Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 59
 | 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. |
Excessive vandalism on Syco - please protect, if necessary. Thanks, Aranya (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Done -Djsasso (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The user is blocked indefinitely on enwiki with WP:CIR cited. Since the user has arrived they have created an article about an un-notable subject. Following the QD tag being placed, they then started an unneeded RfD for the article. I propose we implement WP:ONESTRIKE as it is evident that the user is still not competent enough for Wikipedia. There are also other issues I cannot mention in a public setting. --IWI (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Some examples include this article that was also created that had to be significantly cleaned up; this incorrect capitalisation; here where they seemed to not understand that the birds were in a different section, thus leading them to remove the whole section; and this message, which in my view is not the kind of message a user should give in most situations. I think this most likely fits into the ONESTRIKE category, considering the nature of the enwiki block. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Going to block. I've kept an eye on their behaviour and it's clear the CIR concerns first brought up at enwiki are visible here. Hiàn (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't have jumped to this so fast. Onestrike while it can be used for this. I would probably have AGF'd something like CIR for a bit longer because they could be trying to get better as opposed to a vandal who comes here and continues who clearly isn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- They were warned about ONESTRIKE in June. Wouldn't exactly call that "jumping fast", if I am being totally honest. --IWI (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- And did almost no editing in the time between then and now in article space (most of his edits have come since yesterday). ONESTRIKE is a last resort for bad editors who clearly came here for no good reason. CIR on the other hand could very well be someone meaning well but just unable to fix. The solution here is to work with said person for a bit and show them how they could be better before dropping the hammer on them. It is very WP:BITEy to do it in this situation. We need to get people out of this mindset that has crept onto this wiki over the last year or so that simple wikipedia is a place where we play the game of wack-a-vandal or wack-a-user. It is very detrimental to this wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- (change conflict) Why should our users have to clean up mess created by new editors? Some people are inherently not competent enough for Wikipedia, or at least not yet. Various attempts were made on enwiki to help the user, but they don't seem to learn from errors pointed out to them. Here, Infogapp advised him to not welcome users who have not edited yet, and he has continued. I am certain that this user is editing good faith, but this is not enough; competence is required also. This kind of disruption moves other editors away from writing articles and instead cleaning up the endless problems. This situation is exactly what onestrike is for. They were repeatedly warned on enwiki; why should we repeat such futility here? This is not an attack on the user, but merely a pragmatic approach that is ultimately good for the encyclopedia itself (the most important thing). What if some of the issues created never get fixed? I am also concerned about the growing problem of some administrators on the English Wikipedia sending disruptive editors here and treating our wiki as a place to redeem themselves. --IWI (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a growing problem, it has always been the case. Whether we like it or not that is how we get almost all of our editors. If we want to increase our editor base we learn to be more lenient when good faith is involved. Because if we can correct the issue, then our userbase increases by one, which for us is a very big deal. Secondly, since he was not banned at en.wiki ONESTRIKE technically does not apply to him, he was only indefinitely blocked, onestrike requires a community ban. Now I realize some admins (including myself) at times will say a block is onestrike when they haven't been banned on en.wiki we are technically wrong in doing so (though sockpuppeters are considered defacto banned which is where I see it happen most often). I should also point out while we shouldn't welcome editors who haven't edited here yet, that is in no way shape or form something a person should be blocked for. You need to use some common sense. Blocking is a last resort. -Djsasso (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they shouldn't be blocked for that alone. In no way was I suggesting such a thing. --IWI (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I took some time to think over my action, and I think DJSasso has a point here that I clearly neglected to consider when I chose to prematurely bring down the banhammer. It was a bad call on my part and my initial comment here should have been very, very different. This wasn't a correct application of ONESTRIKE - and if any admins choose to overturn the block, it's not in my place to make any objections. I don't have much more to say other than my apologies for Hamuyi, and that I still have to continue to learn and do better. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 20:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, you were acting in good faith, my initial comment was mostly just made in a "I wouldn't have done it, but its done." sort of way. Was a totally understandable action to take. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- You and Djsasso have two viewpoints, both of which are equally acceptable approaches. I tend to agree with Hiàn's view, but that's just me. --IWI (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, you were acting in good faith, my initial comment was mostly just made in a "I wouldn't have done it, but its done." sort of way. Was a totally understandable action to take. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I took some time to think over my action, and I think DJSasso has a point here that I clearly neglected to consider when I chose to prematurely bring down the banhammer. It was a bad call on my part and my initial comment here should have been very, very different. This wasn't a correct application of ONESTRIKE - and if any admins choose to overturn the block, it's not in my place to make any objections. I don't have much more to say other than my apologies for Hamuyi, and that I still have to continue to learn and do better. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 20:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they shouldn't be blocked for that alone. In no way was I suggesting such a thing. --IWI (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a growing problem, it has always been the case. Whether we like it or not that is how we get almost all of our editors. If we want to increase our editor base we learn to be more lenient when good faith is involved. Because if we can correct the issue, then our userbase increases by one, which for us is a very big deal. Secondly, since he was not banned at en.wiki ONESTRIKE technically does not apply to him, he was only indefinitely blocked, onestrike requires a community ban. Now I realize some admins (including myself) at times will say a block is onestrike when they haven't been banned on en.wiki we are technically wrong in doing so (though sockpuppeters are considered defacto banned which is where I see it happen most often). I should also point out while we shouldn't welcome editors who haven't edited here yet, that is in no way shape or form something a person should be blocked for. You need to use some common sense. Blocking is a last resort. -Djsasso (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- (change conflict) Why should our users have to clean up mess created by new editors? Some people are inherently not competent enough for Wikipedia, or at least not yet. Various attempts were made on enwiki to help the user, but they don't seem to learn from errors pointed out to them. Here, Infogapp advised him to not welcome users who have not edited yet, and he has continued. I am certain that this user is editing good faith, but this is not enough; competence is required also. This kind of disruption moves other editors away from writing articles and instead cleaning up the endless problems. This situation is exactly what onestrike is for. They were repeatedly warned on enwiki; why should we repeat such futility here? This is not an attack on the user, but merely a pragmatic approach that is ultimately good for the encyclopedia itself (the most important thing). What if some of the issues created never get fixed? I am also concerned about the growing problem of some administrators on the English Wikipedia sending disruptive editors here and treating our wiki as a place to redeem themselves. --IWI (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- And did almost no editing in the time between then and now in article space (most of his edits have come since yesterday). ONESTRIKE is a last resort for bad editors who clearly came here for no good reason. CIR on the other hand could very well be someone meaning well but just unable to fix. The solution here is to work with said person for a bit and show them how they could be better before dropping the hammer on them. It is very WP:BITEy to do it in this situation. We need to get people out of this mindset that has crept onto this wiki over the last year or so that simple wikipedia is a place where we play the game of wack-a-vandal or wack-a-user. It is very detrimental to this wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- They were warned about ONESTRIKE in June. Wouldn't exactly call that "jumping fast", if I am being totally honest. --IWI (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't have jumped to this so fast. Onestrike while it can be used for this. I would probably have AGF'd something like CIR for a bit longer because they could be trying to get better as opposed to a vandal who comes here and continues who clearly isn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Going to block. I've kept an eye on their behaviour and it's clear the CIR concerns first brought up at enwiki are visible here. Hiàn (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- There's another option. Why not ask Hamuyi to leave? Say "We saw your work on Simple and some of us think you still are not competent enough to edit in English. Would you please go away without a formal block? That way, if your English skills improve in a few years, you won't have to go through all the drama of filing for an appeal, and you won't be at risk of a global ban the way you would if you were indeffed on two Wikis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Such messaging is contrary to the mission of the wiki. If CIR is really an issue, then a block/ban should be considered (as has been done here). We shouldn't be asking users to leave of their own accord for the purpose of avoiding the need to go through drama, whatever that means. It is worth noting that in the past (at least a few years back) we would typically consider mentorship arrangements before blocks/bans are even suggested, but the crunch in editors' resources has made it a less feasible course of action in recent times. Chenzw Talk 04:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Moving a page
Why do I not have permission to move pages? ɑccelerɑte9868 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- New users can't move pages, you need to be autoconfirmed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ɑccelerɑte9868: In the mean time you can ask here for any moves you want to do, and an autoconfirmed user or administrator can do it. --IWI (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Template move
Please move Template:Infobox F1 season to Template:F1 season per enwiki. The latter was created as a duplicate by mistake, and is currently a redirect. --IWI (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. It actually was created as a duplicate on purpose, the mistake was forgetting to redirect the old one. -Djsasso (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- That would not be an ideal way to do it. You should have updated Template:Infobox F1 season and moved it to Template:F1 season, over the duplicate. Now we have the page history of the template at the wrong location, like a copy-paste move. I had fixed the issue by transferring the data to the correct page, it just had to be moved over the redirect (that I could not delete) in order to preserve the history, which was not done. --IWI (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Move completed to preserve history as requested. Operator873talkconnect 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- That would not be an ideal way to do it. You should have updated Template:Infobox F1 season and moved it to Template:F1 season, over the duplicate. Now we have the page history of the template at the wrong location, like a copy-paste move. I had fixed the issue by transferring the data to the correct page, it just had to be moved over the redirect (that I could not delete) in order to preserve the history, which was not done. --IWI (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of doing it that way was to split the edit history into the two separate articles. The edit history was not lost, it remained on the redirect where it was intended to. This is often done when there was a template created here first and then a much newer version at a new name is brought over. It makes it so the edit history remains much more clear and not convoluted and often incorrect when a template is imported over an old one. (and you had not fixed it, you made a copy paste move without attribution yourself) -Djsasso (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the user that created it intended to do that. Obviously when updating a template, you will update the existing page, not create a new one. An import has been done for attribution purposes. I copied so that the data would not be lost during a page move and an import could be done. Having the edit history for one template split between two pages doesn't make sense if it can be avoided. It is almost never a good thing to have split edit history for the same page, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. The user mistakenly made a duplicate; the way to fix it would be to delete it and import on the existing page instead. --IWI (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was the user that created it. I intended it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am nearly 100% certain that you did not create it. --IWI (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Then you would be wrong. I imported to the new name just the other day. You can look at my logs from that day and see what I was editing then if you wish. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history. You imported over a person's new page. I can't see right now as it is deleted, but I know it was the case. In any case, it would have been better to move the existing template to the correct name and imported it there. It is totally illogical and wrong to create a whole new page for the same template, when the move function could so easily solve the issue. It is not a good reason to split edit histories; there is nothing confusing about a template update in the edit history. Regardless of who created it, they did so incorrectly. --IWI (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- That would be because you are looking at the two templates as the same template. Because it was at a new name, it was effectively a new template (until Operator merged them). The old history for the old name remained with it. And the history of the completely fresh template remained with it. Now the template is a mismash of the two. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- They're the same template, just updated. You can see the difference here. It is similar enough to be considered the same template. As a result, splitting the page history is not needed. --IWI (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well I am not going to keep arguing. Would make a bigger mess to unravel it now. But if you look the source it is completely different in your diff. Yes they obviously serve the same purpose and do the same thing. But the new template did not contain any of the code that the old edit history was attributing, thus it was being left behind at the old name where the old code had been that it was actually attributing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- They're the same template, just updated. You can see the difference here. It is similar enough to be considered the same template. As a result, splitting the page history is not needed. --IWI (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- That would be because you are looking at the two templates as the same template. Because it was at a new name, it was effectively a new template (until Operator merged them). The old history for the old name remained with it. And the history of the completely fresh template remained with it. Now the template is a mismash of the two. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history. You imported over a person's new page. I can't see right now as it is deleted, but I know it was the case. In any case, it would have been better to move the existing template to the correct name and imported it there. It is totally illogical and wrong to create a whole new page for the same template, when the move function could so easily solve the issue. It is not a good reason to split edit histories; there is nothing confusing about a template update in the edit history. Regardless of who created it, they did so incorrectly. --IWI (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Then you would be wrong. I imported to the new name just the other day. You can look at my logs from that day and see what I was editing then if you wish. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am nearly 100% certain that you did not create it. --IWI (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was the user that created it. I intended it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the user that created it intended to do that. Obviously when updating a template, you will update the existing page, not create a new one. An import has been done for attribution purposes. I copied so that the data would not be lost during a page move and an import could be done. Having the edit history for one template split between two pages doesn't make sense if it can be avoided. It is almost never a good thing to have split edit history for the same page, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. The user mistakenly made a duplicate; the way to fix it would be to delete it and import on the existing page instead. --IWI (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of doing it that way was to split the edit history into the two separate articles. The edit history was not lost, it remained on the redirect where it was intended to. This is often done when there was a template created here first and then a much newer version at a new name is brought over. It makes it so the edit history remains much more clear and not convoluted and often incorrect when a template is imported over an old one. (and you had not fixed it, you made a copy paste move without attribution yourself) -Djsasso (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Well we clearly disagree on that one. Not an argument, just a discussion :) --IWI (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- (change conflict) I am not quite sure from where/what you determined that both versions of the template were "similar enough". They look neither visually similar nor syntactically similar. Chenzw Talk 16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- The parameters are similar, such as showing the champions. Sure, it's different (as the old version was outdated), but is fundamentally the same thing. Thus, should be on the same page. I'm willing to bet the old version can be found somewhere in the edit history of en:Template:F1 season. There is absolutley no reason to split this over two pages, and I'm surprised anyone could think that. --IWI (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll remind everyone here that this is Wikipedia which means if the action is disagreed with, it can be undone through polite, civil discussion. Operator873talkconnect 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone said it couldn't? Only issue here is that the undoing of it happened before that discussion had completed really. -Djsasso (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I found both versions in the same page history on enwiki here. The new one is simply an updated version. The old one was a very outdated version of the same template. I can see why Operator took the action as it seemed like a pretty clear cut case. Still can't see any reasonable purpose to split this over two pages at all. Doing so should be avoided if at all possible when we are talking about the same template/page. --IWI (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, both came from the same template originally, but think of ours as a fork of the original. Once it came here it became its own thing at its own location. I forked a clean version of updated code to a new location so it wouldn't have all the extra unnecessary edit history of the old fork. What happens when you do it the way you are suggesting is that it sandwiches edits from here and there between each other which in many situations is completely fine and I would do in most situations. In situations where we have the opportunity to not have a confusing edit history because there is a completely different version of the template (as in the code isn't remotely similar) it becomes more prudent to go the route of having the shorter edit history without the mish mash of unnecessary edit history from both wikis. I don't disagree that they came from the same place, however they are separate forks. -Djsasso (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- For example the fact that both you and Tvx1 now have the exact same edit in a row has broken the attribution because both of your edits say +411. Technically that is supposed to not happen and we need to delete the whole template and restore the edits other than yours to fix it. We used to have an editor who used to go through making sure those errors were fixed but he stopped editing a number of years ago. So technically at this point the edit history of this template is broken as you can't see who the actual author of that change is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I found both versions in the same page history on enwiki here. The new one is simply an updated version. The old one was a very outdated version of the same template. I can see why Operator took the action as it seemed like a pretty clear cut case. Still can't see any reasonable purpose to split this over two pages at all. Doing so should be avoided if at all possible when we are talking about the same template/page. --IWI (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone said it couldn't? Only issue here is that the undoing of it happened before that discussion had completed really. -Djsasso (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll remind everyone here that this is Wikipedia which means if the action is disagreed with, it can be undone through polite, civil discussion. Operator873talkconnect 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The parameters are similar, such as showing the champions. Sure, it's different (as the old version was outdated), but is fundamentally the same thing. Thus, should be on the same page. I'm willing to bet the old version can be found somewhere in the edit history of en:Template:F1 season. There is absolutley no reason to split this over two pages, and I'm surprised anyone could think that. --IWI (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I see this whole situation as someone did what they thought was best. Another editor disagreed. A third editor (ie a 3rd opinion) agreed with the 2nd editor and made the change. As far as I'm aware, that is exactly how it's supposed to happen. Now is the point at which a more broad discussion should happen involving the community since it's apparently that big of a deal. Operator873talkconnect 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair the discussion hadn't been commented on for four days before today, so I think most everyone had walked away already. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is why using the import tool is not always ideal. Updating an existing template is a lot easier if just copy/pasted with attribution in edit summary to avoid conflicts. --IWI (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair the discussion hadn't been commented on for four days before today, so I think most everyone had walked away already. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I see this whole situation as someone did what they thought was best. Another editor disagreed. A third editor (ie a 3rd opinion) agreed with the 2nd editor and made the change. As far as I'm aware, that is exactly how it's supposed to happen. Now is the point at which a more broad discussion should happen involving the community since it's apparently that big of a deal. Operator873talkconnect 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism at African Americans
African Americans has been repeatedly attacked by one or several vandals since August 5 - Diff of the last attack. The attacks are not really frequent, but maybe it would be a good idea to semi-protect the page for a limited period of time. The same pattern of vandalism occurs at Black people, but less frequently. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have added both pages to my watchlist. On Simple Wikipedia we generally don't protect a page unless the vandalism comes in big waves of multiple editors on the same day where an admin wouldn't be able to keep up with the reverting. Relatively speaking these pages have had little vandalism, if it picks up to the point people can't manage I will protect it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah agree. Not really frequent enough to warrant protection. It isn't like enwiki where we have hundreds of thousands viewing the page. Current abuse is manageable. --IWI (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. If those articles are on more watchlists, that's a good solution. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah agree. Not really frequent enough to warrant protection. It isn't like enwiki where we have hundreds of thousands viewing the page. Current abuse is manageable. --IWI (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
User "Chaipau" making disruptive edits in the page "Chutia kingdom".
The user named Chaipau is constantly removing sourced information from the "Rebellion" section of the page Chutia Kingdom, calling it irrelevant. ([1]). On another previous occasion he had tried to remove the section, stating that one of the sources is not reliable, when there were two other reliable sources available. Instead of simply removing the non-reliable source, he had tried to remove the entire section, just to push his own POV. ([2]). Request the admins to restore the sections and take necessary actions on the user.223.176.7.51 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is simple English Wikipedia, we don't have that page. Let the EnWP admins handle it, you also reported there. --Eptalon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Protection request
Please consider fully protecting Template:Main other. It is transcluded on over 121,000 pages so semi-protection isn’t really enough. --IWI (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say the same for Module:Check for unknown parameters, which is used on over 116,000 pages with no protection at all. --IWI (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Second pair of eyes on abuse filter 105
I have created filter 105 to mitigate edits coming from the Pakistan anon, who has been particularly active lately. Technically speaking, this filter exists to enforce a community guideline, and I am generally not a fan of such abuse filters. The volume of editing from the anon has been rather bad, though, so if the filter looks okay (and won't block every innocent edit), please move it to block mode with the warning message that I have specifically created for the filter. Chenzw Talk 15:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Naleksuh (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Naleksuh, I think this should go on Simple talk and not here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Such things like that are put on the noticeboard generally from a global perspective, but I see nothing wrong with doing both. Naleksuh (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, got it --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Such things like that are put on the noticeboard generally from a global perspective, but I see nothing wrong with doing both. Naleksuh (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Move Purple Mangosteen to Mangosteen
Per this, needs an admin. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)