Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?

ChenzwBot forced me to do almost all my edits again! Edit

This bot thinks I am a vandal and it should be shut down. It is misbehaving! 2603:80A0:17F0:250:6DA0:B600:2E93:B61A (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot looks to be working fine.. I would suggest the I̪P is the one misbehaving here. Going to have a go at cleaning up all the crap it has added that the bot didnt get to.. Pure Evil (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll review it's contribs fr33kman 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had the same problem editing Bird!!! (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:Citation/CS1 Edit

When an admin gets time, could they reflash the current English version of the subset of modules for Module:Citation/CS1? Djsasso tends to keep an eye on them but a couple are several revisions off. As they handle the errors in the citation system, every little update can help Pure Evil (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've imported that page and all the transclusions on it, so it should be resolved. Sorry for the somewhat delayed response. --Ferien (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turns out importing that main one actually caused a few errors, that I couldn't find the source of. So I've reverted my import on the main page as the references on literally every page on the site were broken. --Ferien (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GRP target, please protect. #prodraxis connect 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've avoided protecting the talk pages in the past. I don't want to go into too much detail for obvious reasons, but I think adding off-topic messages to article talk pages (that are often reverted quickly) are preferable to email harassment and threats, that often happens to many users, not just admins, after protection. --Ferien (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say there are a few "sensitive" articles, which have been vandalized by 1-2 POV-pushers earch. These are usually easy to spot, as the scope of their edits is very narrow (focused on the one POV they want to push). If an article is (semi-protected), its talk page shouldn't be. How else do you want new editors to suggest possibly reasonable changes? Eptalon (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm waiting to be able to use blocking someone from editing certain page or namespace ;P fr33kman 21:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please protect March 5 Edit

Move page request Edit

Requesting to move Tamannaah to Tamannaah Bhatia to sync with English Wikipedia. Anoopspeaks (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) This is already   Done without admin permissions. MathXplore (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @MathXplore Anoopspeaks (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a possible QD A4 case but an IP editor is repeating QD tag removal. There are many stuff not related to the subject and the statements at here should not be counted as claims of notability for the page's subject. Please have a look at this page. MathXplore (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author put 2018 squad on 2022 template, 2022 squad on 2018 template, an exchange is needed between them. MathXplore (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MathXplore: Done, but since they had no meaningful history I just edited them to switch the content. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was expecting the usage of supress-redirect, but thank you very much. MathXplore (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the move process? To do it that way, I would have had to move 2018 to a dummy name, 2022 to 2018, then the dummy name to 2022 (or start with 2022 instead, but you get the idea) -- unless there a procedure I'm not aware of to switch names. If they had had any history that needed preserving I would have done that, but the only history was the creation and they were created at the same time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Christian denomination Edit

{{Infobox Christian denomination}} should be moved to {{Infobox religion}}. I recently got it moved on enwiki because it is used for many non-Christian religions also. The current version of the template should be imported from en:Template:Infobox religion and the doc page should be updated too. Kk.urban (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfDs with no votes Edit

I saw some people say that RfDs get closed as delete if there are no votes. Is this written anywhere? Because some RfDs with no votes were recently closed as Keep: no consensus. Kk.urban (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that they can be soft-closed as delete, with the proviso that they would deleted restored without question upon request. I don't know that there's anything written about it one way or the other. Maybe it's in an enwiki guideline that we follow here? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the curiosity has got the better of me and I was intrigued to know as to why RFDS weren't being soft deleted, Turns out this is partly the reason why - Both articles aren't even at EN so I've renominated those,
To my knowledge there is nothing in writing at EN that says "RfDs with no votes get deleted" but yes 9 times out of 10 (as Aof6 notes) they all get en:WP:SOFTDELETED, It basically lies at the admins discretion. –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rfd is about discussion; if no one wants to discuss for a week, the admin takes a decision. Note however, getting such articles undleeted is likely very difficult... Eptalon (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is that there is always an opinion to say delete. Unless the admin is stating that the OP has no valid reason to request, that request is the reason. After that, it comes to the point that no one opposed that reason. There is less the onus to state "me too" than to say "I object". If a person does not object, there is no reason to pile on unless to offset objections. I have no idea often I looked at an RfD and did not see a reason to try to affect the out come one way or another because I was in perfect consensus with the current (and likely future) outcome of the post. If no one posts, no one feels the need to add to the situation. as it stands, they are in consensus with how the RfD stands. If they were opposed to the consensus, they should say so else they must not be opposed enough to care about it. Pure Evil (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you expect? - The request is up for one week. If within that week you don't think it is necessary to respond one way or another, don't complain about the outcome, whatever it is.... Eptalon (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I expect if someone opposes something that they will either not sit on their hands and say something or they will let it go. If they can not be bothered to say they disagree, it is no ones place to think for them and ignore the request for apparent personal reasons. I do not expect people who agree to pile on with "per nom" votes.. yes vote, not !vote as nothing is served by saying Me too other than fake consensus to bypass soft deletes. If there is no opposition to an RfD, why do we need to validate the person and stroke their ego with "good call on this request. you did well!" But as you need for people to have their egos stroked for whatever reason. I hereby !vote "per nom" for every RfD from now on. If I am active, unless I specifically vote other wise, I vote Delete per nom on every current future RfD so there will never be one without at least two delete !votes. (me and nom) Pure Evil (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are going to go ahead and !vote per nom for almost every single RfD, then that's still minimal participation, and it'd still count as soft delete. --Ferien (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a look at two of them and changed my mind to softdelete. fr33kman 21:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If RfDs did not get any !votes, it can be deleted, at admin discretion, but can be recreated and is not eligible for G4 if this happens afterwards. This is for two reasons. 1) because it is established in policy. G4 says about being discussed in requests for deletion, and if no-one else commented on the request, and an admin just closed it, that's not a discussion. It is a valid request, absolutely, but can't be called a discussion because no interaction between users occured. And 2) because that is what is done on enwiki, that we follow. I also agree with Eptalon's comment directly above me. --Ferien (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be aware multiple accounts that commented on this are obviously SPAs but several have been blocked on the enwiki for sockpuppetry indef. User:ImLovinIt101 User:WackaDoodleDude User:NBAFAN1017. User:Greater02578 is also blocked indef on the enwiki as a VOA. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, the closing admin will likley take care of it. Eptalon (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was put up for Checkuser attention, should they chose to do anything about it, and has been noted on the RfD itself. Pure Evil (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as information: I ran a cherck, and IP addresses overlap. It is therefore likely that the accounts are the same person. Accordingly, I have blocked those that weren't already. As to the decision of counting their vote, that's up to the closing admin.... Eptalon (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection request Edit

Jacinda Ardern (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Recently unprotected. Disruptive changing. Could also use a range block. it appears that the same range vandalized the page before its protection and came back after it was unprotected. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done for two weeks, let's see how that goes. I will agree to range blocks if it continues after protection lapses. fr33kman 02:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rangeblocked fr33kman 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obvious hoax but an IP user is repeating QD tag removal. Please take care of this page and their talk page. MathXplore (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I am a passerby, I think it is not a hoax, for a lot of references are provided. 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you persist it is a hoax, give me some reasons 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of the references refer to the subject. MathXplore (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Explain it in detail pls 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The references do not look like having relations with the subject, cannot be used as references. MathXplore (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I referred to one of the references just now. Maybe BBC’s report reflects Yumeto, but I am not sure whether it is extremely related to Konno Yumeto or not 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the said page, this IP address might have made an attack page. Signed, 64andtim (any problems?) 05:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I estimate this as a remake of Yumeto (already deleted hoax). MathXplore (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t know the former pages, if it is vandalism, please delete it 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yumeto does not exist, so I don’t know whether it is vandalism 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In conclusion, I am not the creator of this page, I just clarify the facts. Please take action to deal with this page according to the rules, thanks a lot. 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it is a hoax - intended to annoy User:Yumeto. Kk.urban (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should to ask the creator user: 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but the creator doesn’t join the discussion. 2A0D:5600:11:20:D89A:8C9D:78E:B (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPv6 user and IPv4 user blocked. This is clearly an attack page towards User:Yumeto. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 07:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Deleted by Fehufanga --Ferien (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible QD G4 case but one user is repeating QD tag removal, please check the deleted versions. I estimate this incident as possible block evasion and already reported to WP:VIP. MathXplore (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Deleted and protected by Fehufanga --Ferien (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible LTA issue Edit

At Talk:Chess there is what looks to be an LTA issue.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are very correct. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will block the most recent unnamed accounts and semi-protect the article. I have also placed the page on my watchlist. fr33kman 11:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is w:WP:LTA/GRP --Ferien (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP user is repeating QD tag removal of this attack page, please take care of this page. MathXplore (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Deleted by Fr33kman --Ferien (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message creation request Edit

Hi, can an administrator create MediaWiki:Wikibase-otherprojects-foundation with "Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki"? The message is empty and is currently wrongly being shown as ⟨wikibase-otherprojects-foundation⟩. $uperTraveler (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done fr33kman 01:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I requested QD G5 to this page (also reported at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Maneken_Brand_accounts) but a user is repeating QD tag removal. Please have a look at this page and their deleted revisions. MathXplore (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page was once deleted by Fr33kman, creator was blocked, and then created by a different account. This is why I nominated it for QD G5. MathXplore (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's originally a A4/G11 now it's a block and G5. Thanks fr33kman 07:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please fully protect Main Page/Article 26 (the redirect). Kk.urban (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done fr33kman 17:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jupiter PAD Edit

Now that the {{Pvgademotion}} has been removed from the page, doesn't that mean there is consensus to close the WP:PAD discussion for Jupiter as "not demoted"? Shouldn't the discussion be marked as closed? Kk.urban (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Pope John Paul II Edit

grp target please semiprotect (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) Ask one of the admins to semiprotect. (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done by Fehufanga. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take care of this attack page, QD tag removal is repeated so I'm forwarding this to here. MathXplore (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dropped a large range block and revoked tpa on that /128. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take care of this attack page, QD tag removal is repeated so I'm forwarding this to here. MathXplore (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yumeto (Terrorist) should also be deleted, same status as above. MathXplore (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both are now   Done. MathXplore (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the beginning of this category cleanup suggestion, I have been sending talkbacks to every IP that has been involved in the agenda (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category_talk:Countries_at_association_football_competitions, Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_153#Discussion_about_categories_for_countries_at_association_football_competitions). Despite these efforts, none of the IPs have joined the discussion. Instead they continue to increase the number of CFD candidates. Should I continue to send talkbacks and indefinitely allow their debated category creations, or should our admins need to consider about enforcements? MathXplore (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't force people to take part in a discussion. Also as there is no guideline in place at this time (consensus if being formed still) on how to deal with the issue, they do not seem to be in violation of general guidelines on categorizing at this time. Once consensus is established and how the issue is to be handled is decided, then you can warn them of the issue with their actions and steps could rightfully be taken to enforce the consensus. It can be aggravating, but get the rules first then go about getting them enforced. It gets sticky trying to enforce rules while they are being developed. Pure Evil (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, I will continue to join the discussion over there. Is there anything else that I have to do to comply with your expectations? Should I stop sending talkbacks or should I continue sending them? MathXplore (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]