Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:AN
WP:ANB
WP:ANI
WP:AN/I
WP:RFPP

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. You may use requests for rollback to request rollback.

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?


Another RfD that needs to be closed[change | edit source]

Would an admin please close the RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry? Assuming the RfD succeeds, I am willing to do the somewhat considerable work of processing it (although help with it would be welcome, too). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working my way through them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[change | edit source]

MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-EnhancedInterwikis.js. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday evening already, I just wasn't sure why there are three equals. Aren't there usually only two? -Barras talk 11:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case they are equivalent. I just noticed that sometimes h5 is also undefined, so another check for that would need to be added as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Martinvl is appealing his block[change | edit source]

See his talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with what happened on enwiki. Yes, DeFacto caused disruption at both places. But two wrongs don't make a right, and Martinvl was pushing several POVs on enwiki, and I assume here too. Enough is enough. --Rschen7754 01:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, looking at edits on both wikis there was issues on both wikis. Onestrike is purposefully created for solving such situations where trouble crosses wikis. In this case it was clear the two were going to eat up far to much editor time in the same manor they did at en.wiki. So the best solution for the wiki was to remove their editing capabilities. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This was very annoying at enwiki, and I'm glad it was stopped more quickly when it spread here. Keep him (and the DeFacto sock, obviously) blocked. TCN7JM 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This unblock request is still outstanding. Could an admin please review and do the standard accept or decline so the user isn't left hanging? I'm not reviewing because I was somewhat involved in the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

d-batch option on Special:PrefixIndex[change | edit source]

I was using this special page to look for misnamed categories (for example, "Rivers in Foo" that should be "Rivers of Foo"), and noticed the d-batch option. It's apparently to delete everything listed on the page, but clicking on it did nothing. Is a special right needed to use that option? If so, what hoops does one have to jump through to get it? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any d-batch option. Apart from the input form, 'Hide redirects', 'Strip prefix in list' and namespace selection are the only options I can see. Could you tell the steps to reproduce this, perhaps? --Glaisher [talk] 10:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a tab at the top of the page. Maybe "option" wasn't the best term for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh indeed. Nothing happens when that link is clicked. Twinkle's batch deletion/protection module is probably broken. Someone savvy with Twinkle could perhaps look into this? --Glaisher [talk] 10:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I didn't recognize it as a Twinkle thing. I'll follow up accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about a user's edits[change | edit source]

User:86.163.23.56 has been adding phrases like "on the morning of" to a lot of biographical articles. These changes, among others, prompted warnings on his/her talk page and a report at WP:VIP. I declined to act on the VIP report because I felt the changes were done in good faith. I still feel they aren't strictly vandalism, but they might be adding detail that makes the articles unnecessarily more complex. User:Rus793 did make the point that adding this to text that is sourced can be a problem (see User_talk:86.163.23.56#Source citations).

My question is: is this kind of thing something that warrants progressive warnings and a possible block? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We are seeing pointless changes dotted all over some articles. Changes of that type gradually destroy the stylistic coherence of the prose -- death by a thousand changes! I believe it is a consequence of the Visual Editor, which lets inexperienced users stick words in without really understanding what they are doing.
For a new unregistered user, this may not be vandalism. But if a user persists after clear warning, then I think it may be treated as vandalism. The guideline I have often used on my reverts is: changes should be improvements. Not just an alternative way to say the same thing. An improvement can (of course) be an improvement in factual content or in explanation or in appropriate simplicity or in sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Until a few days ago I was removing these "edits". However Auntof6 told me not to but I still belive that these edits are pointless and should be removed. The IP should be blocked for complete failure to communicate and not addressing the concerns of other users.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't tell you to stop removing the changes. I told you to stop calling the "on the morning of" edits vandalism and issuing warnings for vandalism because of them. Not all problem changes are vandalism. If they were vandalism, the remedy would be more straightforward and I wouldn't have brought it up here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that when the IP addresses used by this user is blocked at English Wikipedia, (s)he moves onto Simple English Wikipedia like many other cross-wiki vandals do. Also there are vandalism edits at Wikidata from two of these IPs. There has also been 'adding false information' type of edits to German and Danish Wikipedia (both edits were reverted by locals). If this user does not respond to any of the messages and if this type of pointless edits are not stopped, this IP should be blocked, imo. I do not believe that this user is acting in good faith (1. has been repeatedly warned at enwp and sewp 2. has failed to stop these edits even after warning 3. has been blocked several times at enwp). Even if these edits were made in good-faith, they are more disruptive and making the articles more complex. Also edits such as this (totally opposite to the sources there) convinces me even more that these are not good faith edits. My answer to the original post is yes. This IP should be warned (done), blocked. -Glaisher [talk] 16:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/86.163.23.56 for 1 month. Edits like this is nothing but vandalism, imo. User was sufficiently warned before block but nothing happened. Feel free to comment on the block. Regards, --Glaisher [talk] 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Glaisher. Adding false information is certainly vandalism, but I didn't see that. The only (potentially) problem edits I saw were the "on the morning of" edits, and those are the ones I am asking about here. Unless you are saying that the events in question didn't happen in the morning, those aren't false information.
As for the block, how did you decide on the length of one month? I believe we usually start with shorter blocks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Has been known to be back when the block expires. Seeen:Special:Contributions/86.157.182.246 and the applicable block log. Since it appears to be a dynamic IP, I'm fine even if another admin shortens the block. --Glaisher [talk] 17:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistake with User:Château de Lunéville[change | edit source]

I think the page User:Château de Lunéville should be Château de Lunéville withought the "user" prefix. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was already looking at that because the author left me a message. It's taken care of. Thanks for the note, though! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome! Just to tell you the user has moved the page again (to User:Château de Lunéville) after you moved it. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User Centaur is appealing his block[change | edit source]

See User talk:Centaur#Unblock request. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My comments above at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#User:Martinvl is appealing his block also apply to this request. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The present block is well justified, and should continue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mac, but this case does really need an admin to review, since it wasn't a community ban. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The community can endorse it however, it then becomes a community ban. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This unblock request is still outstanding. Could an admin please review and do the standard accept or decline so the user isn't left hanging? I'm not reviewing because I was somewhat involved in the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for rollback[change | edit source]

I would like to rewrite the article that was poorly written and make it more notable for the readers to understand and enjoy. Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Rewriting an article does not require rollback. Just go ahead and work on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Brandon Richardson (actor)/Brandon Richardson/[change | edit source]

He's back again, and still isn't notable. This is at least the fourth time that an article on this bit-part actor has been created. Should it be salted? Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Create-protected by DJSasso for a month. --Glaisher [talk] 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It's here again - it's also on French WP! More salting needed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
User blocked. --Bsadowski1 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated cat[change | edit source]

I created Category:Fiction set in the United States without realising that Category:United States in fiction already existed. Which wording is better? Please delete one of the cats so that the subcats can all be on the cat that is kept. Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for United States in fiction, because it's a little more inclusive. I'll make the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I do, however, prefer the way you categorized it, so I'll do the same with the existing cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The subcats are in two different formats: place-location (eg. Category:Chicago, Illinois in fiction) and location-place (eg. Category:Fiction set in Colorado). They should all be of the same format - which is better? Jim Michael (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I slightly prefer "Foo in fiction" for a couple of reasons. Partly because it's shorter, but more because it's a slightly broader meaning. "Foo in fiction" could cover a place being described in fiction without actually being set there.
I've just shut down my main computer for a while, so I can't do the changes myself right now. (Well, I could, but I'd end up wanting to throw my tablet across the room!) I'd be glad to do them later, or you can do them and then QD the old categories -- I think there's a QD option for renamed categories. Or you could also wait to get more input about which name is better. Your choice. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

24.239.92.169[change | edit source]

Please nuke contributions JV Smithy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is best to give a reason why you would like to see these items nuked. I have gone through the contributions, and most were either classifiable as test edits or nonsense, and have since been delete. Enfcer (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Group/potentially promotional usernames?[change | edit source]

While patrolling the new changes, I noticed that a user account called Bensoncompany was created. Now, if I was over at the English Wikipedia, I would report the username for having both the name of a company and for implying that it won't be operated by a single user. However, I checked out Simple English Wikipedia's policy and I don't see much specifically regarding promotional/company names or account names implying they are being operated by more or one person. When I looked for Usernames for Administrator Attention, I was redirected here. For that reason, I wanted to ask about our seemingly vague username policy and what might (or might not happen) in this specific case. MJ94 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential spambot edit[change | edit source]

I noticed this edit while new changes patrolling and I thought it looked a bit off – like perhaps a spambot did it. While reviewing the edit a few moments again, I also noticed a tag in the edit summary that said it could be a potential spambot edit. What do you all think of it? MJ94 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the edit. (You could have undone it, too, if you wanted.) It was such nonsense that if it was a spambot, it was doing a poor job! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)