Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ANI)
Jump to: navigation, search


This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

  • See WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.

Nominated a page for deletion and am now being threatened[change | change source]


Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong place. I flagged a page for deletion recently because I felt the entry was for a person who did not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia and that the page had been created for personal promotion. The subject of this entry is now threatening to sue me for nominating the page for deletion. I just want to make sure that there is no legal grounds for this. Perhaps relevant is the fact that the person in question tried to hire me to create the page and when I said no, sent me angry emails and then found someone else to do it. At any rate, I just want to be clear that I flagged the page not out of spite, but because I thought it was questionable/borderline in terms of notability and should be reviewed. I don't think I have violated any of Wikipedia's terms of use in doing this, but wanted to inquire just in case I am contacted by a lawyer about this matter. Thank you for your time. KatieVagnino (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where you flagged anything for deletion on this Wiki. The only edits I see from you are asking this question here and at WP:Simple talk. Was it maybe on a different Wikipedia? Without being able to see online what was actually done, I can't really give an opinion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It was certainly on the English Wikipedia, see there. We can't help with issues on enwiki. -Barras talk 23:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Requests for deletion left over from 2014: glitch in the delete process[change | change source]

I'd like to remind my fellow admins about a glitch in the delete process. When an RfD is created in one year (for example, 2014) but closed as deleted in the following year (for example, 2015), the usual generated close reason in the dropdown menu is inaccurate. That's because the text for that reason is formed using the year when the close is done (for example, 2015), but the RfD page contains the year that the request was created (for example, 2014). To get the right link in the edit summary, we need to manually enter the close reason when deleting these. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And another one I hadn't noticed before: the RfD notices on the pages proposed in 2014 are are also using the current year. That means that the links to discussion pages aren't working. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
We really need to revert the change that started automatically filling in for us in the first place, I drives me nuts that I now have to delete the reason for speedies because they are very often wrong because they use what people put in the template. It was better before when we got to choose on our own what to put in. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

possibly remove offensive edit summary?[change | change source]

Could an admin please look and possibly remove this offensive edit summary located here: [1] Thanks. Carriearchdale 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done and a couple of others. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick attention to the matter Enfcer! ciao!!! Carriearchdale 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost 116 Pages Edit Warring[change | change source]

I am not sure if this is the correct place. Requesting Admin assistance with regards to the Lost 116 Pages article. Dispute is regarding the question of noteability. There are 2 small sections, one favorable and one unfavorable to LDS perspective. I am not the author of either section, but propose mutal inclusion or exclusion. Another alternative would be to have references to both sections included the see also section. — This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 01:26, 17 January 2015‎.

We've never had an article here by that name. I think you're referring to the article on English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. You need to ask for help on English Wikipedia. Sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FyzixFighter propagating multiple reverts.— This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 02:21, 17 January 2015‎ (UTC).

Again, you're on the wrong Wikipedia. You want English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia. It's a separate Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinkley Edit Waring[change | change source]

Requesting admin assistance. Users ChristianMJ and AsteriskStarSplat are making multiple reverts with out discussion.— This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 02:21, 17 January 2015‎ (UTC).

This is also not on this Wikipedia. We don't have users here by those names. We do have an article on Hinckley, but it hasn't' been changed since June. Please ask for help at English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We should state in the first line of the page "Simple English Wikipedia", not just "Wikipedia". Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Automated archiving of Talk / Project pages[change | change source]

We have set up our project pages (this one, Simple talk), plus a few user talk pages to use Miszabot for archival. However, Miszabot seems to run no longer on the toolserver (or its equivalent). If anyone gets the time, I think getting a Miszabot running automatically would be a worthwile task, so that our project pages again get archived automatically. --Eptalon (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that Djsasso runs his bot from time to time so this is, in part, filled. I am looking at getting a regular, cronned bot running but some major life upheavals at the moment mean that this is having to take a bit of a back burner for at least the next fortnight. Goblin 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
See WT:B#BarrasBot. -Barras talk 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I have been doing it but kept forgetting to setup my cronjob at home to make sure its is done at regular intervals. So it was getting done every few days when I would remember to do it manually from work. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I got it now so that the cronjob is working correctly. The bot should now automatically run once per day. -Barras talk 21:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this set up, Barras! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Explaining open proxy issues to blocked user[change | change source]

IP user User: has had two unblock requests denied due to the IP being an open proxy. He/she has commented following the second decline. Would someone who understands it better care to explain why it's not him/her, it's the IP? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I commented there simply linking the relevant pages and policies for proxies. -Barras talk 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for permission[change | change source]

Hello! I'm here to request to have my name added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage so that I may post comments on the talk pages of site and userscripts that are using deprecated (per MW:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript) resources. I'll simply be appending a new section to the talk pages of .js pages using `addOnloadHook` titled "Legacy JavaScript". It'll include {{JS migration|done=no}} and a short description of the changes with a link to the MediaWiki Legacy Javascript subpage of the ResourceLoader page and my signature. I've already started migrating pages on Meta: and MW: which do not have AWB CheckPages as well as en:w: and Commons: which do (and I'm listed on both as myself ( enwp | commons ) and as my bot ( enwp | commons )) Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Added temporarily and also granted flood flag as it would be a bit spammy otherwise. Will remove when he's done. -Barras talk 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Message has been sent and flood flag as well as AWB access has been removed. -Barras talk 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fallout[change | change source]

User:Technical 13 has put the burden of fixing all this on the admins. The notices posted use a template that puts the pages into Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements, which is now under Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. There are 233 entries in the category. Most of the affected pages are in userspace. I have some issues/comments/questions about all this:

  • Should the admins be expected to make all the changes? It might be reasonable to expect editors to take care of the pages in their userspace, either by making the change themselves or by asking for help with that.
  • What exactly is the risk of not making these changes?
  • What kind of timeframe are we looking at for making them?
  • The messages were left on the talk pages of affected js pages. I suspect few editors will see those messages. I only saw the one on my page because I watch it. It would be good to leave the message on the regular user talk pages.
  • Some of the users affected are probably banned, indef'd, or haven't edited in years. How much effort should we make to take care of pages belonging to such users? If nothing else, I suppose we could just blank them. The history of the pages could be used to recover what was there if/when the user returns to editing.
  • What guidance can we give individual editors as far as figuring out what needs to change? The message left isn't specific to each page, and only gives examples of what needs to be changed. I know that everything I have on my js pages was copied from someone else. I don't know how to code that stuff myself. I suspect many other users are in the same situation.

Those are my current thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

These identifiers are not going to be supported by MediaWiki core eventually and will break lots of scripts when that happens. IMO, sysops should start with updating gadgets in MediaWiki namespace first and then move on to highly used scripts in user space. It is kind of pointless to update scripts that are not used. Docs on how to migrate these scripts are available at mw:RL/MGU, mw:RL/JD and other pages linked from there. --Glaisher (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with starting with the MediaWiki pages.
If there are highly-used scripts in userspace, aren't they "use at your own risk" kinds of things? I consider anything in userspace to be subject to change or breaking at any time.
I've looked at the pages you link, and I don't see how to figure out what needs changing in my js page. I'm sure it's there somewhere for people who have a background in that kind of code, but my background is in other kinds of code. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Answering point by point: Yes, admins are expected to handle the fixes. I already asked him that yesterday. While they may change MediaWiki config, they have apparently no one assigned to run around and fix local pages that break when the update comes. However, TC13 seems to be happy to help when needed, he asked for global edit interface right on meta to help local communities. When this doesn't pass, I'm sure we can in doubt find a way to temporarily grant him local admin rights to help us with the scripts. The risk of not making the changes is that all those scripts will simply stop working. I can't however say when that will happen. I would not start to spam the user's talk pages with that. That is also why there is a category where everyone can look up which pages are currently affected. Those who have been banned can have their user subpages probably simply deleted. When they are banned, they surely don't need their subpages anymore. At least as long as it isn't widely used, then we should consider fixing those pages. When they simply went inactive, we can look if the script is actually used somewhere and fix it or if it's not used, we can simply remove the notice from the talk page. So it gets removed from the edit protected category. However, while I'm certainly not a js expert, the fix of those pages appears to be fairly simply. I already "fixed" one script yesterday. -Barras talk 07:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Barras is almost right on. My point by point: Yes, admins are expected to handle the fixes if the user isn't around to do it themselves and it is something that is used by others. If it is a broken skin.js/common.js which isn't an easy fix and the user has been inactive for quite a while, delete it with a summary of non-compliant code with a link to this discussion and a note that says they can get it restored upon request but fixes will need to be made. I did request the global editinterface bit to be able to help and work through these, and I'm happy to help work on these wherever I'm asked. If that doesn't pass, I'd be happy to go through and work on all of these deprecated JavaScripts on a temporary admin bit for that purpose. I'd also be happy to go through the specific site scripts in the MediaWiki space an not only prevent them from breaking from the deprecations but also to bring them up to date with the coding conventions and jQuerify them where appropriate so that they will be more efficient and less likely to have a compliance issue for longer into the future. There is no need to remove the message from any page, simply flip the |done= switch and it goes out of the category. Alternatively, if there are pages that aren't going to be fixed and aren't going to be deleted then I would be happy to add another parameter to that template for those cases so that there will still be a way to easily find the scripts that are broken but they aren't in any immediately actionable category. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the template putting userpages into that category, but leave the warning. Userpages are the users own responsibilities. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • DJSasso, not when they are simply places holding scripts that are used by multiple users. I've modified Template:JS migration slightly so that it orders scripts with the ones needing the most attention up top (anything that isn't in user space), then all of the userscripts, and at the end are all of the common/skin specific (listed under the infinity symbol). Hopefully this ordering will help go through the ones needing attention from others quicker and the ones are only the user's own stuff at the end. I disagree that removing any from the cat is a good idea, because JavaScript coders can be hard to come by on most projects and if one of them sees this, and sees the cat, they may be inclined to help where they otherwise would not have known about it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would remove it even in those cases. User scripts are use at your own peril. But meh whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I know we try and keep things a lot simpler here, but would it not be better to put up for community discussion, and create an EditInterface user group. They guidelines and such up for community input. Something like only crat can give, after a period of discussion, and if the group only has the editinterface flag, or if we the community will allow edits to css & js areas of other users through the appropriate bits. Just do not see the need to give the full admin bit, even on a temporary basis if we can keep from it. -- Enfcer (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)