Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)
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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?

  • 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.

Is anyone monitoring RFCU?[change source]

Hi. Quite a few days ago before I went on vacation, I filed an RFCU against 3 users and an IP address, based on a SPI at Enwp. As far as I can see, despite it being very ducky and at least one of the users and an IP being active (and socks as confirmed elsewhere) nobody has done anything with it. Is there any chance someone can take a look please? Thanksǃ DaneGeld (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as you have been told before, you won't always see a comment back on there. Secondly only one of the accounts are active here thus not socking. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ChenzwBot[change source]

Anyone know why ChenzwBot hasn't edited for nearly a month? Unfortunately its owner is inactive too at the moment. J991 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You answered your own question. Will send him a message and see if we can wake him up. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Page protection for Ajit V. Pai?[change source]

Got recent vandalism here, and even more in other language versions, more vandalism in the next days is likely. Semi-protection could be useful. --Mfb (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watch list and if I start to see much I will protect. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bad username and bad behavior[change source]

Favonain Is a Shit Head (talk · contribs) should probably be blocked, if nothing else as an inappropriate username. However, they are clearly socking as well, e.g. Favonain Is A Fuck Tard (talk · contribs), Favonain is a dick 2 (talk · contribs). This has been going on since 2011 at English Wikipedia [1] where this person was indefinitely blocked in 2011 by an administrator with a similar name (Favonian) and has been pursuing a vendetta against him ever since. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC))

All three are globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled, Auntof6. None of those three are global accounts. See Meta global account pages for Favonain Is a Shit Head, Favonain Is A Fuck Tard, and Favonain is a dick 2. So how can they be globally locked? Also, if they were globally locked, that information would appear on their Contributions pages here at Simple, even if they have no existing edits. But, it doesn't. Compare to what you see here and at Meta for accounts which I know to be globally locked: Alec Smithson (Simple), Alec Smithson (Meta); Klein49 (Simple), Klein49 (Meta). Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I was puzzled, too. I normally expect to see the blocking/global locking info on the contributions page as you describe. Like you, I don't see it there, but when I go to the page to block these users, I see the messages (using the first one as an example) "The account Favonain Is a Shit Head is already locked globally." and "Favonain Is a Shit Head is already blocked. Do you want to change the settings?" Maybe someone reading this can explain what's going on. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it when I go to the page to block them but that could be cause you now blocked them locally. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I only blocked one of them locally. Did you check all three? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest this is just a bug, as the block page reports that all of them are glocked. If it's a vulnerability, ie. vandals being able to bypass creating an SUL, it's a pretty severe one that should be looked in to, but I doubt that's the case. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You actually blocked two but one was way back in June. But I do see it on one of them now but not the other two, not sure if I missed that one when I looked last time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Accounts were globally locked and suppressed, that should be the reason why you can't see more info.--HakanIST (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Donation requests[change source]

I used to like to give a few dollars to Wikipedia every year or so during your fundraising campaign. You provide valuable information to practically the whole world. But then I heard about how you stole poor David Slater's monkey photo and then ruined his life with your court case. If suits such as these are how you spend our donations, you certainly won't be getting any more funds from us! C.E. Berglund, Seattle, caellen27 at — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ (talk • changes) at 06:04, 4 December 2017.

You are of course entitled to donate or not donate, as you choose. Just be aware that your concerns would be better raised at the Wikimedia Foundation instead of on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is the organization that would handle donations. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6 is correct - You would need to contact the WMF about your concerns etc (donate[at]}, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 14:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdel[change source]

Hi, Could someone revdel this (and the edits after) please, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
brilliant thanks Auntof6. –Davey2010Talk 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Big Brother AWT[change source]

Is it against policy for an IP to be editing User:Big Brother AWT like it is doing? Also, is the page itself an inappropriate use of a user page? J991 16:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

CSD'd - The article is a hoax - No such programme exists, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's on a user page, so QDing as a hoax doesn't apply. The user removed the QD tag, which I'm going to let stand. You'll have to take this to RfD if you want it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah yeah sorry it's because I'm so used to seeing MFD so just assumed QD was the next best option, I'll send to AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010, Auntof6: However, both pages contain age information on non-notable minors, without reliable sources, and not self-created, so are therefore probably BLP vios. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that after I sent it to AFD however as one admin removed the CSD from the mainspace article as "not a hoax" I figured CSD'ing this as "BLPVIO" would also fail with maybe that admin not bothering to look so figured it was best left ignored, if anyone wants to delete it obviously that's absolutely fine, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Spam filter preventing a revert of vandalism[change source]

Hi. Could an admin please perform this revert? It's blatant vandalism, and I can't remove it myself. I keep getting an error message stating the following "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter." Thanks. –72 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done I restored it without the problem website. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles by socks of globally blocked user "Alec Smithson"[change source]

I have today detected two more articles by the socks globally blocked User:Alec Smithson. These were Quartiere Prada (see this version) and Quartiere Bocconi University (district of Milan) (See this version). I have redirected both of these articles. Neither of these places is a district or official "quarter" of Milan. The designation is bogus. As per usual with this user and his socks, they were also written in complex but garbled machine translated English and full of copyright violations. This is just a heads up because these socks are very active here on Simple. Nothing they write can be trusted. For further information see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Elsamni[change source]

The page should not be deleted based on A7 notability criteria because this person is very notable as a media personality in his own country. He is a regular guest in TV shows and often in newspapers. He has been chosen by EU to write about his country affairs. He is also a poet who publishes in press and a lecturer in the most reputable university in Egypt. The A6 tag of hoax lacks any evidence and should be considered as false. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes). --Eptalon (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As Quick-deletion was opposed, the article has been proposed for regular deletion. You can comment at the RfD page. Creating an account before doing so will add credibility to your arguments, though. --Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It might, but on the other hand, the RfD rules allow for disregarding opinions of users who registered after an RfD was started. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wondering what to do about socks[change source]

And no, I don't mean changing mine! I raised just shy of a month ago, the issue of a user who is blocked at enwp, Aminnie, as part of a sock farm. The articles they were trying to get accepted there, all got deleted post-haste as non notable. So after they got blocked, they came here and have been trying to make exactly the same articles on this wiki.

The problem is, I suspect that they also have socks here. I've raised it at RFCU and got told only one account is active here, which is fine, but even so, that doesn't stop IPs (which don't get checked on RFCU). The material they are producing is below standard, and as I suspect English probably isn't their first language (evident from some of the edits in the past), I am inclined to call WP:CIR.

Before I make a fool of myself or do something stupid, someone help me figure out what the right course is here please. Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More activity today, as seen on User talk:Aminnie (which is how I got here) - and on Contributions: the surname Movaghar common to a number of bio pages with questionable notability.* Their lack of Wikidata items, which might indicate notability and possible previous articles accepted on the relevant language WPs (i.e. Farsi and French), smacks of self-promotion or for-pay editing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: *though d:Hossein Khan Movaghar has a stub page also in and -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection / create protection[change source]

Hi. Could I please request create protection against the article DJ Mixify. Multiple recreations (at least twice a month) since October. 6 creations & deletions by QD in total. Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Query: Unauthorized bot active?[change source]

Can someone please do a check on the bot User:Active_-_WIKI? It claims that it is an administrator, but does not show up in logs or in the user list as one. I have a feeling this bot may be making an attempt to run unauthorized or without a Bot bit. DaneGeld (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This user is up to something suspicious. Have reverted their change to this page which removed the above query.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This user has been blocked for 72 hours to allow further investigation.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I would add (a) user is falsely advertising being an administrator, and (b) user does not say who is running the bot, which violates the rules for bots even if they don't have the bot bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this user has any intention of being a bot or administrator. They just seem to be a new user that doesn't understand policy at all, and is adding random templates and userboxes to their user page without understanding what they mean. J991 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That was my impression as well. We don't control how the various user page notices are used, so these and many others are often used inappropriately and inaccurately. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it not against policy for users to "impersonate" an administrator, or does that only apply to usernames? DaneGeld (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
For better or for worse I've removed the admin box and have hid the "Approved" notice from their page - No one should add the admin userbox UNLESS they're an admin .... we should actively remove these not actively ignore it. –Davey2010Talk 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  The user name policy says not to choose a name similar to another user. I don't know of a policy that says not to claim you have rights when you don't really have them, although doing so could get you blocked if it causes a problem. It's easy enough to check what rights someone has. @Davey2010: Please don't edit other users' pages like that, even if you think there's something misleading. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Well it's common sense .... if you don't have the mop then you shouldn't have the userbox on your userpage because it obviously gives the impression you're an admin - With all due respect no one's going to click on "Verify" are they - They're going to take it at face value, Well yes I will edit their talkpage and remove it because they are not an admin and we should under no circumstances mislead our readers into thinking someone's an admin when they are not. –Davey2010Talk 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
We don't police what user boxes people have on their pages, so common sense isn't the standard, and, yes, some people do click on "verify". This could be a user who's setting up their user page and copying stuff from other user pages -- we've had that happen before where a user page ended up with a lot of obviously invalid stuff. If you're going to edit someone else's page, at least do them the courtesy of leaving a message to explain why. Otherwise please leave them alone so we don't have to go through the page's history to see what the user put there themselves. If it gets to the point of censuring the user, we're going to want to see all the issues, and ths kind of change makes that harder. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree newbies do do that which is why it's harder to spot it (and I also agree that we all have better things to do than to patrol everyones userpages) but I still believe if they're spotted then they should be actively removed, I didn't see the point in leaving a message because they're blocked - If this was a normal unblocked editor then yes I would've left a message before removing but anyway the chances of them being unblocked are next to none so seemed a waste of time telling them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and left a note. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I would note that impersonating admins is something we have blocked for before so having that template on his page could be grounds to block in combination with other actions a user might take. (speaking in generalities) -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm on Davey's side here. That user box should be removed, whether the user likes it or not. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it should. I'm just saying to wait until there's a final decision on what to do about the user (for example, whether or not to indef), at which time the admin will probably remove any inappropriate things. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack[change source]

The last comment at Requests for deletion by an editor named Ymnes is accusing people of being liars, cheaters, and asking them never to come back to Wikipedia. His tone includes racism towards Arabs and Egyptians. He has a single purpose account, after requesting an article for deletion based on a wrong tag of hoax. Please take an action. I prefer to keep myself anonymous to avoid his attacks and strong language. (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Racist? Why are you acusing me with another invented lie cq. another personal attack on me? Don't shoot the messenger! Ymnes (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Cq? Is it your way of acting like a native dutch? We all know you are a Russian who lives in Netherlands. And your name is Yaroslav Mikhaylovich Blanter. (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism[change source]

See (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log). —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No admin is going to block this IP unless it has warning templates, which it doesn't currently. Anyhow, you're supposed to report vandalism to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. J991 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)