Ard Wiki: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)

18px 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)

18px 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)
18px 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)

15px 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)
15px 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)

15px 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 15px 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=</sup> 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.

--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. 24pxpx Thanks. -Avicennasis @ 10:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed category rename

I think Category:Porn stars needs to be renamed. My idea is Category:Porn actors, but I'm open to suggestions. 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:

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)

18px 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 (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes) this evening to Only (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright 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

Template:Noping (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 (tc) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, incident resolved. Orashmatash (tc) 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 (tc) 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 (tc) 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 (tc) 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 (tc) 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 (tc) 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)

18px 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)