Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From 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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?

  • This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
  • Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
  • Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
  • Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
  • See WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.


User:Hp joker1[change source]

I think we should nuke the article creations. It's all undisclosed paid editing, a few of which are currently at RfD. Vermont (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Vermont:If we use enwiki, typically from what my look at their policies, usually is quarantine in draftspace. I don't think we have something like that. At enwiki, they are indef for spam and many articles A7,PRODed as well as AFD for lack of notability. I'll say a nuke can be done and I'm so against native advertising, undisclosed. However, all of the articles lacked notability from a simple glance so an AFD won't hurt IMHO. Amazingly or not, they are still neutral enough not to be G11ed. On a sidenote, I see they are doing the same at 2 other languages Wikipedia, maybe a trip to SRG is needed. Best, --Cohaf (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I looked through all the articles today, RFD more articles but some barely meet ANYBIO/Creative People/GNG, I left these alone. Someone else might wish to take another look. Thanks much.--Cohaf (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support use of nuke. Undisclosed paid editing has no place here. SITH (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Update:I think I had AFD almost all, left 2. Will try to assess them slightly later. --Cohaf (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vermont:I finally managed to RFD all the articles, a tiring task looking into notablity for all. I covered around 17 - 18 and some others did the rest 3-4. I think we are done here. Next to another paid editor. Sigh. --Cohaf (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

2405:204:E286:6449:0:0:230E:F8A1 - questionable edits to userpages[change source]

Hi,

I have noticed that 2405:204:E286:6449:0:0:230E:F8A1 has made several edits to two different, recently created userpages. At first I thought it was just an IP editing someone's userpage but considering that both accounts are relatively new and both userpages were edited by the same IP, I'm starting to hear ducks quacking. Perhaps a CheckUser is in order?

Thanks,

SITH (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: pinging Cohaf for their input on my hunch as they have since edited one of the pages. SITH (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Checkuser cannot link accounts to IP, also we need more concrete evidence on how the accounts are involved in ILLEGIT. Is there vote stacking? Is there 3RR? In addition, are the accounts involved in any disruptive activities. Lastly, checkuser is not for fishing. Based on my experience of handling SPIs on Chinese Wikipedia and SRCU, the evidence here for a CU is weak. I declined the U1 is procedural, you can't use a IP address to U1 a registered userpage. I think behaviour needs more evaluation and will not recommend a CU.--Cohaf (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, simple case, both accounts are changing in their userspace exclusively, and the IP is changing in their userspace. Both accounts behaviourally are very similar. However I did not think anything is disruptive enough for a block, just ask them to declare their relationship if they are 1 person, otherwise very likely MEAT. For the IP, a final warning not to change other people userpage or block for disruptive editing may be needed. Regards,Cohaf (talk)--12:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. If the worst comes to the worst, a duck block could always be done if an administrator agrees with the behavioural assessment. SITH (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am quite new here so I may be wrong. Do correct me if I am wrong.@StraussInTheHouse:.--Cohaf (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Now IP is quite stale, accounts also. Recommend this to be close as no action. --Cohaf (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad username[change source]

7710 East Manager Street was registered a short time ago, it appears to be an address; they should be blocked. This edit to AN should possibly be revdel-ed as well? IWI (chat) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should they be blocked? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Possible personal information in username. I'm not totally familiar with the username policy here, but surely this isn't allowed. IWI (chat) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The username policy is at WP:User name. There's nothing in it about personal information. Besides that, we don't know what city the address is in, whether it's the user's own address, or even if it's a real address at all.--Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment - I've found "Managers St, London, England" however I'm more inclined to believe this is a made up name and I have a sneaky suspicion the editor is American (due to the numbers and "East") but that's a wild guess, Given nothing on the address shows up anyway I would say the name is fine. –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Then that’s fine. Yes we don’t tend to have "7710" as a house number over here. Yank confirmed ;). IWI (chat) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
User:ImprovedWikiImprovment Ah right sorry, I meant postcodes (ZIP code) then :) (Not that I've just looked zipcodes up or anything Twemoji2 1f61d.svg. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: The result is the same; we don't have post codes or house numbers like that (I was being serious, not sarcastic). In other words, it's a made up name. IWI (chat) 00:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

New editors creating pages about people often found in the media.[change source]

Hello all, What's new this year: There are realtively many pages about media people (writers, singer/songwriiter,actors..). Usually these pages get created by (probably sinlge-purpose) named editors; there are also many links to social media sites, or to foreign language sites, which makewsverifying those claims very hard. Right now, we have 13-or so RfDs; most of these RfDs concern such articles. Many of the "celebrities" are only known in the respective part of the world. With all likelyhood we will not hear from an Indian actress in ther mid-twenties, or an Iraqi singer/songwriter. Can we do anything to lessen the influx of such articles? - No, bocking the editor is probably not an option, as with all likelyhood, most of the accounts are single-purpose accounts. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eptalon: We could IAR and just delete them on the spot whenever they are created, if the community would agree to such an approach. IWI (chat) 00:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
We should only be deleting such pages if the subjects are not notable. To delete them "on the spot", which I take to mean quick deletion, they must be lacking a claim of notability; otherwise, they must go to RFD. References in other languages, while frustrating to English-speakers trying to verify notability, are not a reason to delete. Then there is also the issue of how widespread notability must be (for example, how big a geographic area): I don't think there's any guideline on that, so if a person meets notability requirements for any area then they are considered notable for Wikipedia purposes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talkcontribs)
@Eptalon:. It's all created by Hp.Joker1, see the thread above. Vermont was considered using nuke. I don't think is a trend per say but just problematic articles created by one person. For the rest, it's created by a crosswiki abuser Adam Asrul socks. What common is that they cannot be speedy as they usually have a claim of significance and so had to either nuke (a lot of IAR) or RFD. I will propose if G5 can be restored it'll be a way to solve this. --Cohaf (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Question and request. What is IAR? And, I've noticed a lot more acronyms recently. Expanding them makes things easier to understand. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gotanda:en:WP:Ignore All Rules. Yes, I agree. --Cohaf (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support the reinstatement of G5 also. IWI (chat) 11:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm...G5 is tricky. (For the record, here's a link to what "G5" means.) In general, we've loosely held the belief that if a banned user comes back to write a legitimate article—rare, but it happens—we don't demand that it be deleted just because the user was banned. In my view, we ought to restore G5, but make it extremely discretionary. Admins should only use it where (a) the criteria on enwiki are met, (b) there's a pattern of abuse, not just a page or two, and (c) the claim of notability is not supported by RS. But it would be useful to have it back in the toolkit, so that massive numbers of parallel RfDs (like we have now) can be avoided. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Legitimate articles should not be deleted without discussion. Illegitimate articles created by LTA's and other blocked/banned users can be deleted under existing criteria; for example, I tend to use G3 for JRS (a sockpuppeteer) creations. Vermont (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The border zone we're really referring to in this discussion is a case where ordinarily we would have to forego QD and go to RfD because there is a claim of notability, but one that is not supported. I'm thinking that if there are a bunch of articles of that type that appear all at once that were created by a blocked/banned user, then we could use G5, or perhaps G3, to get rid of them, and not have to go through the tedium of RfDs on all. But I agree that articles with supported claims should never be deleted without discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, restore it with a "star" so to speak. IWI (chat) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with reinstating G5 is that a large number of our Admins already show themselves incapable of following QD criteria in a conservative way and over delete using them. Adding something like G5 into the mix while telling them to use strict discretion will almost certainly fail and cause far too much to be deleted. We get very few Rfds, don't forget that, even when we do get someone who comes along and creates a few articles that needs to be Rfd'd its never very many. A very busy day of Rfd's is like 3 or 4 on this wiki. Its not like we are over run. Not even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Notability doesn't require someone to be famous world wide. If they meet WP:GNG in say India for example then the article is legitimate and should not be deleted. And a claim is a claim, the whole purpose of making it go to Rfd is to avoid the exact sort of "opinion" judgement being talked about above. Quick deletion is not for judgement, it is for black and white. Rfd is where judgement is handled. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Marilynn Hughes[change source]

Hello sysops,
What is your position on this article? Would you describe it as spamming? Is it a notable person? Looking forward to reading you. Ping me --Eihel (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel: I have nominated it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I gave my opinion, Auntof6. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at the rest of the account’s edits. Only (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at the GUC ... --Eihel (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Roy Apps article[change source]

I've set article protection for the article Roy Apps due to persistent vandalism from a focused IP range which is probably a school. Since this is the first time I've felt a protect was needed, I'd ask other sysops to review the article's revision history and remove the protection if it's not needed. Thanks. Operator873talkconnect 05:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Operator873: I’m obviously not a sysop but I think this was necessary. IWI (chat) 14:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It may be better to block the /22. Vermont (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Only two IPs there. I would have blocked them and not protected. Generally we only protect when there are so many hits coming that they can't be handled by blocking. This very easily could have been handled by blocking. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Only 2 IPs and if it continued, I’d consider a range block since they were closely related IPs. Only (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Processing VIP reports[change source]

Dear fellow admins: when responding to reports at WP:VIP, please try not to have so many old, resolved reports remain on the page. If a report has been marked as resolved for a while, go ahead and remove it when you respond to new ones. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge, or not merge ?[change source]

Hello everyone,
As you are a specialists and sysops of Simple, I'm writing to you today. I am not familiar with the merger (and if it exists on this project). But Lobamba and Mbabane are they not the same article? "I leave you the hot potato", as we say in my country. Also, if you have to erase something, you will have the ability to do it. With all my gratitude. ping me for a result Face-smile.svg --Eihel (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:ST. This is for matters requiring administrative attention. No comment yet on the content.--Cohaf (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote, if you need administrator rights (delete an article for example), it's easier to talk about here than there. I am not familiar with the Simple way. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, can I know which of the 2 articles you need to delete? In addition, deletion should be either done via quick deletion or the article nominated for deletion. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
They are about different cities. Eswatini has two capitals, one executive and one legislative. I'm guessing that means that their government offices aren't all in one city as they are in many other countries. There are a few other countries with multiple capital cities, such as South Africa. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

They are different cities, and do not need to be merged. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems nothing to merge, as there are the administrative and legislative capitals, two separate cities. Cities and places usually have enough notability to have their own articles.--Cohaf (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Van-dal New Year[change source]

Should this user be blocked? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

it was globally locked over 24 hours ago. Only (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mohd Abusad[change source]

Is this user misusing their userpage?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Some users use their user page as a sandbox. I would say that it's OK as long as it leads to a simplified real article at some point. Any particular reason you didn't ask the user directly? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for history merge[change source]

Hi. Can the history of Time Warner be merged into WarnerMedia? The content was just copied and pasted when a user thought the company's name changed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Vermont (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting protection...[change source]

Hey, could some please protect my user talk page due to sockpuppetry? --IanDBeacon (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Vermont (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Protecting talk pages is actually a bit touchy because we should be leaving them open if at all possible. Since its their own page I suppose its not as big a deal, but probably should not be indefinite. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Since it's due to LTA's (long-term), I thought it beneficial to do it indefinitely. Should we change it to a month? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah its the LTA thing that has me unsure how to handle it. If the user being targeted was a regular I would just say don't protect at all. But they aren't around to watch their page much. Try a month for now, we can always slowly step up the length. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)