Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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 meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

I've blocked this anon IP for 72 hours for continuing to edit against advice and for blatently removing {{rfd}} notices from his own articles again and again. Just wanted to let you all know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also blocked 92.3.205.203 for stunningly similar edits as abuse of multiple IPs. Please be vigilant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he is abusing multiple IPs, we cannot AGF anymore and should block on sight. Chenzw  Talk  11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS check says both IPs are Carephone Warehouse Broadband in Manchester, England. Just keep an eye on the range. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that a few disruptive IPs give a bad name to IP editors. Majorly ^talk 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Looking at this particular case, I have always had the impression that the edits were more or less ok; except for a few (rather small) things that could probably be fixed quickly; the problem is that this requires two-way communication (also called dialogue), which we have not been able to establish so far. IIRC there are a total of 3-4 editors that edit pakistan/kashmir-related articles; two are listed above. --Eptalon (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in this case there's no doubt they speak English if they work in a call centre in Manchester. Also, when {{rfd}}'s are removed despite warning, it's gone too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a number of categories this user has created, we need to rectify them to meet to MOS. For instance, Category:Mountain Passes of Pakistan should be Categeory:Mountain passes of Pakistan (and all pages recategorised), Afghan-Pakistan Relations should be Afghan-Pakistan relations etc. Can someone with AWB fix these please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done "Category:Mountain passes of Pakistan" and "Category:Mountain Ranges of Pakistan" and moved page to Afghan-Pakistan relations. Category:Mountain Passes of India still needs to be done. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) 92.3.205.203 is back and is adding in categories onto articles that would need to be referenced in order to be added, and might start to do other edits. Just thought that I would let everyone know :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please take a look over RfD soon please as their are some requests that should have closed over a week ago and some require WP:SNOW I think. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Gwib has done it now, its ok. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether it would be in our scope to start creating some LTA pages to track down persistent vandals. Like a sort of staging ground for collecting all information we know about this Disney vandal. Cassandra ^talk 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated issue, but it looks like the vandal has an account now (with similar editing patterns). Has been blocked of course.--TBC 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by a "LTA" page? Cheers, Razorflame 00:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Cassandra ^talk 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: The Disney vandal has a new IP to block. Special:Contributions/70.92.74.153 has been adding information about Disney stuff in an unencyclopedic manner. — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged some of the disney vandals pages for QD plus various others, can an admin please have a look over them. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a community ban of some kind is in order. Revert/delete/block anything this guy does. It's what I do currently, but would be better for it to be official. A LTA page would be useful to describe the style of editing/how to deal with it etc. Majorly ^talk 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if Tinkywinkylover (talk · contribs) would be the Disney Vandal above. Editing patterns seems almost the same, and how this user types (no spaces between characters) are the same. Thoughts? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, his edits have been constructive. However, once he starts vandalizing again, we'll block him.--TBC 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned indefinitely. See his deleted edits for the Dipsy and Po articles that he created. --TBC 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on this; could someone move Category:Computer and video game companies to Category:Video game companies please. Or else, give me AWB access and I'll do it. Thanks. —Giggy 07:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done AWB access - I did the last one , this one you do. -- Creol(talk) 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AWB access. Doing it now. —Giggy 11:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. —Giggy 11:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global blocking has finally been implemented for all wikimedia projects. Using it, a steward can block an IP on all projects at the same time. The main purpose is to more easily stop cross-wiki vandalism. The Global Block List logs all of these blocks and should be consulted for unblock requests from IPs if no entry can be found in our block log.

Global blocks can be locally ignored on an IP by IP basis using the Global block whitelist but I would strongly suggest you be extremely careful when doing so since if the IP was globally blocked there is certainly a very good reason for it. Whitelisting because an IP requests it should not be done. This should only be used in the case of an established user and after carefully looking into the situation. Either the steward who blocked or a checkuser should be contacted before whitelisting any IP.

The only project where the block does not apply is Meta. This allows any blocked IP to request unblocking at m:Steward requests/Global. All block requests should also be brought up to the stewards there. So far, only one unblock request has been filed, by one of the main reasons for the extension in the first place. All IPs requesting to be unblocked should be refered to the Meta request page.

See m:Global blocking for full information. -- Creol(talk) 08:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What error message do they get if they are globally blocked? Is it different to a local block? Microchip 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They get MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked. There's a bit more info here (and on Meta, obviously, this was just the first link I could find). —Giggy 11:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todays vandal spree was caused by User:Andrew from NC. The first batch ("Somewhere Out There" through "Somewhere Out There 5" were all created from his own IP. The rest were created using open proxies (now blocked). Aside from the general act of vandalism, socking, and open proxies, there is a deeper issue. Looking at the edits of User:Somewhere Out There and User:Somewhere Out There 5, there is a concerted act against religious beleifs which are not Christian. In effect, a religiously motivated vandal spree, a "wiki-hate crime", so to speak, against evolutionists, Hinduism and Buddhism. The user has been blocked for 1 week for the vandalism/socking and given the basic warning for those actions, but I have to wonder if further action/warning needs to be taken due to the nature of the vandalism (at the bare minimum, this is extreme POV pushing) and its likeliness to repeat. -- Creol(talk) 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my Wikiproject was hit hard by User:Somewhere Out There, and there isn't any non-Christian material in the articles (unless you count pornography, masturbation etc). However, the edits of User:Somewhere Out There 5 are particularly discomforting. He uses normal edit summaries to try and 'hide' his vandalism, knowingly reverts others, vandalised a userpage and talk page on one occasion and breaks redirects. I would block for longer than 1 week. Possibly 3 months? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest an indef block or a community ban (assuming we agree) as he is bringing nothing to the project but damage MindTheGap (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did edit constructively under his first account (User:Andrew from NC). After his apology note on ST, we could AGF and simply block rather than ban. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that apology note suggests he thinks evolution is "nonfactual". I can't see how anybody with that viewpoint can ever help build an encyclopedia. MindTheGap (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think religion in general is a mistake, but I still wrote Fall of Man. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think AndrewFromNC is a person who has rather strong views. There was a discussion about censorship (see here) on Simple Talk, something AndrewFromNC had to contribute: I came across this and I couldn't resist adding my two cents. Nudity on Wikipedia is inappropriate. If children want to learn about sexual behavior or body parts, they should ask their parents. If adults are looking for that type of thing, they're sick. Those who defend the nudity here on Wikipedia are pornographers. End of story. --Andrew from NC (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I later blocked him for repeatedly calling people pornographers)- If We now imply that his views on religion are similar, then such acts of vandalism can be partly understood (Please understand me right here: It is legitimate to think ideas like Evolution are wrong, but an editor should at least admit that Evolution is an option, and possibly some people are satisfied with the answers it can provide). In very short: He has used sockpuppets to vandalise articles that seem to go against his beliefs - Our duty here as an encyclopedia is to provide information. Since this is his first offense, I think the current block time is in order; if he becomes a repeat offender, then we can look at longer-time blocks. Gwib: I have semi-protected articles like Abortion (because I became sick of the pro-life/pro-choice wars going on there. You might want to do the same with articles you consider to be a high risk. --Eptalon (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: The total count was 110 acts of vandalism, 16 sockpuppets created, and 9-10 open proxies used.-- Creol(talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This along with Creol's above summary of acts of vandalism press me to an indef ban. These kinds of accusations, namely "he (Larry King) had no such right to homosexuality, nor does anyone else in the world" show that these acts of vandalism to religion-related articles will not stop, he will not repent (ironic word usage?) and, to him, his removal of accurate information was a service. My apologies to MidTheGap, he is completely correct. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban him, 6 months. This is a useless editor, who is no help to the encyclopedia, that vandalises with sockpuppets, using his main account as the "good hand" account. If he apologises, we should let him back for a second chance. If that doesn't work, and he does this again, we should block him for another 6 months, and at the end of his ban, we shall see if his behavior has changed any. If not, permaban and it's over.

Personally, I always did think that User:American Eagle, User:ChristianMan16, and Andrew from NC had formed a right-wing friends cabal, a group of people who edit with the same interests, views, and know/like each other personally, or have met on-line before. Their behavior always seemed suspicious, and I think they should all be given a 3-day block for consistent usage of WP for social networking. However, I had no knowledge of this and had nothing to do with it. — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) "This is a useless editor"? He has contributed constructively before this. Saying he's "useless" when he has contributed positively before is close to a personal attack. What he did here in this situation is an issue though. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ionas, watch your tongue. As someone who's been in trouble on numerous occasions for violent left-wing views, you are running parallel to Andrew from NC. As always, your contributions are useful and necessary, but say it with more caution. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a useless editor? I created a "right-wing friends cabal?" I had never met any of them anywhere, I have never made this a social networking site, I have never vandalized or been bias. And neither has ChristianMan16. He is the only writer of wrestling-related articles and has done well in keeping us updated in it. Andrew from NC surprised me. He is doing wrong and should be blocked with his sock-puppets. A ban is not needed as of now, only if it increases out-of-control later on. — AE (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) he may have contributed constructively in the past, his social activities with American Eagle (and, if I recall correctly, ChristianMan16) and his disruption at the start of his wiki-career (advocating the censorship of educational material at Simple Talk [User talk:Andrew from NC#Blocked and the section below, showing AE's clear defense of the censorship]). Actions such as this are not to be taken lightly.

No, AE, I was not calling you a useless editor, I meant andrew. However, I did mean that I believe that you formed a right-wing group of cronies.

To Gwib, I always want to avoid drama, but it seems I'm always a magnet for it because of my past. I'll try to restrain myself a bit more, but this just needed to be said. I will be compiling evidence on this friendship editing. — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Now I'm a "group of cronies," wow. I look forward to your so-called "evidence." Partial side note, not to do with your attacks, you have accused people of this before, but I did not know who you were then, see here. Please stop attacking me, I have not talked with either of them in weeks and I have no idea who they are. This could be considered WP:NPA, I have not done anything wrong and have done much to grow our Wikipedia - you are wrong. — AE (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me tries to relieve the tension by creating a Facebook Cabal... mC⁸ 10:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily protected his talk page as the discussion was quickly going to become a religious debate and argument. It is clear to me that this user cannot adhere to NPOV guidelines and will violate NPA rules if you challenge him. The intolerance he has shown saddens and scares me. -  EchoBravo  contribs  19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again there is a backlog on RfD, some of them should have been closed weeks ago. Can someone at least look at it every once in a while. F S M 15:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only backlog was one article which needed redirected (with a one line merge) and a request which had little to no consensus (1 merge, 1 delete).

One of the problems with the new RfD system (and the RfA system for that matter) is that it is making it more difficult to watch the pages for changes. As all the pages are now subpages, each time a new entry gets added, it has to be set to watch. If a person misses it being added, they may never know it even exists were as the old made certain constant reminders were there to check. If I don't get a notice about Rfd and RfA changes, I tend to ignore the page and deal with the other 25 changes I got notices. Missing the one change on the page to add the subpage in a group consisting of 4 people arguing on one talk page, five on another, a WP:CHU request, bot request, three discussions on wp:AN, a couple on Simple and two cross-wiki vandals I need to check on.. not that hard to not notice and not hit "watch" for the pages. -- Creol(talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, there's a useful bot that lists all open votes that are ready to close. I wonder if we could get that implemented here somehow... Majorly ^talk 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, we get very few RfDs. It is almost useless to have a bot. A good idea will be to check the main RfD page every now and then. Chenzw  Talk  11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, we can file a bug to add "cascading watching" as a new feature. (if you watch a page with the cascading option, all pages transcluded in it get watched also) Chenzw  Talk  11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]