Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

RFD 5 days past closure[change source]

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Category:Lists of scientists by nationality and assess whether consensus can be determined now or if it should be extended? It was due to close 5 days ago on the 12th. Pinging @Peterdownunder, Caliburn, Chenzw, Enfcer, Djsasso: you're the admins who have closed RFDs in the last month or so who aren't involved in this RFD. Thanks, Only (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any clear consensus, and discussion looks to be still active, with little sign of slowing down, so I'm extending by 5 days, from now, if everyone's okay with that. :) Regards, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Caliburn: any chance you (or another admin) could assess? It's well past the extended date. Only (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Could someone try to evaluate and close this now? Some of the lists now have a reasonable number of blue links now, and I'm OK with keeping those. The others, if any, I leave to the discretion of the closing admin. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone over the lists, and some of them are actively being worked on. I have left a comment that can be used in a week to assess which of them to delete. --Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now closed it; basic idea: At least 4 blue links to scientits means the List gets kept; the other lists get re-grouped into a few "super lists", in the hope to get at least 4 blue links (to scientists); after that the individual list of scientists form ... can be deleted. I think that is the best decision to keep the info, and yet avoi short lists with only red-links. Note that also we are missing countries (we have guyana, but are missing Suriname; French Guayana is part of France). I might have forgotten to place the archive template on it. --Eptalon (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eptalon. Let us know if you need help making those changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article[change source]

My article about Human geography was deleted today. What would be needed so that I can get a copy of that article on a user page? I am thinkig about working further on the article. Thanks. Sju hav (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I will restore it for you. Stand by. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It's now at User:Sju hav/Human geography. When you're ready for it to go back to mainspace, either ask an admin to move it, or move it yourself and ask an admin to delete the cross-namespace redirect that will be created. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My article was not "a redirect"; Restoring the article or getting a copy[change source]

Hello! I have written a stand-alone article Sami people of Norway, which has been deleted. (Some text from the article came, from other articles on wikipedia.)

The justification for deleting the article, stands as "07:31, 23 August 2017 ... deleted page Sami people of Norway (we already have Sami people, and this wouldn't be a good redirect)".

It is not a redirect. It is a different article (or a stub), that goes more in-depth about the subject of the Sami people in Norway; more in depth regarding Norway, than the article Sami people. (There are at least three different "national timelines" (in Finland, Sweden, Russian and Norway) about when herds could not be brought across various national borders; when Finland, Sweden, and Norway each pushed their state religion onto the various Sami ethnic groups. (One can argue if there are more groups than one.)

Please restore the article, or tell me how I can get a copy of the article. Cheers! (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Google has a buffered version of the article [1]. There one can see that it is a different article, and not a redirect. (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the page for now, so you can work on it. I did however note that a lot of content is shared between Sami people and Sami people of Norway. This was the reason why the page was deleted. I would recommend working on the latter as to make it sufficiently distinct from the former, perhaps moving more specialised detail from Sami people to Sami people of Norway. Cheers, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible POV material[change source]

I would like to request that an admin review the recent changes being posted by an IP user ( (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log)), such as the recent changes to Brunei, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone, and others. A common thread is the addition of the following text (or variations of it) to the articles: "It is smaller than the Pakistani-administered Disputed territory of the Free state (government) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir respectively." It may technically be correct that the various countries are smaller than Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but it's not really relevant. The additional text feels like an attempt at introducing POV material into the various articles, but I'm not familiar enough with the politics of the region to be sure. Etamni | ✉   04:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't helpful. I recommend reverting (but probably not rolling back) these changes and leaving a level-1 vandalism warning with no specific article mentioned and with text added to explain the specific issue. (The level-1 warning doesn't mention vandalism, it just says that the changes weren't helpful.) If the changes continue after that, we can revisit. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice this when I posted above, but the user is three or four days out of a 3-month block for long-term abuse, and that was imposed only a week after coming off of a shorter block. Nonetheless, I'm adding the warning now, and will start reverting the articles. Etamni | ✉   05:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done The material has been reverted and a generic level one warning (with additional comments) has been applied to the IP talkpage. There remain some articles written by this IP user that should be reviewed, preferably by someone familiar with the politics of the area. Etamni | ✉   06:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, a IP from that range had issues with taking a pro-Pakistan stance in the past; So far, we were not able to communicate meaningfully with the editor(s?) in question. So reverting and leaving a warning was probably a good reaction. --Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:HowToGetBanned4[change source]

Special:Contribs/HowToGetBanned4 could use some deletion. Please do not click its links just in case. Thank you, MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Pages deleted. User is globally locked. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)'s page creations[change source]

This IP,, has been creating several pages that consist of only infoboxes. After being warned by DaneGeld earlier today, the IP continued to create these pages, and I gave him an only warning (which I thought might have been too harsh). Could an administrator please look into these pages, and if necessary delete them? Thank you in advance. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the articles. The only warning wasn't called for. Only warnings should almost never be used. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright thanks. Good to know. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Those pages were created before I asked the user to stop, at 22.29 UTC. I gave the user the chance to go back and write something on the articles, or I would ask for them to be deleted. You started the QD process about 1 hour later, but as far as I am aware, they didn't write anymore new pages after I asked them to stop. DaneGeld (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:URL[change source]

Hi there, I've started a discussion on the usage of the {{URL}} template and how it relates to the recent activity with KolbertBot and the migration to HTTPS. Please feel free to join the discussion here. Thank you! :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Attractor321's changes.[change source]

Hello. I'm bringing the user Attractor321 to the Administrators for assistance in relation to their editing behaviour. The editor seems to have no concept of how to write articles in Simple English. Two of their articles have already been moved by administrators into userspace, because they were seen to be far too complex to have in this Wikipedia. The user is now editing another article (Potential energy), and is in the process of making it just as complex as the others that were moved. I do not want to move into issuing warnings, because I am assuming good faith - it is obvious that they want to write - but with both Auntof6 and myself having tried to speak to them about it and having no response, I do not know what else to do. Any input from the administrators is welcomed. DaneGeld (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I just had to userfy one article and re-userfy another. I also removed the complex changes from two or three articles. I have asked Attractor321 not to move the userfied pages to mainspace without getting another editor to check them first. He/she currently has 5 userfied articles. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on his/her edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion possible?[change source]


"My" article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists, based only on the wiki-English article about the one person mentioned; an article that has no independent sources.
I can not see anything in the English article that makes me sure that she is wiki-notable.
I am not concerned about "losing points" or whatever, in the current "category deletion discussion";
I have already lost a few points by creating an article,
and not catching on before now, that there seemingly are no independent sources.
If possible, I would like the article speedily deleted. (And if later someone finds notable sources (indicating notability), then I will gladly restart the article.) Regards! Sju hav (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I am making another article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina scientists - this time with two "red-link scientists" who arguably are clearly wiki-notable.
(I thought about the improvements, after I suggested deletion.) Sju hav (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge University[change source]

Please WP:REVDEL the copyright infringing revision of Knowledge University under WP:RD1. The content was copied from various pages on the University's website. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad usernames?[change source]

Are these usernames unacceptable: Gay Yong Hernandez and Poojasaha1981? I think the first one's OK actually, but I'm suspicious about the second, especially as the user vandalized. J991 12:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pooja is a common Indian name, and the first one sounds a bit Singaporean to me. And I can't see any vandalism, only a mistaken attempt to add a link to English wikipedia. Did the second user create some bad pages as well? (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Both are real names, so there's no need to take action here. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One arguably small disagreement following other disagreements[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved. The administrator's reversion of the "arguably non-invasive edits" upheld. Editors are urged to resolve disagreements on their own talk pages before escalating this to a community noticeboard. Chenzw  Talk  16:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have found a page, that does not seem to be a user page, but a project page. One administrator has more or less made claims about who owns the page; at least she (or he) has reverted my arguably non-invasive edits.
I am somewhat curious if the administrator corps, will land on that she is entirely correct, and that I am entirely wrong (in the particular case);
with the rest of the corps closing one's eye, to that matter.
For the record, on the talk page for the project, I have said that my (non-invasive) change, was my only expected change.
At present I have at least one (other) disagreement with the administrator: Not least, that she has made a statement about me on another Wikipedia, that was unfavorable and arguably not substantiated. Be that as it may - that might be a backdrop. (She has not repeated the accusations about my edits on Simple English wiki, for now.)
I really don't understand the point of this thread. You had a disagreement with an admin. Disagreements happen. There's nothing that other admins need to do here. Only (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
As the ambassador who worked with the schools project team, while it maybe a "non-invasive" edit, it is also an entirely pointless edit. House keeping on a completed project page is just a waste of your time, please find something that needs fixing.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@user:Peterdownunder: You were ambassador for some school projects: Has that given you any insight into how (you might think) my edit is unreasonable? Sju hav (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The administrator linked to (or showcased) the article (again?) on 9 September 2017 at "Simple Talk". (It is arguably not valid to argue that the "school project" is a forgotten project, or argue along those lines.)

Perhaps not a strong argument, but she made edits to that poject page, some months ago. (So she might not be a neutral observer. Not that I am saying that it is clear that she is claiming ownership to the project page.)

I would like for administrators to conclude if my edit was reasonable or unreasonable.

Regarding user:Peterdownunder's unsolicited advice about which reasonable edits, I should not be doing on Wikipedia: It is none of his business, when (or if) I choose to do reasonable edits. Sju hav (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about when you say I made statements about you on another Wikipedia? I don't remember even looking at anything related to you anywhere but here, much less saying anything.
As for the school project, it is not forgotten, but it is finished. I did edit that page earlier this year: I was helping with the then-active project, and the project owner asked for help to fix a typo I had noticed in the page name.
I advise you to drop this. One administrator (me) has advised you to leave the page alone, and two others have declined to support your point of view. Find something to do that actually helps the wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You are entitled to your view. As far as you claiming (on my talk page) that I have been rude to User:Peterdownunder on this page, then I disagree. (However, I did give him an opinion in Simple English, about an unsolicited opinion of his.)
Are you ruling out that you might have some challenges in the "Have Good Faith" department and the "try to be polite/civil" department?
Case in point: "Find something to do that actually helps the wiki".
If you are able to lose your grip on the mentioned project page, how will that hurt wikipedia?
I would recommend that you consider to let others view if you are a neutral person, in respect to that project page. Sju hav (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: One challenge I might have, is to differentiate between your opinions and those of another wikipedian from "Simple English".
I stand corrected on one point: You did not run your mouth off about me, on another wikipedia. Sju hav (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not "run my mouth off" about you; I stated facts and my opinions on your disposition as an editor in my position as an admin on both Wikipedia projects. You're coming very close to exhausting patience around here and finding yourself blocked per our reciprocal block policy. Only (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I started this thread about what I view as a mistake by an administrator, on a project page.
About she being the one that I have a disagreement with, on another wikipedia (about my edits in general, on Simplewiki), I have recanted.
Please feel free to start a thread about things that have nothing to do with the mentioned project page,
or about things that have nothing to do with one or more wikipedians, allegedly being impolite or non-relevant in the discussion on this page. Sju hav (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"What was said on another wikipedia, does not belong in this thread" YOU are the one who brought up what was said on the ENglish Wikipedia TWICE. Are you so dense that you cannot see that? If you bring something to a noticeboard, you need to expect that YOUR behavior will be examined in the discussion on the noticeboard, especially if you demonstrate those behaviors in that thread. Seriously, you're exhausting to deal with. Only (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Disney vandal is back[change source]

As the previous blocks and page protections have now expired, the Disney vandal has returned. I have blocked IP: but will expect to see more problems. Typical vandalism includes changing the dates, and adding wrong names to the credits. I will consider semi protecting all related pages again if necessary.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but might it be time to consider permanently semi-protecting some of our most frequently vandalized pages? The pages referred to here might be candidates, and I'm sure we could find other candidates. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SLBHwildcat 5: Accusations of vandalism towards myself and Zhangj1079[change source]

Hi Administrators. I'm bring SLBHwildcat5 to you. As a new editor to the site, they have already entered an edit war with myself and Zhangj1079, removing informational notices, accusing us of "vandalism" in edit summaries (removing notices we've posted, as if they were vandalism), continually blanking their page and have also undone a revert by Zhangj1079 on Child after warning the editor that he wasn't to remove material from the wiki without a good reason. I would ask for your assistance pretty much as soon as possible, since I fear vandal warnings won't cut it with this one, they'll probably get removed like everything else. DaneGeld (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page if they wish. We shouldn't create an edit war with them by continually adding it back to their page. Only (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to dispute that, @Only:. This started as the editor issuing a warning without cause, we tried to explain why it was wrong to do so; they had 3 edits and basically started to go for it as if they understood everything immediately. It was clear that they did not know what they were doing. We tried to provide information, to suggest they go learn how to edit here and write material in simple english, and they just blanked it all and marked our edits as vandalism. And we're in the wrong for creating the edit war? DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do know what I'm doing. This is like my 10th account. I obviously am smart enough to get away with using that many accounts without being blocked. I admit to running a sockfarm. My other accounts, on this site as well as English Wikipedia, include Eurodyne, Auntof6, Bongwarrior, JayBFive, GoFlamesGo, JohnnyHockey, MarkGiordanoFan5, TeensAreNotChildren, BazBomber, CluebotGN, TheScholar9... I don't even remember all of my accounts. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5
P.S. I am only 14 years old, therefore my ageism edit is obviously a fact. — This unsigned comment was added by SLBHwildcat5 (talk • changes) at 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
 (change conflict)  Whoah there. Are you admitting to sockpuppetry, as well as accusing Eurodyne and Auntof6? This is serious. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I just put back the content on Child that was previously reverted by Zhangj1079, but I used Simple English. I have been reading the notices, but I removed them because I don't think my actions warrented warnings. SLBHwildcat5 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)SLBHwildcat5
Zhangj1079's edits didn't warrant a warning either, but you still went ahead and gave him one. I suggest you pull back a little and don't accuse others without good reason. We, neither myself or Zhangj1079 are vandals, and don't appreciate the way you just blew our messages off like they didn't matter. We left them for a reason. DaneGeld (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
What about Only's warning? @SLBHwildcat5:? Did your change warrant this warning? Your change was described as not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. This means that your change was opinion, or biased against a side. Was your change neutral? I think not. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 20:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No, my edit to Child did not warrant a warning. The ageism edit is obviously a fact, as I am only 14 years old yet I am intelligent enough to handle achieving straight As while running a sockfarm, which includes several administrators.

I have indeffed this user, so we can all stand down now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet, so keep vigilant in case he returns.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, Peterdownunder, as they have stated that their socks include Eurodyne and Auntof6 (extremely unlikely), can I ask whether you are obliged as a CU to verify those users too, even though they're admin, or are we safe to assume SLBH is just trying to kick up a stink? DaneGeld (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a silly question, however there is a range of evidence that a checkuser examines when looking at sock puppet claims, so I am not obliged to verify all claims if there is little or no valid evidence to support them. Without such evidence a check is just "fishing" which I am not allowed to do. In this case, a number of socks have been confirmed and blocked where there was evidence to support a check. Just for the record, admins are treated like any other user, and are not exempt from investigation if there is evidence. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Quite right. In fact, there was a recent case on Commons that shocked many people when an established admin was revealed to have been socking. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: For the record, I considered those claims about socks, as well as the claim about age, to be purely disruptive. That was part of why I indeffed the user. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I have requested a CheckUser for this case. This looks suspicious, and I think that we should ensure that these admins aren't socking.

Single4Life (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Single4Life

A Quck update here too: Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 edit at different times of the day, because likely they are located at different places in the world; also, both have admin status, so they have a lot to lose. Both have pretty much all the rights used in everyday life: Supposing that one was the sock of the other, what would they gain? - Both Eurodyne and AuntOf6 have the same rights. In short: If they were discovered, their loss would be much more than their gain. As they have the same rights, neither has a reason for impersonating the other...--Eptalon (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)