Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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

Sockpuppet?[change source]

The IP at 2600:8800:3307:5F00:C594:B873:8C90:E8E2 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log) has been blocked globally after vandalizing a talk page using text from an offensive comment that is very similar to the title of a page that has been protected from creation. I suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of 2600:8800:3308:6000:4938:9272:49e4:1e91 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log) who, if I'm getting it right, was blocked here for creating that bad page. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, only registered accounts can be sockpuppets. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, how about block evasion? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
the "original" IP isn't blocked anymore so it's not block evasion. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Yes, it's clearly the same person/edits. Only (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose, then, it could be a shared IP-range. Rangeblocks have been made before. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And the same content by Wargun01 (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) and LOV592 (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log), both of who are now blocked. It's time to look into a serious case of block evasion. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad username?[change source]

Is this a bad username? J991 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I will block. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User adding phishing links[change source]

I've blocked Fibonachi11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on for adding phishing links to articles (see en:User_talk:Smartse#Repeated_phishing_attempts). They're doing the same here: [1]. Can someone take care of them? Smartse (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And it continues via the IP: (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log). ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I've just blocked that IP on as well. Smartse (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Blocked both IP and problem user here too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Two possible bad usernames?[change source]

Do these two usernames represent companies? Goforth studios (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) and Arrayexperts (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log). J991 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, this is just a username I created - Goforth studios (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Italian vandals[change source]

I have noticed that these four IPs have made lots of nasty vandal edits recently. Considering they are all registered to this Italian ISP, could a checkuser be done to make sure it's not the same person? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think different IPs can't be shown to be the same person. In any case, checkuser requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. This page is for communicating with admins, and most admins don't have the checkuser right. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for LGBT rights in Palestine[change source]

I request that article LGBT rights in Palestine be semi-protected by the persistent vandalism of several users and IPs in recent days (in addition to insults and offensive comments). Thanks. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not now. There hasn't been that much vandalism by IPs. Semi-protection won't help with the vandalism by registered users: the way to deal with those is to block, and I have indeffed the ones who vandalized this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: This wiki does not have defined criteria of time and editions to autoconfirm users? —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, it does. I didn't notice that these were new accounts. I'll semi-protect the page, but you might want to keep an eye out in case a new page is targeted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

False-Offensive Biography Edits being reverted[change source]

I am an author. A biography and background of my book were published by Wikipedia years ago. The page is SUZANNE OLSSON. My daughter and grand daughter happily created the initial article. There is nothing wrong with this...but as I saw the way their page was continually hacked, I fought with some editors to make corrections. This resulted in me being banned from Wiki by these very same editors. The topic of the book is about religion, and this generates personal opinion, 'slants' and biases from some Wiki editors. Because some Wiki editors are religious, they tend to slant the article to reflect their personal views. This is usually unfavorable to me. After several years, it came to my attention that as the article currently appears, there remains gross errors and unfavorable 'slants' in the current article.

When corrections were again attempted, the same Wiki editor again reverted to his preferred edits, although these contain gross errors.He continues to attack the contributors.

It is impossible for me or anyone to make the corrections. One example is that the edits claim the tomb of Jesus in India was first mentioned by the Ahmadii Muslims. This is blatantly false, yet every attempt to correct this and insert the correct information-with links- has resulted in revisions back to the false statements by the same 'editor'. I would like the contributions by 'Brainydad' to remain because they are most accurate. I would like the page to be locked. I am asking help from Wikipedia administrators. This has been going on for too many years now. Please help. Thank you. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Your account doesn't seem to have edited anything except this page. Two things to keep in mind:
  • This is Simple English Wikipedia, a different project from English Wikipedia which you can find at The admins here probably can't help you with a problem there.
  • Wiki admins get very sensitive about threats of legal action, and many people have been blocked for that. If what you are asking for is reasonable, you don't need a lawyer to get it. Just be polite.
Okay, I can see now that you are on the wrong project. Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an article about you, so you will need to raise this on English Wikipedia. Here is a direct link to your article: en:Suzanne Olsson. Given that, as the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest, and given that people you say are your relatives have been investigated for sockpuppetry related to the article, I'd advise not wading in with threats or accusations. It won't help. Instead you should read this guide to dealing with conflicts of interest, and rather than trying to edit the page directly, you could seek help at the Teahouse. Good luck. -- (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank You:: I am doing the best I can to sort this out. This never began as a "conflict of interest". It began when family members realized there were gross inaccuracies left on the edited pages. The problem continues and usually involves the same editors- Anyways...I'll try to get the info corrected on the Wiki page. Thank you for the links.You are most kind and helpful..I'll start on them now. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hide revison[change source]

Hi. Can you hide this revision from my userpage (you can semi-protect my userpage too, but I don't think it's necessary now)? Thanks. --Zabshk (query) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. I'm not going to hide the revision, though: we try to do that only for the most offensive edits, and I don't think this one qualifies. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. --Zabshk (query) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate quick deletion tags[change source]

I recently noticed that another user tagged three pages for deletion as nonsense. They are very short, but the topics exist on enwiki and the content seems to be correct. Since it seemed to be a mistake, I removed them, but now another user has blindly reverted, and left me a silly passive-agressive warning notice too. Is that actually what is supposed to happen on this project? I thought that only the author of a page was banned from removing tags. -- (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As the user who "blindly reverted" you, I must recommend you read the note I put on your talk page and my reply on my talk page. My messages wasn't "silly" or "passive aggressive" I was just informing you that only administrator should remove QD tags. Also I personally think those QD tags were justified.--Crasstun (talk | contributions) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually anyone can remove a qd except the creator or significant contributor of the page if they feel the reason is not valid. But where there is disagreement then leave it to the admin. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
We often get qd requests on articles that deserve deletion, but where the requestor hasn't chosen the right qd option. The admins always evaluate the reason specified, and use a different one if necessary. That said, we do greatly appreciate it when requestors use the right option. It might help if all concerned read the qd option definitions, because the shorthand versions presented by, for example, Twinkle, don't fully explain how each is to be used.
As for removing the tags, non-admins can remove them if they fix the issue; otherwise, they should be left for admins to take care of. In cases like this, where there's a disagreement about whether there's an issue at all, the better action would be to use the {{wait}} template, as described in the box that appears with a qd nomination. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

New user posting fake block notices[change source]

User:PCMPAKurat has recently added Checkuser block templates to two userpages of users who are not blocked. A bit strange...? -- (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Very strange. What's more is they are also (falsely) claiming to be an administrator. I have tagged the two userpages for deletion as vandalism. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There have been no more bad edits since User:Only issued a final warning. If it continues, please report at WP:VIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism from a school IP range[change source]

These two IP users

are both registered to the same ISP and could be part of a shared IP range that would possibly be better if they were blocked for a long time as they are part of a school. Based on the behavior, I suspect that

was created to evade the block, and so that account should be blocked indefinitely, if it is still possible. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I will leave it to the 'crats to respond fully, but please note:
  • We do not block IPs just because they belong to a school, even if the IPs have vandalized. I also don't think we do range blocks for only two IPs. (And the 'crats will not confirm whether or not the registered user is using one of the IPs.)
  • Both these IPs now cannot be used for editing by logged-in users. That will expire when the IP blocks expire.
  • Neither the registered user nor the IPs have made many edits in total -- no more than a dozen or so each. That is not cause for getting this excited about the vandalism.
Please try to keep perspective about how bad vandalism is, especially when it's as innocuous as this seems to be (at least the ones I spot-checked). --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I second what Auntof6 says. These edits all happened today. If they begin to show patterns of long term disruption, we'll deal with it further in that case. For an example of how we deal with school IPs that cause disruption, see Special:Contributions/ and its block log. Escalating blocks over a period of time. Not "it was disruptive's a school....let's go with a long block." Only (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Old RfD needs closing[change source]

Would one of my fellow admins please close the old RfD that's still outstanding? I'm not closing it because I disagreed with what seems to be the consensus. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What should we do about all these accounts saying they are a sockpuppet of User:PhoenixS15?[change source]

Perhaps they are sockpuppets of the same accounts that have been posting the horrible "I am g**..." messages and pages, all listed at Requests for checkuser. One user, Jskskskk (talkchanges <deleted>logsblock userblock logcheckuser), has evidence of both still on the talk page. We probably need a steward to come and look into everything as this is quite serious and hard to deal with. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

First PhoenixS15 does not have an account on Simple wiki. Secondly a steward will only get involved if its an emergency, and no active local editor has the permissions needed to deal with the problem, at that particular moment. Third this user is a major sock-puppeteer see PhoenixS15. Fourth, a couple of the new accounts, are likely that same users, and were blocked promptly. Fifth, the IP used and claiming to be that user was globally blocked of a couple of days by a steward which that is a global block and within their rights, and I support the global block that was issued, which I extended it through a decent size local range block for the next week. It is not really that hard to deal with, and some of the more offensive or disruptive edits have been revision deleted. The range block should slow it down some for the next few days. We may need to re-evaluate and make it a larger block or extend it, if the circumstances dictate. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am considering taking legal action against Wikipedia.[change source]

You will ban USER:CityofSilver or I will take legal action against Wikipedia. I NEVER added any "promotional material" to any articles. Additionially, the so-called promotional articles have REMAINED on the article. Only MY edits that I added about infrastructure have been removed. This infrastructure information exists on many populated place articles on Wikipedia. If this information is not needed, then every article should have this information removed. No talk page discussion was started. This is a personal attack against me.

I have found a source to clarify when the bridge was constructed and restored the information. I also noticed promotional material, removed it, and provided that I removed promotional material in the edit summary. Any edit that I attempt to make now is "reverted" and now I am accused of adding promotional material, despite removing promotional material. Before starting a discussion on the talk page, I am now placed in an "edit war" by CityOfSilver with the

All somebody has to do is check the article history to see that I indeed did not add any promotional material. I also tried to remove promotional material. I also attempted to "undo" the revert. Since I was not able to, I tried to restore the article completely and then proof-read the entire article. When I was finished, I would have provided the edit summary and start a discussion in the talk page.

I do not know how to file a complaint against a Wikipedia editor, perhaps administrator, CityOfSilver, but that editor is violating WP:CIVIL. I looked on CityOfSilver's talk page and have found that this person is calling somebody's edit's "Trash". This is unacceptable. If I am going to have to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia. If I am banned, then you will definitely be sued. In Correct (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC) In Correct (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be on the wrong Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and we have no user here called CityofSilver. The only edits you have made here were to complain about that user's edits. However, since we have a policy against making legal threats, you have now been blocked indefinitely on this Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)