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.

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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 adminitrators.
  • 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.
  • Use the Reference Desk on the regular English Wikipedia for any help in finding content on Wikipedia, including the Simple English Wikipedia.
  • See WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.


Username check[change source]

Are the following usernames appropriate?

Thanks for your time, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My take:
  • The first one is OK. "Killer" isn't necessarily an attack word. It's even possible that this is the person's actual name. (Ever heard of Wilma Mankiller?)
  • The second one is more questionable. The user name policy says it might not be good to use the name of a political figure. This user name alludes to such a name, but doesn't exactly use it. "Trumpster" could be a reference to the negative meaning of the English verb trump, but it could be something else, too; sometimes "ster" is added to a person's name in fun. So to me, this one isn't as clear.
That's how I see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

BLPs deserve and are given exacting protection. The second username is obviously based on Donald Trump, albeit in a comic vein. It may fall short of en:wp:Biographies of living persons 4.2 Usernames. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Category rename[change source]

Category:Languages of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Should be Category:Languages of Azad Kashmir per the main article and category. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Can you do this? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I have the ability to do it, but I would want some of our other admins to confirm that that's the correct name. Names of categories for that area have been disputed in the past, and I don't know if this should be called Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, or something else. On English Wikipedia, the preferred term seems to be "Jammu and Kashmir". --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

IPs from targeting Australia[change source]

Several IPs, all from Swedish ISPs, have done repeated vandalism on the above page. I wonder if it should be protected or the users should be suspected as sockpuppets and blocked. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for two weeks. Maybe the interest will die down by then. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Malleability[change source]

We could use protection on this page. Various IPs and a logged-in user are vandalizing it. J991 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a month. We can deal with the registeted user by blocking if enough appropriate warnings are issued. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I issued a final warning. J991 20:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama[change source]

Since the ex-president's article was unprotected a week ago, there have been 8 libellous vandal edits by 3 different accounts, and the only constructive editing was to revert that vandalism. Isn't that enough to re-protect please? --95.249.86.81 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Djsasso semi-protected for 6 months. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoops didn't notice someone commented here on this. Yeah I did this the other day. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please block this user[change source]

Please block Macdonald-woss (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) for having a username too similar to that of Macdonald-ross and furthermore has been used only for vandalism. Thanks, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indef'd as a vandalism-only account. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And protect this page[change source]

Please protect School as it has seemed to be a vandalism en:honeypot. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Gautamiputra Satakarni movie to the Top Gross and Share Movies List[change source]

Hello,

Please find below collection information of GPSK Movie as of 13th Febrauary 2017.

Total Gross - Rs 120.15Cr

Total Share - Rs 84.05 Cr.

Update this information in the below link

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Telugu_movies

— This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 203.200.213.170 (talk • changes) at 11:50, 13 February 2017.

That page was protected because too many unsourced changes were being made. If you would like this update, please make the request on the article's talk page using the {{edit protected}} template, and include a source. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rivers[change source]

I have been trying to get a listing of thee names of pA. Rivers. I have been thwarted at every turn. I get choices of tours to take or of memorable sites in the state, etc. . I cannot find the names of the rivers alone. I do not want all the creeks or runs, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.32.232 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Try en:List of rivers of Pennsylvania on English Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

SOS[change source]

Please block 92.23.141.96 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log). I cannot say more as I have some more counter-attacks to make. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

2006leb vandal sockpuppet[change source]

2006leb (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) is one of the PhoenixS15 sockpuppets, but unlike the others it was only blocked for 31 hours, which has now expired. Was that intentional? The vandal is likely to come back and use it again. — This unsigned comment was added by 87.21.189.167 (talk • changes) at 21:31, 17 February 2017‎.

@Macdonald-ross: Looks like a question for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this was a vandalism-only account used for abuse. It is now indefinitely blocked. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unapproved bot?[change source]

AgraveBanks-Bot (edits) is making bot edits without a bot flag, and it doesn't look like the bot is approved. Sure, the bot is only making edits on AgraveBanks's user page, but is this still against policy? J991 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my bot does not require a bot flag to operate (clearly), and it's doing no harm just editing my user page. As noted on the bot user page, it only has one function, and I will never add additional functions to it. Why is this even being discussed? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This account is not defined as a bot here. Therefore, in accordance with the policy Wikipedia:Username, I have blocked the account for now. Feel free to discuss, either on this page or in the bot request page. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: What do you mean "not defined as a bot"? It's running automatically, and therefore it is not a "non-bot account with bot in the username". The reason you gave was incorrect. Also, there was no reason to block it, as I could've (and now have) killed the database so that it will not function. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 19:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Agrave Banks: What she means is that accounts not flagged as bots are not allowed to use bot in the account name on this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My bot does not require a bot flag to operate. Are all bots on this project required to be ones that need a flag? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 20:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, no. But you can't call the account "-bot". You can call it "-automated", or something like that. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason those edits can't be done with your regular account? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why do you think that your bot does not need to be approved? I do not see where your bot would fall under an automatic approval exemption. Only (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that formal approval should be required for a bot like mine that does not require a flag to operate and does not edit any pages outside of my userpage. I understand why bots that edit the "public" namespace for say need to be approved. However, I do not understand what harm an unflagged bot editing my user page is doing. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand what it means for a bot to be "flagged" or to "require a flag." A bot is "flagged" only when it is approved. All bots on Wikipedia require a flag. Only (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What I meant by "flagged" is that my bot does not require the userrights granted to the "bot" user group to operate properly. I know some bots that would not function without being in the bot group. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 23:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we're not using the term "bot" the same way. For purposes of editing here, I consider a bot to be an account that has the bot flag. The policy says that only those accounts can have "bot" in their name. Other accounts might be used for automated processes without being bots. Depending on exactly what is being done, we might or might not require those accounts to be flagged as bots. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Snarky" comments made by User:Only[change source]

I would like to address a few recent comments made by admin only that I take as "snarky" and uncalled for/unpleasant. I nominated a recently created article for deletion at RFD because at first quick glance, it didn't appear valid to me. Only then made a "snarky" keep vote where the comment given almost implied that I was stupid or something. I then humorously trouted him for being snarky, and he then blatantly missed my humor and reverted the trout, with another snarky comment in the edit summary. I know that this is a minor thing realtively speaking, but I do not appreciate users doing this kind of stuff, especially administrators. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing snarky about my keep vote. There was no implication that you were "stupid or something." If you believed I was implying you're stupid, then I'm sorry you saw it that way. I was stating a truthful statement: if you had Googled the concept before nominating it for deletion, you would have seen it was a notable concept not worthy of an RFD. I see no humor in your trouting of me. I also think that the whole "trout" idea is stupid and pointless so please don't put that on my page again.
Also, this is the administrators noticeboard so I must ask: what administrative action are you hoping to achieve here? Only (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think real administrative action is necessary for a first offense of a minor thing, but I just wanted to make other admins/crats aware of it. On EN Wikipedia they have a BNB (Bureaucrats Noticeboard) for issues related to admins, but appears we don't have one here. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 01:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record, another example of what I am talking about. This admin seems to think that their point and opinion is always the correct one and that everyone else should follow them. They don't acknowledge a varying perspective from theirs. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 02:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
All the comments I am seeing here are completely fine comments. Not even close to anything that needs administrator (or crat for that matter) attention. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And since I have a feeling this is going to end up there. I should point you to WP:ONESTRIKE so that you are aware of it. Your many socks on en.wiki had an issue with creating hoax articles and in removing valid information/articles. If that sort of behaviour continues here you will end up blocked without warning. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't created any hoax articles. And can you provide exact diffs of where I removed valid information from articles here? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 13:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you read what I said again, I said if it continues here. Not that you had done it yet. If you had done it already, you would be blocked already. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

RevDel[change source]

this page revision of my user talk page needs to be deleted. It is disgusting, inappropriate, and obviously made in bad faith. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a valid revdel. Its been reverted. Move on. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SALT request[change source]

The page Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam should be autoconfirmed SALTed temporarily. It's been re-created and deleted twice going on three times by an IP and the content has not been appropriate any of the times it has been created. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has been re-created by only one unique editor, so we should first consider a block before create-protecting the title. Chenzw  Talk  15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This page[change source]

The page linked in the title contains sexually explicit language and is inappropriate. However, because is technically is a JavaScript page of another user, I can't QD it. I say technically because it's definitely not powering anything, and it almost seems as if the user did it on purpose so that it wouldn't get flagged. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)