashmatash (t • c) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not directly copied, it has been simplified and therefore not a candidate for QD. fr33kman 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It has, Fr33kman. Check. Orashmatash (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is simple. That is our criteria....the speedy criteria is that something is copied and not simple. In this case it is simple so its not an issue and not speediable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just noticed. Thanks Djsasso. Orashmatash (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for flood flag

I'm not sure whether it's best to request a flood flag here or ask for approval to use my bot for this. I'm populating Category:Autobiographers and Category:Biographers and have quite a few more search results to go through. Apparently I already caused flooding with this, because User:Fr33kman gave me the flood flag and then removed it when I took a break for lunch, so I apologize for that. Please let me know whether the flood flag or bot permission is best. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can tell... You were flooding IRC Channel #cvn-simplewikis which lists most of the recent changes. Orashmatash (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In the past we have allowed users such as Auntof6 to create another account that is only used for non-controversial edits of a bot-like nature. I would be willing to allow Auntof6 the use of such a second account. This would stop the need to ask for the flood flag. However, it should be noted that this secondary account must only be used to make edits that a simplewiki crat has approved. IE: you need approval for each new type of action you want to perform with it. Thoughts? fr33kman 23:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

IE: the second account would be flagged as a bot account, thus obviating the need to request flood. fr33kman 23:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent suggestion.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I already have such an account (User:Auntof6Bot), but I understand that I need approval for each task I want to do. If you're saying that it would be better for me to go that route instead of ask for a flood flag, I will make that request. I just didn't know which would be easier on the folks that do the approvals. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that it'd be better to edit from your bot account for such small and non-controversial edits such as cat sorting, maintenance tags etc. You have manual control over the account in addition to bot control. If you want to use it for something very different from that which it is approved for then just ask a crat for the okay. All the best .. fr33kman 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags should definitely not be hidden by flags (sort of defeats the purpose of trying to notify the people of the problem). Cat sorting is a lesser problem and could probably go to the flagged account. I personally prefer to see them in the open as well. Its not like we are getting overly flooded by his work. People are far too concerned with the RC here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the tags do add the article to the relevant category. I agree we're too worried about flooding. I do, however, feel that if an admin grants the flood flag then it is incumbent upon that admin to monitor the grantee's contribs. It's something I do myself and others should also. fr33kman 17:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Auntof6

Hey, do you guys know that Auntof6 still has the flood flag despite not making an edit since early this morning? Orashmatash 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Its apparently been on there 3 days. Please admins remember that when you give it out, you personally are expected to check all their edits and to remove it when either they stop editing or you leave. Otherwise don't give it out. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this normal?

Resolved. No admin action needed. Only (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this "do whatever you want. I've said my piece." an accepted and standard method of discussing differences of opinion regarding an article here? Because, if it is, I can't see the new user base expanding much. Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the issue with the other user? I see no evidence of you trying to first. Only (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not accepted or standard by any means, but if you were unhappy with what Macdonald-ross said, then you should probably talk to him about it first before taking it here. Orashmatash 20:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A reply was left on the article's talk page, however, I'm not looking for any action; just wondering if it was normal. Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well in the future, please remember that this message board is for requesting administrative action. None is needed here at all. Only (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please check my bot request?

Not to rush anyone, but I've had a request at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Current requests for a few days. Could someone please check it when they get a chance? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done fr33kman 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible alternative account

I would like to create an alternative account. I believe I can assure everyone that it is for a legitimate purpose, but it doesn't quite fit neatly under the guidelines.

Background: I recently did a presentation about SEWP at a teaching conference. There was lots of interest, but the room did not allow a hands-on workshop, so few people actually went ahead on their own later and tried it. I may have a chance to do some workshops in computer rooms with teachers in the future.

I'd like to create a separate account for demonstration purposes: show relatively non-techie language teachers how to create an account, user page, talk page, history, make a few edits, etc. To really make a good demo, I kind of need to start from scratch. I hope that would be fine. There are two issues I see already. One, at times I would like to use my current account and the demo account at the same time to show how to use Talk, undo others edits, etc. Also, if possible, I'd like to not put a huge notice on the alternate account userpage with a lot of bureacratese or technical Wikipedia jargon. That kind of thing can really put off new users and non-techies. If one of the first things they see is "This is not a sockpuppet", some are likely to lose interest. I'd like to keep it minimal, like "This account is also used by Gotanda for teaching purposes." I could put a more substantial notice on my main user page. I could also notify admins in advance if I planned to use both accounts simultaneously. This would happen quite rarely-a few times per year at most.

Sound OK? Problems? Questions? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible idea. We should support ideas that could increase the support and use of this project.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Really don't see any issues with that. Thanks for showcasing our Wikipedia!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly legitimate as you're declaring it to be an alternative account. I have one of my own, which I use when travelling so I don't risk leaving my tools available if I fail to log off correctly... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a small declaration like you mention. This account is used by Gotanda or whatever then that should be fine. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it! Sounds like a really good idea. Normandy ^(talk) 11:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks all for the supportive comments. I didn't think there would be any serious problems, but never hurts to make things clear. Was most concerned that using two accounts simultaneously might be flagged. I hope I can draw a few more people into this project, but it will take a while. Gotanda (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Flood Flag, Auntof6

Hate to be a burden, but yet again, Auntof6 has the flood flag, and has not made an edit since 12:56 this afternoon. Just letting you know. Orashmatash 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it it is listed on the RC so we can tell. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just in case you forgot about it again. :) Orashmatash 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A Bot

Hello, I created an account for a bot that I was GOING to request approval for, but I aborted it. The account is OrashmaBot, and I was going to run it on Pywikipedia. However, I ran into some installation problems, so I am not going to make a bot after all. I deleted Python and all related files from my computer, so the bot is basically just an unused account that does absolutely nothing. The reason I brought it here was because I didn't want anyone to think that I was running an un-approved bot. Heck, you can even re-name it, block it or just delete it. I couldn't care less, to be honest. Thanks, Orashmatash 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a real need to do anything to the account, it doesn't have any special permissions. Although it is called "OrashmaBot" which may be a bit of an issue if you ever used it. It would be a reasonable idea to scramble your password. I could rename the account if anyone really wanted me to. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I scrambled the password. However, if you renamed it to "Arashmatash", I could use it as a Doppelgänger account. Orashmatash 14:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That account already exists so a rename is not possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so it does. I must apologise, that's an account I used at one point on the English Wikipedia, but I have since forgotten the password. Everything's fine now, I forgot that I actually had that account. I would never use it anyway, I prefer my current username. Cheers, Orashmatash 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

83.208.181.221

This IP has been consistently editing the sandbox for one month already. I don't think that is considered normal editing behaviour. Could the user be confused over the interface? Can someone proficient in the user's language attempt to communicate with him? Chenzw  Talk  15:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is because their wiki doesn't have a sandbox and/or they want to do the work away from their wiki prior to putting it on that wiki. It is no harm to us as they are using the sandbox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DJ, whilst it is not normal editing, I don't see a disruption. Jon@talk:~$ 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Can someone add me to this list? Thanks Normandy ^(talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

I believe we as a group have become a bit to liberal in our use of blocking. We should be careful that we are not blocking voices only because they dissent. I will not tolerate censorship, and while we have not done it as administrators, from what I see in the recent weeks, we are close. Friends, please consider my words. With utmost respect, Jon@talk:~$ 23:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with NonvocalScream. Threats to block me were leveled because I questioned someone's double standards (and provided 2 clear cases). "Warned" again today for requesting evidence of consensus. As NonvocalScream aptly said, this place is beginning to censor people who dissent. Goodvac (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything I think this wiki is far to lax in blocking. It is after all why we are known as the wiki who let people get away with everything. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between dissent and disrupting the project. Once an admin decides a person has moved over the line from questioning the way we do things (not necessarily a bad thing) to disruption then the admin should block. Each admin will have different tolerances but we trust the admins, do we not? Normandy ^(talk) 11:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jon is right. There is censorship here, against me and, IMHO, at least three other editors who are somewhat of contrarians. This Wikipedia uses trumped-up charges to block, bully and restrict those editors.
• Do I trust the admins? Nah. Why? Because they're not independent the way they're supposed to be. A Wikipedia isn't supposed to have the bulk of its admins be of one mind and always be hitting each other up on IRC with "in jokes"
• DJ, re:lax enforcement. The problem isn't that our enforcement is lax, but nonsensical. At ENWP or most other big Wikis; they boot the cross-wiki vandals and naughty IPs while embracing content generators (even if they're incivil). Here, we embrace cross-wiki vandals and naughty IPs while booting content providers (see proposal below about Racepacket). This nonsensical policy is one of the reasons nothing much gets done here 13:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If you don't trust the admins, then you should suggest they have their admin rights removed, gain consensus etc etc, do something about it instead of whining. Glad you're not including me though as I avoid IRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I tried that a couple times; also tried opposing additional rights for admins I didn't feel deserve them. Instead of getting meaningful change on this wiki, it got other admins mad at me. RFRRing admins I don't like would just lead the remaining editors engaging in censorship to block me. Whining? I doubt it. I didn't start this thread, after all. You're right to stay off IRC. It's half joke, half cabal Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      • If you're not prepared to do anything about it, stop whining. You know the saying: "Put up or shut up"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:NOHOMO

Resolved.

Hello simple administrators! It recently came to my attention that may have a username that violates our policy on the matter. If you separate NO and HOMO, you can see what I mean. If I am mistaken, I apologise, but I just want to make sure. Cheers, Orashmatash 19:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Forget that, user has been indef blocked for vandalism... --Orashmatash 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with documentation on protected templates

I have been trying to make sure that all templates have appropriate categories. For protected templates, I can take care of them if they use documentation subpages, but I need help with those that don't. I'd like to request the following:

Protected templates with no documentation

Add <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> to the end of these

{{MediaWiki block log link}} • {{MediaWiki unblock link}} • {{MediaWiki watch userpage}} • {{MediaWiki edit talk}} • {{Wikitopics}} • {{Introduction}} • {{Not done}} • {{Archive-bottom}}

 Done fr33kman 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected templates that use {{/doc}} to display documentation

Change {{/doc}} to {{documentation}} to make it easier to work with these

{{Nowrap}} • {{Loop}} • {{Spaces}}

 Done fr33kman 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected template subpages

Unprotect these; they are subpages and shouldn't need protection

{{Disclaimer-header/doc}} • {{Talkback/doc}} • {{Pp-template/sandbox}}

Ask Barras directly please. fr33kman 22:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected templates with documentation on the template page

Move documentation off of template and onto doc subpage; add <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> to end of template. ("Documentation" would include categories, interwikis, and information about the template and how to use it.) If desired, I could create doc subpages and put what the changed templates should look like in each template's sandbox, and all I'd need help with is replacing each template with the contents of the sandboxes (except you'd need to keep the protection template on the template page).

{{!}} • {{!!}} • {{Administrator}} • {{Archive-top}} • {{Autostrike}}  • {{Autotick}} • {{Bureaucrat-note}} • {{Deleted}} • {{Delist}} • {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}} • {{Enwp based}} • {{Kept}} • {{Link FA}} • {{Main Page subpanel}} • {{MainPageAbstractFooter}} • {{Nobots}} • {{Pp-office}} • {{Remove}} • {{Sockpuppet}} • {{Tick}}

• I've alphabetized the above list, and I have one to add: {{Esoteric}}. Is there anything I can do to help with these? I realize it's a chunk of work. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity is there a reason for wanting doc subpages on all of these? Most of them don't really need them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To allow easier managing of the categories that they're in. (Also interwikis, but I'm currently working with categories.) Some of these have categories, some don't, and some may need to be in different categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Primesight

Resolved.

Could an administrator please look at this user name and user page? It appears that this is a spam account that may violate our user name policy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done DJDunsie (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done by an admin (not me, sorry for the confusion). DJDunsie (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

PBP's IRC access

I have no objections to PBP being allowed back on IRC; with one caveat, IRC is not onwiki, the WMF has no control whatsoever over the IRC channels, end of story! So, an editor may well find themselves "ban[ed] without cause or appeal". fr33kman 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rambing Man attempting to bar me from his talk page without consensus

Resolved. User prohibited from editing the Simple English Wikipedia indefinately fr33kman 21:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here and here the Rambling Man has attempted to bar me from his talk page (note that calling my edits "trolling" is erroneous). His reason seems to be that he just doesn't want to deal with me there; not anything based in bad faith or vandalism edits. Having attempted to bar other editors from my page at times and been told I couldn't, I believe that TRM can't bar me from his page without a community consensus. Agreed that TRM can't do that without a community consensus, and there is no consensus for this? (FYI, until told otherwise by an uninvolved admin, I WILL continue to post on his page) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're calling me a "vandal"? And I'm entitled to keep you from posting on my talk page. And any attempt to post on my page will be reverted as disruptive since you're aware that I don't want your rhetoric anywhere near me. Thanks. If necessary, feel free to continue to use this forum as a place to post your ongoing opinions about me. But calling me a vandal is 100% wrong and I absolutely insist you remove any such implication. Or else provide diffs of my "vandalism". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(note, for those who haven't edited this, PBP has used the {{vandal}} template above. Entirely unacceptable and completely inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

I replaced the "Vandal" template with a "Bureaucrat" one for you, TRM. –Orashmatash 19:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back to a "vandal" one, just in case it is needed for evidence later in the discussion. Feel free to change it back, or wait for PBP to do it. TRM is not a vandal... I will be taking no further part in this discussion. –Orashmatash 19:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not entitled. Show me the policy that says a user can unilaterally ban another user from his page. Oh, yeah; there ain't one. If I couldn't kick Bleep and TeleCom from my page (and was told I couldn't without a community-agreed-upon topic/interaction ban), you can't kick me, especially since I haven't made any bad-faith or vandalism edits to the page. You can request a interaction ban; but since interaction bans are reciprocal, you've already violated it by posting on my page.

What template I used at top is irrelevant. And even if you're not vandalizing, you are acting in extremely bad faith by calling good-faith edits "trolling" and "disruptive", regardless of their content. But since it irks you so (which it shouldn't, you shouldn't care), I changed it to regular user. Instead of being hung-up on the template I used, you could actually respond to the content I said... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore this edit indicates a continued failure to AGF; and a wrongful assumption that an editor can unilaterally be told to "stay away". I have warned him that he is not acting in good faith, but considering his previous stances, he'll probably just delete that warning Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Last interaction I'll ever have with you PBP89. I'm entitled to remove anything from my talk page. I'm astonished and disgusted that you have used {{vandal}} templates with me. I'll leave it to the community to decide who is making the positive contributions here. Of course, I'd hate to bring up the subject of you trying to convince an editor to change their vote..... (and please remind me of the diff where I used the phrase "trolling", it may be true but it'd be fascinating to see it....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse the block. People can have what they like on their talk page and remove messages when read. Templating regulars and using the vandal template is not acceptable. Normandy ^(talk) 21:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked due to harassment, accusing others of vandalism, inability to work as a team, general project disruption. A reversal to this block shall require the input of the community. fr33kman 21:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[[:User_talk:Purplebackp