Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Year-end reminder about closing RFDs[change source]

Greetings, fellow admins. This is my yearly reminder about RFDs that:

  1. Are closed in the year after the year in which they are opened (for example, RFDs that are opened in 2020 and closed in 2021), and
  2. Are closed with a result of delete

Those of you who know about this can stop reading. Others (including non-admins who read this page) can read on for details.

With these RFDs, we can't use the standard computer-generated close reason. That is because the generated reason always indicates the current year, no matter when the RFD was actually created. We would need to hardcode the reason, which just consists of the RFD discussion page name enclosed in square brackets.

Things that would help minimize this problem include:

  • Waiting until next year to open RFDs, if reasonable to do so
  • Closing some RFDs early, if reasonable to do so

Also keep in mind that the year is determined by UTC time, whether or not that is the local time of the closing admin.

As always, feel free to ask any questions you may have -- that includes you, non-admins! --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Fellow admins: Today is year-end: Please look at at the open RfDs, and close as many as possible (those 2-3 days before closure or those where the result is unlikely to change?). This will avoid extra work next year.--Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
And as a yearly reminder, you can use the computer generated reason. You just have to create the redirect, not really sure why you like to make a bigger deal of it than it really is. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's not create redirects. That could confuse matters, and if the page is recreated and goes through another RFD we'd have to undo it. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
But in either case, extra attention needs to be paid. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Why not just do a second nomination? --IWI (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
There are lots of possibilities. Doing a second nomination requires doing it manually, which is, IMO, even more work. I was just trying to point out that there are issues with these; what people choose to do about it is up to them. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean yeah do it however you want to do it, I was just pointing out iirc that redirects have been how it was handled since well before you started posting these posts every year. I just have never really understood the worry over what really is an inconsequential thing. -Djsasso (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The easiest way is definitley to just type the RfD page in square brackets. That's how I'd do it. --IWI (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this an issue with the RfD templates or the RfD itself? Belwine💬📜 20:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Belwine: When an admin deletes a page when closing an RfD, there is a computer generated method of the reason for the deletion as shown in the deletion log. This won't work now if the RfD was started last year because it will assume the RfD is from 2021 and will link to "/requests/2021" so it has to be typed manually when deleting the page. Djsasso suggested redirecting the 2021 RfD to the 2020 one. --IWI (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. There is an option where you can just add "|year=2020" and that just seems to make it show 2020. See the comparisons before and after here (before it showed that the deletion template didn't exist, now it exists). Belwine💬📜 20:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes this is a way to fix the templates. --IWI (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
So couldn't this just be done for all the articles that are being requested for deletion at the end of every year? Would that fix the problem addressed by Auntof6? Belwine💬📜 20:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This isn't really the main issue being talked about. What is being talked about is the reason field when deleting a page has options which you can choose from a dropdown or you can manually enter a reason yourself. It will always use the current year if you select from the dropdown that it was an Rfd delete. But as I say my only real point was there isn't much need to rehash this this topic every year as even if someone accidentally didn't change it manually (which yes is the easiest and best way) they can easily create the redirect and then no more broken link. It just seems like a lot of hand wringing and attempting to circumvent proper closes (ie the suggestion to close rfds early, or even worse to get users to not put in rfds until the new year) when all we are talking about is a broken link in a delete reason which can be easily remedied if it were to happen. -Djsasso (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, this makes sense now. Thanks. :) Belwine💬📜 16:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Merging histories[change source]

Hey folks. I think this probably involves an admin's help, so I'm going to post here. I'm feeling adventurous, and I'm going to attempt to rewrite the Voltage article. What I'd like to do is start from scratch in a user sandbox, and when I get it close to done move it over to the mainspace. To make that work, would somebody have to delete the voltage article, move my new copy into the voltage name, and then undelete all the old revisions to preserve the history? Or am I overthinking this? Still a little rusty. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections to my method above, I'm going to start sometime this weekend. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If you are the only editor in your user space you can just copy paste it into the main article. If a number of you collaborated on it then it would need an admin to merge the edit history in. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok cool. I figure it'll probably just be me, so that'll be a lot easier to do. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Page history issue at Albuquerque[change source]

At some point in 2017, with this and this diff, a user copy-paste moved and altered Albuquerque, New Mexico to Albuquerque. This is a problem, as the page histories are split and the page should be located at Albuquerque, New Mexico per guidelines. It seems this can be solved by either a round-robin move, or a history merge between the two pages. This shouldn't be too hard as there haven't been any more diffs since 2017 at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. --IWI (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Is there a diff missing? This diff does not seem likely. When the person copy/pasted the page over, he also made some changes. --IWI (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it should be showing correctly now. -Djsasso (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool thanks. --IWI (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom[change source]

I've received an e-mail from a user here that I need to forward to ArbCom. Is there an ArbCom here or should I use the main English Wikipedia ArbCom?Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra No arbcom here, if you think is sensitive can contact WP:OS or if CU is needed can contact one of Wikipedia:Administrators (with checkuser rights) listed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Depends a bit on the issue, but probably any uninvolved bureaucrat will be able to help.--Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone might want to look at THIS.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra Well I reverted and warned them, will leave to an admin to see if it needs RD. (RD2?) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to inform you: I have removed the problematic revision from the logs, normal users can no longer see it. The user who left the notice is now globally blocked. --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The user is globally banned and should be ignored. --IWI (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it isn't the OP being globally ban and should be ignored, but the person that is problematic that is globally locked. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for clarifying. --IWI (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got an email from this user too, do I need to contact anyone about it? Belwine💬📜 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
You can contact the CUs, it's an LTA who likes to send these emails, we have a couple of them already. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, my advice is to ignore the emails and not reply. --IWI (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad information being given[change source]

You have misinformation on your page. I don't care who says it when it's wrong. You can have some what is being called STD without having sex at all. It is true that some of them can be transmitted that way but that is not the only way they can be gotten. That can harm marital relationships my mom and dad almost broke up because of it that's how I know. My mom wasn't cheating on my dad. Breaking up marriages or steady loving relationships how can that be good I'm against it and very glad my mom and dad stayed together. Stop giving out bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello there, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a site anyone can edit. Every user, even you can change almost any page (there are exceptions: certain pages need special rights to be changed). With this also comes the problem that information that you find may be wrong. The best thing to do when you see a piece of information that is wrong, is to fix it. If you are unsure: Every article has a talk page. The talk page of the article is for discussing about the article. This includes pointing out that some information may be inaccurate. As to the problem you point out: Yes, many diseases pass from the mother to the child; this is also the case for Syphilis, for example. So, without you being more specific, we cannot check or fix any article.--Eptalon (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio[change source]

Please revdel edits made by Wonderfulindia at Kayastha, they are copied from other places per this copyvio tool. --Minorax (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian[change source]

The article Nicholas Alahverdian should be protected in order to prevent ongoing cross-wiki disruption which is spilling over from enwiki. See User:Pmelo1 (blocked on enwiki, lock pending), User: (a proxy/VPN service), and User:Demzelq (a single-purpose account, almost certainly also a sockpuppet). ST47 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

you are adding material about a dead man’s wife and kids and where the live, that is wp:undue. How is that relevant to the article. This is a BLP1E anyway, of a previously deleted article, and should be deleted.Demzelq (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Compare the article written by the sockpuppets [1] to the article fixed by editors [2]. Abuse also occurred on Commons [3]. The sockpuppets are here to promote the subject and remove negative material about the subject. starship.paint (exalt) 12:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump[change source]

We've been getting a lot of vandalism on the article Donald Trump since the previous protection expired last month. Might be worth protecting again, especially given recent events. --IWI (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I for sure understand the intent as recent events have made this particular article much more likely to be vandalized than others. However, the history doesn't support protection right now in my opinion, at least for now. Operator873talkconnect 21:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Certainly worth keeping an eye on, in any case. --IWI (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There are 31 users with the page on their watchlist, so I think we're covered. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
IP editors account for about a quarter of the edits. There have been 12 edits to the page this year, four of them by unnamed editors. Even given the current events (transition of power, perhaps storming the capitol), I don't see a reason to pretect the page. --Eptalon (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Oeqtte"[change source]

  • I see the unregistered user:Oeqtte has been creating pages from titles to redirects. I assume this is not allowed. Example: Page Continental philosophers moved to Category:Continental philosophers with its former content unchanged. My thoughts are to revert all changes and block user, but this is so unusual a kind of activity that I give notice here. I will take no action till you all have had time to read and respond. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) I also noticed this thing and I was going to do actions but I stopped because if you all thing it is wrong to do it. That's why I don't took any actions. I think without any concern of us, user is doing this work.KP (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
They are currently creating redirects between the main and category namespaces, which in my view isn't something that should generally happen. --IWI (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, am I doing something wrong? I'm pretty sure I didn't move any pages, I just made the new category for Philosophical movements and positions and have been doing recategorising and making redirects (I haven't worked with wiki categories much before and I'm just trying to be helpful). Oeqtte (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: Ah, by the way I didn't move anything from mainspace to the Continental philosophers category. I wrote all that stuff myself. Do you really want to block me for that though? Oeqtte (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem I see is redirecting mainspace pages to categories. I don't think (as Macdonald-ross suggested) we should be considering a block without even attempting to communicate with you beforehand. That action would seem unnecessarily quick and harsh to me. I'm sure you are acting in good faith and trying to help, and now appear to be willing to collaborate. Best, --IWI (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, I may have been too quick to assume redirecting to category namespace was valid, given the {{R to category namespace}} template exists. I may have to check the policies on that but I'm not sure I'll find much. If it's best to delete them I'm happy with that too. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll be explicit: when a user types a name on the search box he will normally get any page we have. But these redirected pages will not show up. About 12 pages are involved. There is no way to find them except by moving to category namespace, which most users never use. There's no plus side to this. What one might do is annotate category pages manually with very brief helpful stuff. But even that is not really necessary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure I understand you. Which twelve pages are you talking about? I checked the relevant pages on enwiki and they don't seem to support what you're saying (i.e. disputes "concern mainly redirects from the article namespace to organisational namespaces, like Wikipedia or Template; they may not be as applicable to redirects to other content namespaces, like Category" and XNRs to categories seem to be generally considered useful for shortcuts and bluelinking, although somewhat uncommon). You can make the rules if you want but I don't think you should try to block me over policies that don't exist yet. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I can only try to be understood: Articles should be in main article space. No articles in main article space should be redirected to any other space without good reason. You did not have a good reason, and did not discuss beforehand. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
What makes you say they were without good reason? And could you tell me which twelve pages you are speaking about please? Whether something needs your permission beforehand is up to WP:BOLD, and is otherwise a fairly uncooperative approach to administration. But like I already said, I never moved any articles out of mainspace. Cheers, Oeqtte (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Oeqtte: I believe the changes Macdonald-ross is referring to are these which redirect from article space to Category space. This isn't a good idea. I understand your desire to be constructive, but the other half of being BOLD is accepting that your changes might not be kept. Operator873talkconnect 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Operator873: See my previous comments above. Oeqtte (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll leave the issue for an uninvolved admin to decide and take action on. I also feel the articles created with redirects to Category namespace should be deleted and Oeqtte advised to not recreate the same or similar pages. Operator873talkconnect 06:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden[change source]

Article should be protected to protected mode, because some IP addresses were writing about him to be racist president, US ever had. I saw that two times. This may happen due to 2021 storming of Capitol hill in DC and winning this election of 2020 jealousy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTP1233 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't thik the page needs to be protected rn. This appeared to be one IP address who later signed up for an account. Both have been blocked. However, I think there will be a need for protection of the page for the near future, so we'll keep an eye on it. Belwine💬📜 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The IP address in question got a free block, and I have removed the respective revisions from the public logs. --Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eptalon: there are still very similar revisions that are still in public logs that are likely from the same person (behaviour is exactly the same). See here and here.
--Belwine💬📜 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thnx.KP (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0 (Confirmed)[change source]

I am requesting confirmed, so I can use Twinkle to revert vandalism. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you need this, to be honest, as you're already included within the autoconfirmed implicit user group. As such, you have all of the user rights included within confirmed. Dmehus (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Already autoconfirmed... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn't know, thanks. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Yeah, your account was probably attached awhile ago when you first visited Simple English Wikipedia, so when you started being active on this wiki, you merely had to meet the edit requirement. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed...[change source]

... for IP 172.97.... repeated "Chicka. Chicka, 1, 2, 3" bad pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In that particular case the range block would end up too big. Can however salt the page or create the page with good content. I have salted Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3 as it seems to be the one getting recreated over and over. I will salt any others that get recreated. -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That being said the best result would be to create a good version of the article as it does meet WP:NBOOK and probably shouldn't have been deleted originally. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Mis Universe 2020 candaidates at RfD..[change source]

Hello, many RfDs we currently have are of Miss Universe 2020 candidates. Most of them won the natiional selection in their country. To my knowledge, the final contest of Miss Universe 2020 will take place in February or March 2021. So, except possibly for the winner, these articles likely have the same fate. Just wanted to point that out for anyone coming across an RfD which involves a Miss Universe contestant.--Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I had some more comments here. If anyone is interested. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)