Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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


The article Apartheid...[change source]

... has been used recently as a scratch pad by IPs. Protection suggested. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 months. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Geez, with all this vandalism coming, I think we really need to start a WP:RFPP page soon. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, in general, we try to block vandals before we protect pages. But you're right, there has been a lot of vandalism lately. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really a need for a new page, this page gets so little activity the request can easily come here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
But with the spike of recent and frequent vandalism on pages, we would not want the noticeboard to have a bunch of protection requests. There's at least a reason why a WP:RFPP page exists on enwiki and the same is true for other language wikis despite the level of vandal activity on some of them being about the same as here at simplewiki. They allow us to separate different requests, just like how we have our own VIP page. Same goes for protection. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That is actually my point, the whole point of this board is for such requests. And protection requests even at the rate we are seeing right now are rare (3 requests in the last month). Now if we were getting 20+ a day then yeah we should have its own page. But as it stands one or two every few days is for all intents and purposes none at all. One of our goals here is to be simple in all things, in other words one place to come for stuff instead of multiple splintered boards etc. unless it gets to the point where it would be simpler to have two. At this point we aren't even remotely close to needing to split the two pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

RFPP's[change source]

Would an admin semi-protect the articles Roblox, Minecraft, and American Revolutionary War due to increasing frequencies of vandalism. Thanks. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The level of vandalism on these doesn't call for any kind of protection. Protection, including semi-protection, is used when we're having a hard time keeping up with the amount of vandalism on a page. These haven't reached that level. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To reiterate, we only protect if we can't keep up with the vandalism. Think many edits per hour by many different editors. Usually, but not always sustained over a number of days. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. Do the recent changes to Adolf Hitler count towards the need for protection (4 IP vandals in the last 48 hours)? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: 5 IP users making 14 vandal edits to Hitler's page in the last 48 hours. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to mention that one way of helping with vandalism is to add frequently-vandalized pages to your watchlist. That way, you can see when those pages are changed and undo vandalism sooner. I have added Adolf Hitler to my watchlist, and I've added many other pages for this reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been doing this for a while. One of the pages on my watchlist is Julius Caesar, which has seen no helpful changes for several months. Does this show a need for protection? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, the idea is that people are vandalizing many times faster than we can hit revert. We almost never protect. As a small wiki we want to be as wide open as possible to capitalize on what few good IP edits we get. A good example is say 50 edits in a matter of an hour or two that come from like 4 or 5 or more editors. If it is only a couple editors its easy enough for us to block them all and if its only like a few edits here and there its easy enough for us to just revert. The idea is that there is so much vandalism, that nothing but protection will stop it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The page Cats has seen vandalism from an IP address and three new users in quick succession. Similarly, the same IP made 14 vandal edits in a 2.5 hour span but has been blocked and the vandal edits have stopped. I suppose this is not one of those situations where protection would be absolutely necessary. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On another note, Enfcer protected the page "Shu (god)" for a whole month after four IPs vandalised the page over 5 days. Is that not enough to suggest that protection is needed for this article? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One big difference is the Cat article as you stated the IP had been blocked. And just because I semi-protected it, other admins may think otherwise, and are free to reverse me. -- Enfcer (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
And more vandalism on Cat - coming in so quickly that someone's got to be feeling the same way I do. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there was vandalism there for a period of about 35 minutes, but it ended about 9 hours ago. At least one of the IPs has been blocked, and the registered vandal has been indeffed. The other IP hasn't vandalized since their final warning. User:Macdonald-ross and ChenzwBot reverted the vandalism pretty quickly. I know it's aggravating, but protecting a page isn't something we do lightly. Whenever possible, we're supposed to handle frequent vandalism by blocking users rather than protecting pages. Exceptions are pages like Donald Trump, which we expect to get a lot of vandalism because he is frequently in the news for being controversial. So I'm choosing not to protect Cat at this time. Another admin may disagree. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
But why was Adolf Hitler protected in a similar case? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Protection is pretty much a thing left to individual discretion. In the case of Adolf Hitler, one major reason leading to the protection call is the fact that vandalism picked up very quickly shortly after the expiry of the protection. Taking a quick look at the protection history and the page history of the title, we can see protection going back years, and that protection was mostly renewed shortly after the expiry of the previous one. The level of vandalism on Cat, however, is nothing compared to this, and even if protected, would probably only have a short protection duration (probably no more than 2 weeks). Chenzw  Talk  22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you say, then, about the fact that John Cena was protected for three months even though the level of vandalism is only about the same as Cat? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Like Chenzw said, it's left to individual discretion. Some admins are quicker to protect than others. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a long history of Cena's biog being vandalised by IPs, and it has had to be protected before. We are under clear direction from the Foundation to protect BLPs from vandalism. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't have been protected. Was a single user vandalising so didn't remotely meet the threshold to protect. And it actually had never been protected before. I have removed the protection. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Matthew Peter-Davis[change source]

This user's page on the main English Wikipedia says he is blocked as a sockpuppet of I Love Bridges. Isn't that the same user who was socking here as Agrave Banks not long ago? --129.67.116.128 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Per en.wiki SPI their block started on 3/8/17, it is now a known sock of I Love Bridges / Wiki you now, Wiki you later!. Account has been blocked per Sock. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/5[change source]

The filter in question warns and tags signature additions, but does not consider the signatures within the deletion templates, which is a quite common thing across-the-board. I think this exception should be defined in the filter.

Vito Genovese 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hoaxes and nonsense by User:82.32.95.4[change source]

Someone might want to take a look at this user's edits. There is a list of different species of wastebasket, and an obviously silly page about a made up cryptozoologist who was apparently murdered, only the hoaxer can't quite decide how. Plus lots more pointless or incoherent stuff. --129.67.118.22 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

More very problematic articles by socks of a globally blocked user[change source]

Last September, I alerted you to the edits of globally locked account Alec Smithson and his numerous IP sockpuppets. He is known for creating hoax articles and articles which may be about real people or places, but which make false assertions about them which are completely unsupported by the references. In addition, some of the books he cites are known not to exist. More background here. Since then, many more IPs and another globally locked Smithson sockpuppet, Eco2346 have been active on Simple Wikipedia.

Basically, you can assume that any article here containing the words "Natoli" or "Biotti" will have been edited or created by the Alec Smithson socks and they should be checked. Ditto articles on obscure Italian artists and art historians. The IPS all resolve to Telecom Italia and are located in Milan or the towns surrounding it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet from Italy[change source]

Where can I report these IP vandals as possible sockpuppets? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That would just be a dynamic IP address. Unless they are using the same account or avoiding a block, its not really socking. In the future though Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is what you are looking for. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016[change source]

Semi-protected for 4 years? Isn't it too long? Can administractors shorthen the time to a few months or at most one year? Thanks. --219.78.191.209 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Enfcer: What was your rationale for the 4-year period? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
My rationale when I set it for 4 years, was since this President is such a polarizing person, any page directly dealing with him has and will likely continue to be vandalized, as his was up until its protection, by many IP editors. And since it is a 4 year presidency, just made sense to protect it for the duration of his administration. This is also his campaign for 2016 page. There should be little need to edit that, as the campaign is already over. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RFPP for Justin Trudeau[change source]

Please at least semi-protect it. A block has not slowed the vandalism, and a rangeblock is unlikely to. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)