Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ANI)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?



LouisAlain[change source]

LouisAlain who has been banned from the English and French Wikipedia for machine translations and personal attacks is now active here.

His translations also lack the appropriate transwiki attribution. --94.46.24.59 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAlain has now just been banned from the German Wikipedia for "translates without proper crediting".
His recent creations on Simple Wikipedia are still lacking proper transwiki attribution. --94.46.24.56 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I checked were word-for-word translations, and the language had not been simplified. That is another ground for his being banned. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we should probably WP:ONESTRIKE him and speedy the articles as copied articles with no evidence of simplification. -Djsasso (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user is still active here and is creating articles that do not have simplified language. Could we maybe restart the discussion about banning him? Thanks. --Redtree21 (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV pusher[change source]

Hello everyone. It seems that the POV pusher is active again. To those watching recent change, it might be a good idea to take a look when you see frequent edits in multiple articles where they add POV content or links. Some recent account/IPs are:

Thanks, -BRP ever 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever Isn't https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:ED4C:47F2:2C96:9233 the same? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked.-BRP ever 12:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also blocked the /64 range for 3 months, this should help reduce the vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection of George Reeves[change source]

There has been vandalism from multiple IPs and block evasion on the article on George Reeves. I've reverted the page to what it was before all the disruption, can an admin protect the page to stop the vandalism? 209.232.149.23 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nevermind it's been protected. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User continually recreating promo page for himself[change source]

Hi. Wikipedia user User:Mlungisisbongiseni085 has continually remade an entirely promotional page about himself, even when warned not to do it, blatantly ignoring this. This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I think a block is due. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page User:Mlungisisbongiseni085 has been create-protected by Macdonald-ross. Should be clear now. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete redirect[change source]

Hello,

I have just renamed the "climate change" article to "climate variability and change". But I am having trouble renaming the "global warming" page to "climate change" as there is a redirect called "climate change".

I don't come here often (I am usually on English Wikipedia) so I am not sure how to delete the redirect myself. Or is that only for you admins? If so please could you delete it and rename the "global warming" page to "climate change". As you can see this has been discussed on the talk pages.

Regards

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the Administrator's noticeboard header[change source]

Since it looks as though this page can also be used to discuss AN itself, I'd like to suggest a few changes to the header, since I cannot edit it directly:

  • Add the [[WP:RFC]] shortcut to the list of shortcuts.
  • Clarify that you can talk about the Administrators' noticeboard inside the Administrator's noticeboard (ideally with a message like the following):
This page can also be used to talk about the noticeboard as a whole.

Thank you. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first one probably shouldn't actually even redirect here as this wouldn't be the place for RFCs. So I have fixed that redirect. As for the second it happens so rarely that it doesn't need to be pointed out. Anyone that is likely to know enough about this wiki to want to change this page will know where to talk about it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFD: Deletion Requests[change source]

Hello admins; Please someone clean up the Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion there are so many Discussions that's ready and meet requirements for deleting or keeping. Face-smile.svg Thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura emad Ok, I will try close some now. But please remember that requests for deletion is already closely monitored, especially now with the amount of RfDs there are. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Face-smile.svg Thank you as the time passes we get more RFDS that we can possibly handle and discuss about it. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad We appreciate input on RFDs, but if you're feeling overwhelmed by it then you don't have to keep up with every one. Don't burn yourself out! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 well, am really enjoying it, it's just that if we close them sooner it may help others to catch up on other RFDS faster than usual. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad All the admins know that we currently have many more RFDs than usual, but that doesn't mean that we have any more time to give to Wikipedia to close them. We're all volunteers with lives outside of Wikipedia. We close RFDs when we can, and if they stay open past the indicated close date, that's not really a problem. We're probably going to keep getting new RFDs for a while, so please stop prodding the admins to close RFDs. That includes here on the noticeboard and on individual admins' talk pages. If anyone feels they're having trouble keeping up with commenting on the RFDs, then they should feel free to comment on only as many as they have time for. We appreciate the input we get, and we don't expect anyone to comment on all of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad I'd also add that I had just logged on here specifically to see if any more RFDs were ready to be closed. Because I took time to reply to you, I will have less time to work on the RFDs because I only have a little time to spend here right now. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes Auntof6 i know we're volunteering and i appreciate your time here; as for talking to any admins; i was mean to talk with the ones that has free time to spend on wikipedia; that's it Face-smile.svg Thank you. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I said before that ideally it'd be good if we could space these out a bit more so that we can have a regular amount of say 10-20 per week, instead of the 100 or so we had at once a little while ago, which I am sure overwhelmed a lot of us. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is brought up for many times, but do remember our RFD acts like PROD, a so called process on en and some other wikis which if there is no one oppose, the article will be deleted. However, if you later find it deleted without any opposes or supports, you can ask for undeletion. So there isn't issue with a lot of RFDs, especially if they are closed in time. What will be worrying is that there are backlogs that are massive, but so far even with 200 we don't have much. So I think the system is still coping, we can still nominate as per status quo. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I find that if there are 10 to 20 per week, I have enough time to consider them properly and we can have proper discussions that build consensus. If we have 100 to 200, then most of them have little or no discussion, and then we might be going the wrong way. I saw two bad closures last week that I brought up to Deletion Review and I fear that if mistakes are made that it could cause problems. Perhaps we could have a policy to try to keep it to a manageable level, or at least a consistent level. Most weeks it is 10 to 20, but suddenly a few weeks back it was 180 I think. That many makes it hard on everyone involved. Perhaps if there are 180 that need looking at then we could space them out to say 20 per week for 9 weeks instead of 180 in 1 week. Blissyu2 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that bringing these to DRV is a correct move if you think the close isn't correct, but I won't say they are bad closes but yes, questionable ones. If the fear is mistakes in closing, I think what is needed is not to agressive trim the recently closed ones to give more time for scrutiny. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see pages nominated as they come up, instead of a user either 1) having to keep track somewhere of pages they think are deletion-worthy and nominating them piecemeal or 2) not working to ferret out such pages at all. If we don't nominate pages when they're found, they can build up. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block User:172.197.56.72[change source]

Block this user. He's been vandalizing Template:Former Nickelodeon original series. Look for your self.

Bad user[change source]

Hello, there is an IP address (74.88.134.16) that is doing vandalism and making changes that are not neutral. Their bad changes have been reverted and they have been warned but they are still doing it. They have also triggered edit filters, including one for trying to make a bad change to my user page. Is there anything that someone can do to stop this person? --Redtree21 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtree21 They haven't edited since the most recent warning, and no final warning has been given yet. If they vandalize again, give a final warning. If they vandalize after that, please report at WP:VIP. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about categorized redirects created by block evading vandal[change source]

Baby Peter, Child A and Christopher Barrios are all redirects created by the long-time vandal known on English Wikipedia as Angelmunoz50. There are probably more, but these redirects will do as examples. They are created as block evasion, but I noticed that QD reason G5 does not apply on Simple. The problem is that the redirects apparently were created to add falsities to Wikipedia. As is typical for this vandal, the redirects have incorrect information about year and cause of death.

I am unsure of the right way to deal with this and the rules here on Simple. I believe that the redirects should be deleted and salted, but correcting the information and then semiprotecting the redirects is an alternative. I also don't know if redirects are allowed at all in redirects here. I would appreciate your input. Sjö (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[change source]

Please protect the article at the semi-protection level because an IP keeps removing content from it. Thanks! --Hulged (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do the same with Wikimedia Foundation. An IP address is removing content from it saying that it is badly sourced, but the content is all good and correct, and we cannot convince them that it is fine. Thank youǃ --Redtree21 (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate:
In Wikipedia, the removed content is clearly all unsourced. In Wikimedia Foundation, only one source is removed because it is not up-to-date and is conflicting with another source in the body, the rest is not sourced. 59.153.235.202 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin (obviously, I'm just four numbers separated by periods) but the correct action would be to block the IPs involved. 64.79.144.10 (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

68.111.104.243[change source]

Please block 68.111.104.243 and undo their edits. He has vandalized a lot of pages and has created pages that shoud be removed. XǝNoX (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohdzaki_07[change source]

Hi. I noticed that User:Mohdzaki 07 has been creating a lot of problematic articles that seem to be purely promotional. [User talk:Mohdzaki 07]. They don't seem to have made any constructive edits at all. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks-BRP ever 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]