Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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

Untitled[change source]

Can you plz make me a list of the western state and capitals — This unsigned comment was added by Mary120012 (talk • changes).

Template:The Flintstones[change source]

I'm guessing this and a few others created by the same IP need to be deleted? They are blatant copy-pastes from en, but unfortunately QD A3 isn't an option for templates. J991 17:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No QD criteria apply. What usually happens with templates like these is that they marinate for a little while (in case the person importing them actually starts creating content to go with them). Eventually @Auntof6 nominates them at RfD, and a week later they're gone. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Copy-paste issues apply only to significant content that could have copyright issues or that might have complex language. There's no such content in templates (or in categories, either). I left the user a message about converting templates and putting them to use. Also, I'm not the only person who can propose deletion, y'know! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I know! (smile) But you're the one who most often goes back and finds these things after the rest of us have forgotten them ... good for you, alas for us! StevenJ81 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please block this user?[change source]

Could someone please block Anti Cuck (talk · changes · deleted · filter log · SUL · google) (block · soft · hard · spam) for a username that has the (offensive) word "cuck" in it? Thank you! --<< S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the offense. Wiktionary says that "cuck" is a shortened form of "cuckold", which is not offensive. Even if the word were "cock", it wouldn't necessarily be offensive, because "cock" has a non-pejorative meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Spamming socks?[change source]

They have inserted confusing URL such as // or // to multiple articles. --KurodaSho (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added the offending URLs to the spam blacklist for now. Chenzw  Talk  07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --KurodaSho (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


--KurodaSho (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

About LouisPhilippeCharles[change source]

I wonder if any person can shed some light on this old case? The master account User:LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked in February 2011 for abusing several accounts, but the socks which are tagged locally all show creation dates of after the local block date. So where is the abuse of accounts? Chenzw  Talk  09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a theory (since I wasn't active here at the time) but perhaps there was multi-project socking. There is a hint of this in the unblock requests at user talk:JustOneDay. Etamni | ✉   09:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
While that is so, what an editor did to get banned elsewhere is not our concern unless the same behaviour is exhibited here, and in this case LouisPhilippeCharles did not, in 2010/2011, encounter/cause any issues on this wiki. Nevertheless, I caught the editor evading the block (no matter whether the original block was justified or not) a few days ago by trying to edit anonymously; User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew has been re-blocked with user talk page access disabled, so all future appeals by him should go through email. Chenzw  Talk  09:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Wikipedia indefinitely...[change source] it is one of the most common targets for vandalism - I'm shocked that this isn't protected - it's been like this on ENWIKI for years. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote no, especially on the indefinite part. It hasn't even been edited in almost two weeks. I have added it to my watch list, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I am beginning to think that it may be time for us to discuss how we can better protect stable articles from repeated abuse. The history of many articles on my watchlist shows edits made by IPs or new users, followed by reversions by Chenzwbot or one of the regulars, ad nauseam. The other pattern is the one where the vandalism goes unnoticed by anyone for several weeks or months. This pattern is even worse because it means the vandalism was live for quite awhile before it was corrected. I'm sure most of us have noticed similar patterns. I do not favor automatically blocking IPs from creating pages -- new pages aren't part of the problem I'm describing -- but stable articles should be protected in some manner that doesn't violate foundation guidelines. Ideas anyone? Etamni | ✉   09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There are a few sides to this problem:
  • ChenzwBot (and its predecessors) was designed with 1RR in mind. This means that the bot will never rollback a page to a revision made by itself (aka it will not rollback a page more than once in a row, regardless of the time interval between rollbacks) – at least one revision to that page must be made by another user before that page can be rolled back again. Exceptions to this rule are possible; there is functionality implemented for an "angry revert" list–these pages are exempt from the bot's 1RR. Currently, Wikipedia is the only page on this list, and entries must be added/removed to/from the angry revert list by myself (there is no code implemented for addition/removal by other users ever since the last bot rewrite). The 1RR becomes a handicap when the wiki has generally low editing levels, or in the case of unpopular pages which do not see a lot of edits.
  • The practice on this wiki is that indefinite protections in mainspace are not encouraged (see the protect log of that page, and this list for all indef protections). Indefinitely semi-protecting pages is not against WMF guidelines per se, because {{changesemiprotected}} comes into use for such cases.
  • Going forward, we could start "encouraging" indef protection on certain high risk pages. en:Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection would be a good start as a guideline for determining whether an article is eligible for indef. Then again, we will have to see what other editors have to say on this matter. Chenzw  Talk  16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My "no" vote was based on our usual practice, but I'm not opposed to changing it. If we do change it, I know of several pages I'd like to see indefinite semi-protection on. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chenzw: Is there a way to see which articles the bot is making the most reversions on? Also, is there a report available where the bot can tell us where it would revert an edit but for the 1RR rule it uses? The former will help us see the scope of the vandalism problem while the latter might help us focus anti-vandalism efforts while we work on better prevention of the problem. Etamni | ✉   18:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The statistics are available at User:Chenzw/Bot reports. Just a quick overview of what I have included:
  • I have started recording reverts for a long time already, but recording 1RR incidents only started in late-Jan this year. Thus, the calculations only consider data from that point in late Jan onwards.
  • Most vandalised ranks pages based on how often the bot detects vandalism on that page. Revert/non-revert does not matter in this case.
  • Most reverted ranks pages based on how often the bot has performed rollback on that page.
  • Most reverted (unique users) - same as above, but only unique IPs/editors are counted. This corrects for cases when a persistent editor is vandalising. See the revision history of Wikipedia, 22 & 23 March 2016 for an idea of what I am talking about.
  • Missed reverts ranks pages based on 1RR incidents.
  • Missed reverts (unique users) - same, but counting unique IPs/editors only.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any more questions about the data, or if you need some other tabulation. Chenzw  Talk  03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Very useful info. We also get a lot of well-meant but incompetent changes, or changes wich do not improve pages. These can only be judged by experienced editors. The bot helps because it frees people for things only they can do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The two oldest current RfDs[change source]

Hello, fellow admins. There are a couple of RfDs that were scheduled to close on April 13. They both have all "delete" comments. I can't close them because I initiated them. If any of you are holding off on closing them because they are going to be more work than usual to process (because they're group requests and they're for templates), then I would be glad to do the deleting and cleanup. If you'd like to close them and have me do that, just let me know when they're closed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer not to close the one for Category:Username changing and usurpation templates, since I voted in it, but I will gladly close the other one and clean up the transclusions (if any). Chenzw  Talk  05:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my offer. The RfD mentioned by Chenzw was due to close almost two weeks ago. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect for your strong adherence to rules and policy, Auntof6, it seems to me that the rule that we don't close RfX that we open or vote on is meant to stop people with advanced rights from ramming things through. In this case, though, I don't think there is any objection stated to a close of "delete categories, keep templates". And it's been open six extra days. So I think you could safely do that. Alternatively, even though you don't like non-admin closes, I've never seen a policy forbidding them, and I'm prepared to mark it closed if you'd like. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for input on possibly questionable user name[change source]

User Yeehawmothertruckers was indef'd by User:Macdonald-ross because of the name's similarity to a vulgar English phrase. I think it's allowable. It's a phrase that could be used as a play on words by someone in the trucking industry. It suggests, but does not say, the vulgarity. What do others think? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a clever pun to me. It might be worth unblocking and seeing if they edit constructively.--Druddigon (talk | changes) 21:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Seconding Druddigon. The name inherently isn't bad, and we don't know the behavior of the editor. I'd say unblock and see what happens. --Lithorien TalkChanges 22:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, but I put this on the Admins noticeboard because I wanted admin input. I'll wait to see what other admins respond. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering the lack of editing (or block) history on other wikis, I think we should give the benefit of the doubt here. Chenzw  Talk  03:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is really an issue about the implications of allowing near-beer quasi-obscenities as usernames, rather than the behaviour of a particular editor. Allowing one will lead to allowing others, and so on ad infinitum. A username should steer clear of being controversial in itself: that would include names that support political or religious causes, names of products, names that attack and so on. A special problem with obscenity is that many obscene terms are used with small changes in spelling. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I see a recent user page: user: Gogo Dodo is a njgger. We are going to go on getting offensive names protected by a thin veil of aberrant spelling. They should all be indeffed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree with you on this Mac.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree on this one, because there's nothing else it could mean. I don't think the one I originally brought up here is one of these, though. We need to be extremely cautious about indeffing because of what we see as possibly offensive user names. For a similar issue, see the other "Bad username" section, currently at the top of this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator here, but I am an administrator elsewhere, so I have some skin in this game. In my opinion, Auntof6 is 100% correct on this issue. We need to use a reasonable-neutral editor standard here. Something like the "njgger" one is clearly indef material because there's nothing else it could mean. But the "mother trucker" one, in my view, is more likely to be a play on words than an intentionally misspelled obscenity. ("Mother vucker" wouldn't be, just to set things straight.) And Aunt is also correct about being careful not to overreact to names from outside the native Anglophone world. I have an Indian colleague whose name is "Kshitiz". That's his name; there would be nothing to be offended about if he used it as a username. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While I still think the benefit of the doubt should be applied here, cases such as this one are instances where our username policy will apply:

  • Usernames which offend other people might make people not want to contribute to Wikipedia. That also distracts people from what they are meant to be doing - writing an encyclopedia!
  • If someone complains about your user name, please think about changing it. If lots of people complain, you will have to change it.

At the end of the day, this is about being part of a community of editors. If your username is going to cause offense to others, or even give people pause to consider "that is probably not an acceptable name", then it probably isn't suitable here. Do I think the block is improper? No; while I won't be issuing the block myself, I don't consider it an improper action if someone decides to make the call to block the user. Taking into consideration the possibility of the words used in a non-offensive context (such as in this news article, and apparently in the names of some bands), do I think {{UsernameHardBlocked}} is a bit too much, and that {{UsernameBlocked}} would be a better choice? Maybe. Chenzw  Talk  14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Obviously, if each case is considered separately, then there will be cases where we differ. We can hardly plan to discuss every instance where there is a difference of opinion. It is simpler to have a rule that "any swearword, even if slightly altered, is not permitted in a username". I would add that we have no regular editors who have such doubtful usernames, as far as I can remember. This is not an accident: someone who is genuinely interested in contributing will choose their username carefully. Accepting one altered swearword will lead to others, especially on a wiki with many young contributors. Furthermore, rejecting one username does not prevent a would-be editor from registering an inoffensive handle. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, we need to consider each case individually, and we cannot have such an absolute rule. The English language is such that there are many inoffensive words that are only a letter or two different from inoffensive ones, not to mention words that have both offensive and inoffensive meanings. Bedides that, since Wikipedia is an international project, we need to be aware of words that may seem questionable to English speakers, but which are perfectly respectable in other languages. An example of the latter is the user Harshit shan, recently the subject of a block request (which was denied, since "Harshit" is a valid given name).
I think we have discussed this enough, and I am going to unblock this user. He/she can certainly be blocked again if there are objectionable edits. Besides all this, when you block a user for having a bad username, please do them the courtesy of leaving them a message explaining it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bad username[change source]

This. J991 19:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Indef'd. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Has been globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet IPs[change source]

These two IPs have been vandalizing pages related to Sudan and South Sudan with similar content. I have reason to suspect they might be the same user and should be acted upon by an admin promptly. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username Needs Blocking[change source]

Can someone block user Godhatesfags12346789 — This unsigned comment was added by The Newspaper (talk • changes).

Done, blocked. Chenzw  Talk  15:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)