Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?




Page creations from Ivan P. Clarin[change source]

Ivan has made many pages for our project, I would like to appreciate this. Although, despite the heavy work, Ivan is not allowed to return to enwiki due to "Persistent addition of unsourced content: refusal to communicate" (Special:CentralAuth/Ivan_P._Clarin). Since I cannot review the deleted contributions, I would like to have admins to check if he is doing the same thing as well as enwiki, or doing a good job. The reason for this concern is:

  • Since he joined here he has received many RFD opening notices, although I don't remember when we have heard from him. He was recently invited to several RFDs but he remains silence. This status might be counted as "refusal to communicate".
  • Many pages have been made from him, although some of them have been challenged or quickly deleted, as can be seen in the RFD backlog or my QD log etc. I don't think he is repeating the creation of deleted pages (pages that will be deleted by QD G4), but some users may count this as "Persistent addition of unsourced content".

Should we tell him that WP:ONESTRIKE might be coming closer, or should we just continue monitoring? If we are going to allow him to stay, how can we help him to make pages with better quality? MathXplore (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a large number of RfDs for an account with no non article space edits other than their own user page (ie. no wikipedia, wiki talk or user talk edits to show they are trying to deal with issues.) Pure Evil (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As he has not responded, the account should be banned on this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user has not been editing at all since before MathXplore reported him. And it's Christmas-New Year time in a lot of the world, often meaning less wiki-editing time. There's no rush to ban anyone especially if they're not editing currently. --Ferien (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked at a few of his edits, and they look like normal content work. I also notice that several of the newly-created articles are translations. It is clear that if you write/contribute to many pages, the likelihood of one of your pages getting deleted is bigger. There are no wonership issues, so once the page is translated, anyone can edit, without him opposing.I currently don't think that him not communicationg, and doing content work instead is too much of an issue at the moment. Isn't a content editor, who focuses on content what this Wiki always wanted?- So when we see him back, editing, we should drop a line, perhaps also mentioning this discussion. Eptalon (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's back with Joshua De Sequera now Qd'd. 38 pages deleted out of a total of 199 edited. No communication. Not constructive and wasting the time of everyone here. Everyone may contribute, but not everyone is able to. --Gotanda (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like that user is doing the same thing as he were doing at enwiki. And since he refuses to communicate, it becomes difficult for us to reach him. So, the only option left is to ban him from this community, that would be my recommendation. Dibyojyotilet's chat 10:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellas, sorry to bother you again but I got a case. An IP 79.18.35.8 posted me a question on my talk page about the verification of the topic above. I visited the page and saw the RfD tag, which makes me apparent to give consent. But I didn't after I saw numerous IP with User:Enrico Manni voted to keep the page. Then I checked their contributions and saw that their edits are totally based on this topic. I'm listing the IPs involved on this topic/RfD issue:

I suspect these IPs are used by single person (User:Enrico Manni) in order to protect the page from getting deleted. What actions must be taken against them? Dibyojyotilet's chat 05:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

45.15 is most likely not involved while the other 3 are almost certainly the same person (2 from Rome, 1 from 50-60 miles away) It is not really an issue though as none of the IPs have even voted. So far, there is one keep (Manni). one merge (IP not from Italy) and one delete (Fehufanga). All the rest have not declared an opinion so there is no case of sock voting at this time. One person can comment from multiple IPs as long as they are not voting from them. It gets confusing at times but as long as the closing admin is only using official positions, the comments will not matter individually. Pure Evil (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An IP from Italy 151.31.113.116 has voted to keep the page, another suspicion IP. Dibyojyotilet's chat 11:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been nine months since the article was created and five since I last touched it. Since then, the IP user who created the article is still edit warring on the article. Suggestions were given here and on the English Wikipedia talk page on how to improve the writing. But the IP user continued to edit war and threatened to continue the edit war on the English Wikipedia (see here and here), and so the page is currently indefinitely semi-protected there. I've given up on trying to improve it, as even the most recent attempt by an uninvolved user to revert the IP user's changes ([1]) was met with a revert.

The IP user is now asking for an editor to make proxy edits for them on the English Wikipedia ([2]). I find this behaviour to be disruptive at this point.

Since I am involved, I am asking for another administrator to take a look at this. Thank you. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanna emphasize something, the last edit I had made to the page was back in November. I've not touched the article since November. The most recent edit was done by DestinyinDestiny and I think the change is a good faith change, so I haven't touched it. If you look at other edits on the history, there have been a few other changes that also haven't been reverted or changed as well. Most of which have been good faith edits by MathXplore. The only edits I revert back are edits that are bad faith edits removing important information from the article. I'm not against people editing the page, but I am against people doing bad faith edits, removing stuff that is important about the park from the article, espically when they've stated they know nothing about the park. Feel free to message me if you have any questions. Thanks. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page is protected for six months and the changes have been reverted. Any big changes to the page should be discussed and done after consensus.--BRP ever 06:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, and what MathXplore is accurate. I have no problem if I see somebody doing something productive an article somwhere, asking them if they can do the same productive change to another article that needs it. That's just an editor doing there job, and there's nothing wrong with that. I admit I had done it, and have no shame in admitting that. As far as the article, I'd like to say a few things on that. First, how are we supposed to reach consensus with people that know nothing about the park? I don't think it's possible, but am certainly open to the idea. Lastly, after taking a closer look at the history, Fehufangą last editied in back in August, which is not 9 months ago, so 9 months is inaccurate info, as that would've been April, not August. Looking at regular Wikipedia, they last edited the regular Wikipedia article shorlty after April, but that isn't 9 months yet either, so not sure where they got 9 months from. This should be noted as well. If you're gonna report somebody for doing something, you should make sure that you have your facts right. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My initial comment: ...and five since I last touched it. No point in arguing about this any further.
As for how consensus is achieved with people that know nothing about the park? It's less about what we don't know about the park, and more about what the community considers editing standards. This includes verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources. Adding unreliable resources and original research is not encyclopedic. Further discussion about the article should take page at the article's talk page, not here. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 06:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, what people reading it that know nothing about a person or place would think is interesting or important. Got it. As far as articles on what I've put in the article, that has since been removed, there are some. I'll address those on the talk page. Thanks for the response. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no point in tug of war here. If others in the community agree with the additions, if it is properly sourced and meets community standard then it is likely to get consensus. Many different editors reverted the additions, it's time you stop and seek consensus before proceeding.--BRP ever 11:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have to look back at the history a bit more to confirm this, but I think I had originally put more sources in the article than the sources that were there in the last correct version of the article. I had been asked to remove a few sources at that time. Can't remember why though. That was a while ago now. There really hasn't been much work done on the article recently. I just noticed a typo in that version as well, so somehow I didn't edit it well. Don't know how nobody including myslef didn't notice it till now. Evidently I'll have to fix that typo at some point. Not sure when though, as of course the page is uneditable right now. As for the consensus, I'm all for getting consensus, but if people wanna edit the page, they should tehir research on the park. I've done my homework on it, as I neeeded to for a project I've been working on to promote it. That's why I know so muchc about it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, just wanna appologize for my error in my comment that I wrote saying that you put wrong info in the report. I just read through this again and realized I totally misread it somehow. So I'm the editor in the wrong in this case, so I wanna take accountabilty with this and admit that as I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. So sorry about that, and I'll try to be more careful before accusing people of stuff when I don't have evidence to back up my claim. So sorry again about the wrongful accusation, I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be memorized that this type of cross wiki edit request was not the first time, another example emerged at User_talk:MathXplore/2022/09#Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach (the discussions soon after I simplified the page title). MathXplore (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a claim of notability is included in the page, but an IP user repeats QD tag removal. MathXplore (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question @MathXplore, why didn't you report it to WP:VIP? Dibyojyotilet's chat 11:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final warning has not been sent, so I thought it's too fast to do that. MathXplore (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh good then, actually I was about to send a final warning, but I got a call from someone, so I didn't send the warning. Dibyojyotilet's chat 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zanam Foundation[change source]

103.170.81.209 (talk · contribs) is writing articles about Zanam Foundation, an article that was created before and QD'd. The article they've created most recently (Mohd .Zaki) could potentially be QD's as well as an advert, but I wanted to inform the admins about the situation, as the IP may continue promoting the subject. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So next time such an article gets created, we can go through a regular RfD... Eptalon (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:76.129.158.37[change source]

76.129.158.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been running wild and unnoticed for at least the last several months. I caught them today and went on a rollback blitz. There is a chance I got a bit overzealous as I gave up checking each edit one by one after a dozen and just blasted everything today. I went through many of their non-reverted posts back through September and undid many of them. This is not to say I caught them all nor that I didn't over do it at times.... I didnt bother to warn as it was obvious they know that it is blockable and they emmed to have gone dormant.

They seem to have wandered off for now so this is just a heads up and a warning that a rested set of eyes may be needed for their edits. Pure Evil (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pure Evil: Thanks. It would help if you can leave escalated warnings for their bad changes. The last warning was on December 22. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could give them a warning now it you want. It would have no effect on their editing but that is no different than if I had done so when I first noticed it. They had already stopped vandalizing and wandered off. Still, they likely havent checked their page since they left so the message left now would be just as useful as one left after they went away. They may see it next month when they pop by again to cause more trouble. As to escalating.. should I just issue the first warning as its a new batch of vandalism or should I continue from where they were warned last time? Pure Evil (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. By the time they come back again, we might not be able to consider older warnings. So escalating might not help after all. I'll be over here reminding myself to think things through more before responding. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brayan Rivas has been recreated after last RFD, I would like to have a comparison between the last deleted versions. Mxta seems to be related to this subject but I don't know what is the claim of notability at here. MathXplore (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Both were deleted. MathXplore (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any claims of notability in this video game article, but an IP continues to remove QD tag. MathXplore (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user is part of the nest of vandalism I brought up a bit back on Simple talk. They also removed an RfD tag from an article they created recently. While I disagree with the RfD, I did undo the tag removal. Pure Evil (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move spoken Wikipedia file from Commons to simplewiki[change source]

I believe that commons:File:Simple-United States Marine Corps-article-20211121.ogg should be moved to simplewiki by an administrator because it is the spoken version of a simplewiki article. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I'm not sure, there's a bunch of spoken simplewiki articles on commons: commons:Category:Spoken Wikipedia - Simple English. Where are those audio files supposed to be kept? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hemorrhoid[change source]

Please "Extended confirmed protection" or "fully protection(edit only admin)" hemorrhoid forever(reason:this edit are vandalismand this edit are vandalism) Page lengthening, illegitimate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:fb1:155:179e:61bb:d236:6ddf:7b5b (talk) 0:54, 22 January 2023‎ (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Alright it's enough, I would request an admin to kindly block all the involved IPs on this page (possible LTA) and protect the page for two days minimum. Dibyojyotilet's chat 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X mark.svg Not done I don't see a need to protect this page at all. It has had a few IP vandal edits in the past year or so, but not enough for temporary semi-protection to be necessary, let alone indefinite admin protection. --Ferien (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the block part,  Done. Recognized the user behind this. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks both of you. Dibyojyotilet's chat 16:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the page should be protected and user blocked. Friendly Human (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spongebob creations[change source]

Note that 12.191.57.81 (talk · contribs · logs) is starting to create articles and templates related to Spongebob. I think some of them aren't notable: this isn't a fan wiki. I'm not sure what to do here. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)I agree! I have no idea what to do about this either. Friendly Human (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, User: 12.191.57.81 broke the 3rr when repeatedly removing QD template from one of the worse Spongebob articles. Friendly Human (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated Vandalism On Wikipedia[change source]

There have been many recent cases of vandalism on Wikipedia, and as it is very important/visible, I believe it should be semi-protected. Thanks! Friendly Human (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While there has been a little more vandalism recently compared to usual, I don't think it's got enough recent vandalism to justify protection. --Ferien (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably QD G4, I would like to have admin's review. MathXplore (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recreated again as Angel Tsvetkov -. MathXplore (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both deleted by Fehufanga and Macdonald-ross. --Ferien (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection for Teeth blackening[change source]

Please protect teeth blackening. There is constant vandalism. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Ferien (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cynocephalus disambiguation[change source]

Since there's no article at the title Cynocephalus, I think Cynocephalus (disambiguation) should be moved to Cynocephalus. I can't do this because there's a redirect that's been edited at that title. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lights and freedom: Done. Thanks for catching it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:NPS area[change source]

I think an admin should import the new version of en:Template:NPS area to {{NPS area}}. Currently it's creating a dead link without archive. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, no immediately visible errors. Thanks for bringing this up. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]