Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcuts

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Mark Speight

Can you protect Mark Speight? There's a lot of vandlalism. 2607:F140:6000:8072:50FD:3C0A:40FC:5D51 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been vandalism, but it doesn't reach the threshold of being too much to keep up with so it doesn't need protection at this time. Thanks to Barras for reverting today's vandalism. I'll add the page to my watchlist. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism has resumed again at Mark Speight. Can we consider a protection for a bit? Since April, there have been 344 edits to the article, and I don't see any that aren't vandalism or someone reverting vandalism. The En. article is protected until December, and it appears that the IP users have just moved here instead. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern: Done for a month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion for User:Immanuelle

User unblocked. BRP^ever 01:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(moved from ST)

I am putting forth a proposal to discuss the potential unblock of user Immanuelle. This person was blocked almost two years ago for creating bad pages. They are only blocked in main space and retain access to their user space to create draft articles. I have seen this user editing quite often while I've been patrolling New Changes and have delved into their edits and block history out of interest. I personally believe that whatever problems existed before do not exist now. I support unblocking their account and restoring their access to main space. I am putting this forth to the community rather than just unblocking them on my own right because of the nature and length of the block. Also they have made it pretty clean of their user page that they are too afraid to ask for an unblock themselves : hence why I am suggesting it here. Thanks, fr33k man 01:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the block in response to a community ban discussion? If not, it doesn't require a community discussion to unblock. Maybe this should be at WP:AN.

But to reply to the issue at hand, I see that the reason for the block by Operator873 was given as "Creating bad pages: Continuing to create machine translation pages with complex language. Limit from article space for now." Before unblocking, and since Immanuelle has been working on drafts in userspace, I'd want to see some draft articles that are in good shape. I've looked at some minor things that Immanuelle asked for feedback on, but I haven't evaluated any entire draft articles, so at this point I don't know what shape they're in. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can move it to AN. I want to get opinions on it because I didn't feel comfortable just removing the block. Immanuelle has listed a few draft pages above so you can get an idea of her edits. fr33k man 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman Don't you want to tell the user about this? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme they did tell me about it. The conversation was just kind of cut off when moved from Simple Talk. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Noted Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I'd support an unblock on condition that they take care of not publishing pages to mainspace unless the pages are ready. The block is quite old, and some of the drafts I checked looks good.-- BRP^ever 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree to unblock. Just checked five random pages, which are ok for article space. The articles probably need some more work, but I don't think the complex article rationale is still valid. Some sort of a mentorship or something would probably be helpful, I guess. -Barras talk 16:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an unblock too, I've checked their drafts and those tagged with InUse are obviously not ready for mainspace and those that aren't tagged with it are fine/are ready for mainspace. I'm not seeing any problematic edits or behaviour here, Seems the user has learned from this so yeah I'd support unblocking, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piling-on, support unblock. The user showed willingness to cooperate and improve the quality of their pages before looking to move them to mainspace, and I have no reason to suspect the issues will reappear. Plus, if (in some universe) it goes wrong, we can just re-add the block.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly support this unblock. I have seen four of this user's drafts and they seem fine to me (sufficiently simplified), so there is no need for the block anymore. --Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 09:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Block review for 2001:2020:309:CBE7::/64

The IP range 2001:2020:309:CBE7::/64 was blocked on June 1 for one week and on June 11 for two weeks, both by Fr33kman. I do not believe the reason for blocking was good enough, and at least an admin should have explained the problem to them on their talk page. In the section above titled Disruptive IP, Steven1991 said linked to a number of edits on the sandbox, which I assume were caught by the abuse filter. The fact that they were logged by the abuse filter does itself make them vandalism, as some were tagged due to containing swear words, such as the mention of an organization called "Fuck for Forest" which was mentioned by the IP range themself in the discussion above labeled Abuse filter (in regard to something 'beyond copying over, one bad-fourLetter-word)?. In some cases, it appears the problem was that other editors did not understand this IP's comments, not that they were vandalism. For example, the discussion on Simple Talk labeled Vandalism? (jocularity in infobox?) in which the IP range linked specifically to an edit to June 2025 Los Angeles protests in which someone else had added "Crips, Bloods and other local gang members" to the infobox. However Steven1991 again accused them of vandalism there, which was not the case. I hope other admins can look into this situation and either unblock or tell the IP user on their talk page what they should do to avoid being blocked in the future. 75.238.96.221 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the range due to the number of trivial requests and disruptive posts on community pages. The user was asked multiple times to stop but ignored those requests. fr33k man 19:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are these not vandalism? The IP user misused the QD function and restored nonsensical content on at least one stable page several times. Patrolling admins had reminded the IP user repeatedly before restrictions were imposed. This alone justifies further range blocks when the IP user’s hopping back and forth with slightly different IP addresses to repeat the same disruptive operations. You are obviously not presenting the truth here. Steven1991 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I'm an en wiki admin who wants this community to know about the edits this user, Greghenderson2006 is importing from en wiki where his sock, User:Historyjunkie2024, was just blocked. Here, Greg created Sidewalk Clock at 783 Fifth Avenue which Hj created on en wiki en:Sidewalk Clock, 783 Fifth Avenue (now deleted). I'm not sure this project's prohibitions against such behavior, but flagging if it needs attention. I'll watch here but feel free to ping me on en wiki Star Mississippi (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, he has been blocked on Commons

[1] Star Mississippi (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTHERE Dishonest behavior, like sock puppetry applies given that both of the aforementioned accounts exist here. Simple Wikipedia is not a secondary playground for someone whose been kicked out of standard English Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, we will keep an eye out for any problems. At this point there is no indication of socking here. fr33k man 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman:, I believe WP:NOTHERE applies. Simple Wikipedia is intended as displaying contents similar to en.wiki in simpler English for ease of understanding. Not an alternate dumping ground for non-notable articles or advertorial junk. If you look at Greghenderson's articles created here, you'll immediately see the contents are written in difficulty level more appropriate for main en.wiki. Graywalls (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've QDed the article under A3 as its a complex article from another Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! fr33k man 19:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman:, generally speaking that is. You'll see he's specifically focused on people and local places, most particularly Carmel-by-the-Sea in a township in the US State of California, like Tirey L. Ford, Pacific Improvement Company, which appears to be meant to expand his "Carmelopedia" than to help make things simpler to understand. So, everything about WP:NOTHERE is relevant. The editor also has a history of undisclosed paid editing on numerous occasions on en.wiki. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, will definitely keep a close eye on the situation. I'm also a checkuser so will keep an eye out for socks. fr33k man 22:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fr33kman for your assistance and advice Star Mississippi (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Togetic

Togetic (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is suffering some edit warring between an IP and different users. The page has been redirected to List of Pokémon multiple times. The IP reverts that now for like a month. I'd appreciate a semi-protection and revert to the redirect. -Barras talk 13:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to redirect and protected.-- BRP^ever 13:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Hoax article creation by a blocked user

Two users, TheMaxChannel528-24 (talk · contribs) (their article creations) and TheMaxChannel528-35 (talk · contribs) (their article creations), have created a bunch of TV network articles such as Star Channel (Australian TV channel), FX (Japanese TV channel), and Discovery Kids (Southeast Asia). They're all essentially the same issues: unsourced, unverifiable, and not on other wikis. Googling these channels is giving back these articles plus fandom wikis. I'm not finding existence for them.

Each account is blocked on English and Spanish Wikipedias for socking. What's the best way to approach these accounts and articles? I'd like to avoid making massive RFDs if possible and I don't feel confident enough to declare them all hoaxes for QD purposes. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern what about merging them all into articles like Discovery Kids?

They might be not on other wikis because their operations in a single country are not notable, but notable as a group. Then we can work on trimming off the unverifiable content later. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern update both have been blocked by @MathXplore so is it good to just delete all the pages as hoaxes now? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern @MathXplore considering that they seem to be just posting things from this site https://dreamlogos.fandom.com/wiki/NBC_(Russia) to here, and this site seems to be explicitly a hoax wiki, I think they should all be speedy deleted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 would you be able to mass delete their created pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: Any admin can do a mass delete of a user's created pages if they agree it's appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 do you agree this is appropriate? You are an admin right? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern Most of the ones I looked either are hoax or have no sources or claims for verification. Many I couldn't even find outside simplewiki, I will be mass deleting these, any other admin is free to restore them if they see value these content.-- BRP^ever 16:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have left a few out that had enwiki equivalent, and few redirects that looked fine. Please check those and take them to RFD if necessary.-- BRP^ever 17:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting through this; it definitely saved a lot of work on tagging and such. I'll take a glance at things this week and follow up as appropriate. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block request

Hi, Could someone delete Pat And Patty please as an IP keeps recreating it, and could the following IP be rangeblocked please as they've been doing this for a few days on a new IP,

2405:201:a016:c832:a464:2744:707c:3b1f (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, second this request for deletion and WP:SALT at Pat And Patty and OurCal. They're being frequently recreated by spammers. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did originally request protection here too but removed it assuming a rangeblock would be enough, Of course I have no objections to salting this and the others, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Moselweine - repeatedly recreated –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman or @FusionSub - Could the IP be rangeblocked please? They've been doing this all day on new IPs, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by fr33kman.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just did it fr33k man 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Freekman much appreciated –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've now moved on to Pat and Patty (without the capital And). Could that be salted too? CountryANDWestern (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern: Salted for 3 months by BRPever. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock template

Hello, fellow admins. I updated our unblock template by importing from English Wikipedia. That fixed a problem where a user's request sometimes didn't display properly. To see the text we need to accept or decline the request, we now need to expand the "Administrator use only" section. We don't currently have the "Unblock on hold" template that section shows, but if anyone wants that template, we can import it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Hi, can you point to an example of problem with the template. I would like to keep the design a bit distinct from enwiki to avoid people confusing us with en, so I am wondering if it can be updated and fixed instead.-- BRP^ever 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: Sure. I put the previous code in the sandbox, and here's an example.

************BEGINNING OF EXAMPLE****************

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Administrators%27_noticeboard (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock • check user)
Reason for unblocking:

I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)

Administrators: If you decline this request, replace this template with:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)|decline=reason -- ~~~~}}

If you accept this request, replace this template with:

{{subst:unblocked|1=I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)|2=reason}}

************END OF EXAMPLE****************

You can see that blue background shows up only as a thin horizontal box, and the actual request isn't inside of it as it should be. I've seen this off and on before. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: It appears that the issue was because of two special characters :: used at the start. I think It's fixed after I added a line at the start.--BRP^ever 23:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: Cool. If you're waiting for my approval before implementing, go ahead. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we have gone back to the plain old template now. Please let me know if you see it causing any error. Thanks,-- BRP^ever 23:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New manage blocks interface

Just an FYI. I went to change a block to add a revoke talk page access to a user and I ended up adding a second block to the user rather than just changing the existing block. What you have to do (I now know) is click on the little pencil to modify the existing block. A little different but tricky if you're not expecting it. Cheers ;) fr33k man 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol Adulyadej and Vajiralongkorn

Helo fellow Admins, please protect these articles due to persistent vandalism by changing the date of death, reign and age of Bhumibol Adulyadej. The IP user also vandalise his successor, incumbent Vajiralongkorn. Thank you. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 15:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Henri Aja: First one semi-protected for 3 months. The other one not protected because it hasn't had much vandalism, and none in the last week. Feel free to report it again if vandalism increases. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Auntof6, much appreciated. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 06:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got a minor error that was remaining Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Immanuelle. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 08:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Roma people

Hi all, this morning I got a request to look into this case, and I did see some disruptive editing from the account here and on enwiki for which I blocked them. However, I think some effort at communicating should have been done by other involved users. Now that this has passed, I would like to bring the page to a stable version. @Steven1991: thinks that the current content is dubious and promotes a POV, and on my not-so-deep analysis, I do think that is the case to an extent. So, if someone with some degree of familiarity can look into the sources and update the page to a stable version, that'd be great. Since this has been going on for a while, I would like someone familiar to review it once before we see if the page needs protectsion.-- BRP^ever 12:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Id like a more detailed rationale as to what is NPOV, but realistically this is a content issue now, rather than an administrative one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever The user seems to have set up another account to repeat the same action, with deceptive editing summaries. Steven1991 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollowww - edit intentions

Hollowww (talk · contribs) has made 804 edits since starting to edit here on June 4. Of those 805 edits, 800 are to their user space, 2 to their user talk, 1 to Wikipedia space, 1 to the template space, and 1 to a main space article. They have made 36 subpages of articles that are unlikely to pass Simple English standards for language and construction.

They are currently blocked on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I asked about their edit intentions on their user talk page and they said "I only want to make and use sandbox there, I don't intend to create articles at the moment" and, when asked what they're writing the drafts/what they intend to do with them, "Just for fun I'd say, I like writing." I see WP:NOTHERE intentions with this account; they don't intend to contribute to the project, just to write their own things for their own "entertainment." Can an admin please review if further discussion or any action is needed with the user? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can assure you that I never meant to actually publish any articles on the Simple Wikipedia, and that I have been using my sandbox area for personal practice and to learn formatting and editing suitable for Wikipedia. I understand how my edits could have appeared suspicious to you and other editors, and I apologize for creating any misunderstanding that I did. I'm glad to restrict my sandbox activities or follow any recommendations or advice to avoid that this all happens again. -- Hollowww (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salin Man Bania

Hello fellow administrators. I need help you for deleting the article because this article have deleted in English Wikipedia and many others the reason is cross-wiki spam article. Regards Badak Jawa (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 please delete the article Badak Jawa (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badak Jawa I've QD-tagged their articles under G5, You could've done this yourself, Also please stop pinging admins as it's not an emergency and the articles will be deleted when the next available admin comes back online, Until then we be patient and wait, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badak Jawa: The article has been deleted. I agree with Davey: please do not ping individual administrators when you post on the admins' noticeboard. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]