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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

People have been vandalizing Wikipedia all the time...[change source] I wonder why this page hasn't been protected indefinitely from anonymous and new editors. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We almost never protect a page indefinitely. That's because a basic tenet of Wikipedia is that as many users as possible should be able to edit everything as much as possible. On this particular page, all the vandalism today was from one unregistered user. There is always a preference for blocking vandals instead of protecting a page, and that user has been blocked. Before today, the level of recent vandalism wasn't enough to protect the page. I know it's frustrating, but we do have these kinds of things that we have to consider. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And the vandalism has continued. If the page does not need to be protected indefinitely, the page should at least be protected for a long time. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
And again, vandalism reverted immediately. Its like you aren't hearing what we are saying. Protection is almost never done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The last change to the page was a very serious case of vandalism. Should this be enough for an only warning? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but note that this edit was from a registered user. As such, vandalism that severe warrants indeffing the user as a vandalism-only account, even though we don't usually do that after only one edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

regarding image removal and wrong content in biography[change source]

wikiguy, please delete image from this article as it hurts muslim's emotion and is against belief of muslims

Already answered at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Remove image as soon as possible. You won't get a different response here. eurodyne (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on pages about U.S. Presidents[change source]

There has been a lot of vandalism from different IPs on pages about U.S. Presidents recently. Could this be a IP-hopper or something similar? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, so that we don't have to randomly check US President articles to find what you're talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it's just (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log). See the user's contributions for details. We ought to keep an eye on this IP for vandalism on the other articles about Presidents. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I had blocked that IP before you posted here. Still, there hasn't been that much vandalism from it, only 20 edits total, only on a few pages, only three edits today before I blocked, and all the edits on May 3 were within an hour. I don't see that as worth getting excited about. We're never going to prevent all vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Claimed sockpuppetry[change source]

Could another admin look into the deletion tag at User:Rehmat_Aziz_Chitrali? Rachitrali (talk · contribs) claims it's a sockpuppet of someone else imitating him. I looked into it quickly and see that they're both blocked as socks of the same user at English Wikipedia. I don't have time to look more into it, so could someone else? Thanks! Only (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted because it wasn't the owner who created it. It doesn't look like either of the editors have made many edits yet, so I think no further action is needed, for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
If more action is ever needed here, please keep me in the loop. There's a related issue at LangCom and in Incubator that I am involved in. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we can promise to remember that you want to be in the loop. You might want to watch the two users' user and talk pages (you can do that even if they don't currently exist) so that you'll see if anything changes there. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:[change source]

Should we have some protection on this to stop it being created again? It's been deleted five times. J991 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It is only the second time today that it has been created. I placed a Single issue warning about user pages in violation of policy. If this continues, then a block would be in order. Protecting a user page of a non-registered user seems counter productive, unless it is being created by a different IP, and then it is still questionable. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)