Ard Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 35

Still here...

Checking in, been busy lately. Jon@talk:~$ 09:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Abuse filters now active

Hello fellow admins, our abuse filters are now active; at the time of this writing, we do have two filters: One triggers on blacking pages (by new users) and the other triggers if a new user /ip removes large sections of an article. See the configuration page and the respective log. The current idea would be to import the most useful ones from EnWP, and see how we fare, in about a week's time. --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

we also need to import/create a way to report false positives, and a simplified description on what an automated filter is. --Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, filters for the following would be useful
  1. Warn, throttle (and perhaps block) an (unconfirmed/IP) user that is "undoing" one or more edits (of bots/other (confirmed?) users). (User:199.216... in the edit history of Sexual reproduction is an example.
  2. Same scenario, but involving more than one IP editor (and the IP's undoing one another)
Before I forget this page has more info on the rules. --Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
On en's filter, I am able to view the change that was blocked by the filter. I'm unable to here. Are user rights needed here to view those changes or is that something that was not included in the implementation? wiooiw (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It is also possible here. You get to it by clicking on the "... hits" next to the filter. --Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
wiooiw, did you mean this sort of page? sonia 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
On en's, I see "(details | examine)" but not here. wiooiw (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created WP:Change filter and WP:Change filter/Mistakes; both are very rough drafts and could probably be improved. sonia 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Helpful admins...

20px Resolved.

...could maybe move Satyrs to just Satyr, which presently redirects to Greek mythology, please? Thanks, C628 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That took an unacceptably long time *glares at Bsadowski* - but it is now done. Thanks for letting us know. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start on Simple for a blocked en.wikipedia editor?


There is a discussion on en.wikipedia about an editor, w:en:User:Pumpie, who has been indefinitely blocked there for persistent editing (45,000 edits on en.wikipedia + 25,000 elsewhere) with inadequate English skills in spite of numerous requests to slow down or modify his behaviour:

That's a very long thread so you can just skip down to a comment made by Ryūlóng at 05:45, 3 November, where you'll see the topic shifts to whether Pumpie would be best served by coming to Simple to edit until his English skills improve.

To date, nobody has determined just what Pumpie's native language is or if he has one; there have also been some complaints on other projects:

While some en.wikipedia editors have alluded obliquely to the possibility that Pumpie may just been pulling everyone's leg, he has always been very good-natured so people have been inclined to ascribe good faith to his efforts. --A. B. (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have been bitten by several people. I would definitely let him come over here. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Banned users are always allowed here, but are subject to a one strike rule. They screw up one time and we ban them here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I commented over there. I'm more concerned about the fact, in general, that some people still think Simple is a rehabilitation center for banned users than about what's happening in this particular circumstance. Kansan (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support his fresh start. This is a learning area for ESL people. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Allow. But with the understanding that any disruptive behaviour will result in a lengthy/indef block. Suggest a regular provides mentorship too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(<-) This wiki definitely needs more editors, so if the contributions are helpful, I would definitely agree that the editor gets a chance here. To me, it is clear that at the start, they will need some introduction; we are different from EnWP in many ways other than the simpler language --Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I invited him on his talk page, although I know that he cannot respond. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
--A. B. (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Is it considered an abuse of email privileges to send an editor a unique one-time chatty email? The email was not spam or sent repeatedly. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

More context is needed here for anyone to answer 'yes' or 'no'. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
For example: I sent you an e-mail that said, "Do you like chemistry?" Is that considered an abuse of email privileges? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
In theory, no, that's just fine. The recipient is not under any obligation to reply; if they have a problem with the e-mails, they can talk to an admin, and we can discreetly ask them to refrain. They can do it themselves if they wish. The guidelines for e-mailing are always a bit grey because it is an off-wiki medium, but the way I look at it, anything that is acceptable for a talk page should be okay in an e-mail. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 and the PVGA and PGA processes

20px Resolved.
No admin action needed as of now. —Clementina talk 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)