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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Please watch

Please watch Yellowstone National Park, where (according to me) serious religious POV vandalism is taking place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An interpretation of one sura, perhaps with inadequate english language references. But no more serious religious POV than the idea "that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent" --Bärliner (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that was on a page devoted to Mormonism. Anyway, the main battleground has been on enWP: see here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

Resolved. Blocked indef by Gordonrox24 fr33kman 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Marean (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Banned user at EN; his talk page indicates problems with NPOV here as well. Most recently, this morning’s edits here and here exhibit a total lack of CLUE about sourcing. Has probably violated the “banned-users-one-strike” informal rule Purplebackpack89 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave him a very stern warning on 30 November 2010, but I've been a little more lenient since. Unfortunately, I think it's time to show him the door. By the way, the one-strike rule is policy. Goodvac (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done. As always, other admins are always free to comment on my actions if they feel them to be incorrect.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I really hate situations like this. Chuck definitely means well and acts in good faith. However, I've read through a bit of what led him to be banned from the English Wikipedia and the same problems have persisted here, and used up so much of other users' times that I fear this is the only option left and thus endorse Gordon's block. Kansan (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) What the heck is this guy doing here? He spends all his time writing articles, when we know that Wikipedia is all about vandalism and voting. Also, his backpack is too big and too purple Backpack ^{mano y mano} 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest initiating a ban proposal. Kansan (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it to ArbCom, please. sonia! 05:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Support permanent ban What a goof.-- CR90♫ 05:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Purple is my favourite colour, but large backpacks are bad for your posture. Support name change to Purple Handbag or Purple Satchel. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Make into barbecue, then pwn than eat. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Annihilate him! (On a side note, I realize that I've commented one day late, but couldn't resist. Lol.) —stay (sic)! 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Username block

Resolved. Blocked. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please block Bayarstainless (talk · contribs) for his/her promotional username. User had created an advertisement at User:Bayarstainless. Goodvac (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser/Jamesofur

Just a pointer to a discussion I posted on Simple talk James (T C) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Resolved.

The IP 79.18.245.224 added the same text to "Baby" as this account. Should this be considered sockpuppetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk • contribs) Oh crap, I forgot

No, it is probably more likely that they accidentally logged out. Kansan ^(talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The account was registered after the IP edited. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe they edited as an IP then decided to sign up for an account. Why is this a problem? The standard IP welcome template encourages people who edit anonymously to proceed to sign up as a user. Kansan ^(talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputed RFD closure

There is dispute about the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/List of ThunderClan characters on the RFD's talk page. I nominated this article for deletion and there was debate over whether or not the subject is notable/important enough for Simple Wikipedia. In the middle of debate, User:IanP userfied the article. Because of this User:SEPTActaMTA8235 made a non-admin closure saying "The outcome of this request for deletion was to Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Page userfied to User:IanP/List of ThunderClan characters."

I, and others, have multiple problems with this action. For one, SEPTActaMTA8235 had already commented in the discussion, so he should not be closing the RFD. Secondly, non-admin closures should only be reserved for unanimous keep closures after the RFD has run its full course. And, finally, this article likely would have not survived the RFD based on the forming consensus. IanP's userfication of the article would make it violate the user page guidelines which say: "this space is not meant to keep your version of disputed or previously deleted content forever".

I would like for other admins to review this decision. The article has been deleted from the article space now, but I think that the way it exists now violates our user page policy and that the decision carried out (by a non-admin) was made to go around the potential deletion. Either way (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with all that's been said and the close and move should be reversed and the discussion concluded normally - it's rather clearly heading for a delete, and is already controversial, so NAC should not have been applied - there's a reason we nominate our admins. If it's not already done, might also be worth leaving both of the involved users (The one that closed it and the one that moved the article) a message about how these things work and what is and isn't allowed, because it stinks of purposeful project disruption/circumnavigation of policy to me. Goblin 10:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

I already left a message for the closing user to warn against controversial non-admin closures. I haven't messaged IanP yet, though. I'm logging off now for the rest of the day, so if someone else could take a couple of minutes to explain to him why he can't do that, it'd be appreciated. Either way (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree the close was wrong, I would note its valid for him to place a copy in his user space if its being worked on. If it is just sitting there to collect dust that is not valid. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem was not that the article had to be improved, though. The discussion focused on, and supported the idea that, the subject itself was not notable enough for an article. Even if he improves it, the subject will still not be notable for inclusion. Either way (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he can't work on it to try and show notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The close itself has now been undone so this discussion is largely now unneeded. Per Either way's discussion I will mention the issue on IanP's talk page and see if he will move the page back to the Main space himself so that the RfD can assume unhindered - if not, perhaps an admin could move it? Goblin 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

I reverted. Well, I guess we wait a week, this article does not deserve an article–a page like "List of characters in Warriors series". Ian keeps reverting my edits to his articles when they have MoS "violations" but then he keeps reverting it until we hit 3RR. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)