Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Russian IP spamming talk pagesEdit

Russian IPs have been spamming talk pages for the past few days. The comments seem to be random, and the IPs look similar, suggesting it is the same person. Each IP is used only once. The IP range starts with 176.59, so a range block may be too wide. Examples include this, this and this. Any ideas? Nigos (talk · contribs) 09:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I matched the same range clock that used. Should help atleast somewhat. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ryan MorrisEdit


I see that the article about Ryan Morris was recently deleted due to promotion. What changes to this article or additional criteria needs to be met in order to be approved with the Wikipedia guidelines? The objective of writing the biography of Ryan would certainly not be for promotional purposes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowshoes13 (talkcontribs)

@Yellowshoes13: Hello there! And welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. First, I'd like to ask what your connection to Ryan Morris is? Also remember to sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Operator873talkconnect 02:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Operator873: I met him at a business conference that he spoke at last March. I spoke with him briefly afterwards and we took a picture together. I often watch his content via social media. He doesn't really know me though. Thanks for your response! ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowshoes13 (talkcontribs)
@Yellowshoes13: When signing with four tildes, don't copy the nowiki tag he put. Just put four "~" characters together and it'll turn into your name and the current time. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Ok got it thank you Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
About the Ryan Morris article, it appears such an article has never existed here. Such an article has been created and deleted on the english wikipedia before, but it's required admin access to create since 2017. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Interesting. Could I draft the article and if it checks out according to guidelines, you approve it? Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
We don't have a draft namespace here, you'd have to draft it in your userspace (i.e. User:Yellowshoes13/Ryan Morris). If your article meets Wikipedia's policies about notability, lack of promotion, being encyclopedic, and everything else, you can move it into the article space. Hope this answers your questions :) Computer Fizz (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I'm looking to write a biography of him. Would I need to do anything differently? Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yellowshoes13: You might want to look at this. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Thank you so much for all of the help. I just wrote the draft and submitted it for review. I made sure to be objective and not use anything that would seem promotional. Hopefully it is approved! Yellowshoes13 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

/21 Range partial block for spamEdit

Fellow sysops: I have partially blocked (main space articles) the range which affects exactly 2,046 individual IP addresses. The only edits from this range have been introduction of spam into articles cleverly hidden as references. Please review and adjust or remove the block as necessary. Operator873talkconnect 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Verify someone's identity to reactivate their pageEdit

Hello- A former teacher of mine and mentor in my career recently had his page deleted. Here is his FB post about it:

What requires notable and what kind of evidence do you need to revert his deletion?

He started in radio in 1968 at age 12. Legends of Country is a syndicated show he has ran for 15+ years. I'll add this from one of his bios: 'Legend's of Country" as a two hour show can be heard on a number of radio stations including....102.7 FM KORD Tri-Cities, Washington. 91.5 FM KUBS Newport, Washington. AM 1350 KRLC in Lewiston, Idaho. AM 1150 KASM Albany, Minnesota. Bob 106.5 in Minn. 102.9 FM Homegrown Sound Dos Palos, Calif. KTIL in the Tillamook Ore area, KATQ in Plentywood, MT, Wildhorse internet radio in South Africa and others.

Besides and while making strides inradio accomplishments for 50+ He has also been the instructor at the local Trade High School Program. He has a radio station classroom open to high school teenagers to use. He teaches incredible life lessons. The man believes in these kids - kids that need that push and positive reinforcement.

I could go on about this man, his personal, and radio greatness, but I hope you can do just a little more research about why he should be considered a Notably Radio Personality.

Please get back to me on further actions and what can be done to make this happen.

I appreciate your time and effort on behalf of Ed.

You need multiple independent sources that are not related to your former teacher. Those sources need to be reliable and prove that the person is notable. The page was probably deleted because you did not prove the person's notability. You should also gain community consensus if the page is deleted again. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions on my my talk page. I hope this helps you. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Thebrad509: Oh, and being the instructor at a local high school and allowing others to use his radio station does not establish notability. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion was started on the wrong wiki. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for create protection of Nitin Patkar (Indian Artist)Edit

These pages have been recreated twice after quick deletion and the subject is not notable. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At only two recreations a protection is not likely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Djsasso, the article Nitin Patkar (Indian Artist) has been created again. I see no signs that whoever is doing this is going to stop. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 05:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It's the third recreation now and they are edit warring the QD tag. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have create-protected the article for a month (only autoconfirmed users can create it). I hope the issue is settled by then. --Eptalon (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
We rarely protect pages here, blocking individual users is usually the first step. Though its moot now since Eptalon protected it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Feces articleEdit

The Feces article is being heavily vandalized by several IPs and the User:Iced.chai.tea account. At the time of writing there have been about two dozen vandalistic edits within the span of 15 minutes. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A protection doesn't seem necessary at this point of time. Blocks should be considered instead. Chenzw  Talk  07:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protect for CousinEdit

IP editors (presumably the same person) adding wrong info in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxxon0 (talkcontribs)

@Zaxxon0: Doesn't look like it's quite out of hand yet. Continue to monitor and re-report if necessary. Operator873talkconnect 02:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
They've done it again here. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what exactly is wrong here. Is the description of the cousin relationships false? Chenzw  Talk  23:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


Please remove my rollback right, thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Done--Eptalon (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request @ MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.jsEdit

Kindly change adminrights['Lofty abyss']=1; to adminrights['Lofty_abyss']=1; to possibly fix the issue that Lofty abyss's talk page is not highlighted. Minorax (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

While I have fixed the issue in an earlier diff, I took the opportunity to perform an overhaul of the code. It is significantly shorter now, and there is no longer a need for unintuitive use of %20 in the adminrights object. Chenzw  Talk  14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Error: Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filterEdit


I was making redirects to my Slovenian user page in a few languages (15 or something like this). And then I published a page "Look at my page." on this Wikipedia. I got an error, so I made something more about me because Wikipedia thought, that I was a bot. But without success. An error says, that I have to say to the administrator that I was right.

Any help from your side? (Maybe I asked this on the wrong place.)--AstroFizMat (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the global filter here. Please seek assistance from meta instead. Chenzw  Talk  02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@AstroFizMat: I think I will help you recreate the page. Sorry I cannot discuss the filter in detail but I should be able to help create the page per what you wanted. Apologies for this false positive.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chenzw: A better place for to refer these kind of queries will be to m:RFH but SRM can work too. Meta sysops can handle these if I am not wrong. I realize there had been a couple of such issues on simple, will see how to manage this.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account of User:LaurenCox600Edit

It is said on the User:لورن کاکس 600 page that the name means Lauren Cox 600. LaurenCox600 is a blocked user, so that account is probably a sockpuppet and should be blocked. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) /

@Beaneater00: please rethink this post. Your spreading Vermont-Revi talking points about me. This is not how editors should behave. If I’m you, I would rethink this post. —لورن کاکس 600 (LaurenCox600) - talk 06:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@لورن کاکس 600: I don't understand what you're trying to imply here. I have reported you because I think, with good reason, that you are a sockpuppet of the blocked account User:LaurenCox600. I don't have anything to do with Vermont or ~revi, though I do appreciate their work against vandalism and sockpuppetry here. Is this supposed to be a threat? Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) /
Blocked.--BRP ever 07:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@BRPever:, she has created another account (User:لورن کاکس (دوپلگانگر)). ~~
Blocked this one too.--BRP ever 07:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

VandalEdit Sk4mp (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sk4mp, Please report to WP:VIP --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Stale at this point. No need to report. -DJSasso (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, will report such cases to WP:VIP in the future. Sk4mp (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Protection Placed on Climate Change Consensus Wiki PageEdit

Dear Administrator,

I would like an explanation for why, when someone had been editing the wiki page entitled "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," the article was abruptly reverted to it's previous content, and a secure access lock was placed on it.

A casual perusal of the revision history will reveal that all the editor's changes had done was to balance out the content, so it was not overly skewed to one point of view or a very narrow array of data. Furthermore, a cursory glance at the reasons such protections are placed is explicitly due to vandalism.

Please read the below, contrast it with what is on the current page, and tell me how the below constitutes vandalism. Then, do kindly return the page to it's previous revision, desist from locking the page, and free this vital intellectual resource back up to the arena of ideas.

A Terse Dose of Gratitude Might Be In Order, -LiveOnHall

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by (talk) at 04:31, 9 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

From NASA's Global Climate Change website There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports. 'The broadest consensus it that the earth has warmed about .6 degrees (perhaps as much as .8) Celsius, or about 1 degree F, since the mid 19th Century. Mitigating the case for a human cause is the fact that about half of the recorded warming took place before 1940, when the CO2 emissions were about ⅙ what they are today. These and other data comprise arguments from Environmentalists, who claim that - although the Earth is warming - temperature increases are not alarming, not predominantly human caused, and may actually be delaying the onset of the next "mini ice-age." This owing, in part, to a solar minimum akin to the much-studied "Maunder Minimum," a period of low sunspot activity.

Regardless, many publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and some of the remaining contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiveOnHall (talkcontribs)

@LiveOnHall: That specific article you are referring to does not exist on this language edition of Wikipedia. Please direct your queries to en:Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change. Chenzw  Talk  05:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

request for flooderEdit

Hello. I'm currently flooding new changes while clearing multiple backlogs. Could I possibly have flooder to prevent this? Computer Fizz (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What backlogs, what tools are/will you (be) using, and for how long? Vermont (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: Deprecated cite parameters (for now, might do some others later), no tools, and until it's gone. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:FLOOD. It's a right given for a specific purpose within a defined time, and no other edits are allowed during that time. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: yes, I'm aware. The "specific purpose" here is clearing backlogs, and I plan to get it removed when I'm finished. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"When I'm finished" is not a time I can put into Special:UserRights, and "clearing backlogs" is not a specific purpose. There are hundreds of backlogs. I will grant you flood for the purpose of removing deprecated citation parameters for a period of two hours; to ensure I'm not granting it to you when you're offline, I've messaged you on IRC to coordinate it. Vermont (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm done with flooder now, if anyone wants to remove it. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately all your edits are now going to have to be undone. Clearing backlogs does not mean just removing things. In the case of the cite parameters all that had to be done is remove the hyphen in access-date to make it accessdate. Please don't clear any more backlogs unless you know what you are doing. All these changes actively made the wiki worse and now will waste time being fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that en:WP:CS1 states that accessdate is a valid alias of access-date. Our local configuration on Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist confirms that both parameters are valid and supported. While I am not sure why the previous revisions of the affected articles were placed in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, suffice to say template matters should not be handled until and unless there is sufficient understanding of the relevant templates/modules (especially modules!). Chenzw  Talk  16:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(update) While investigating the remaining 3 entries in the above category, it turns out that the erroneous categorisation is due to a cache issue; purging Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist seems to have resolved this. Chenzw  Talk  16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
They go in that category because the parameter is deprecated and the one that should be used going forward is accessdate. However, at the moment both work to facilitate the change over from one to the other. This is what I was referring to when I said don't make changes if you are unaware of why things are the way they are. I have fixed them all at this point, took me a couple hours. The three left the category because I fixed them while you were looking. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
At present there is an inconsistency between the module and editing guideline: deprecated parameters should be marked as false in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist so that the module can actually categorise articles accordingly (relevant code processing deprecated parameters starts from line 3625 of Module:Citation/CS1). Marking a parameter as false kickstarts the real magic that results in categorising the article into the maintenance category. From the point of view of the citation module, both forms of accessdate are functionally equivalent (valid non-deprecated parameter, line 218 of Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration also recognises both forms as the same parameter). Chenzw  Talk  16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there was a bug as well which has been fixed. Either way for any backlog there is usually a better way to fix than to just remove. Usually involves moving the data to the new parameter. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
To clear up, yes, access-date is placed as deprecated. But some contained both accessdate and access-date. But it's true that they should have been replaced with access-date where it didn't. The other thing here is that I made some of the edits without flooder and nobody spotted any problems, and flooder was approved for removing accessdate, because I didn't specify what I did in the request. I can try to say exactly what is being done in the request, but I'm not sure if that would actually change anything since I assume the granting admin looked at the previous edits and didn't see anything wrong. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
They likely didn't look which is why you need to specify exactly the edit you intend to make. You also made edits which were not related to the request you made while you had the flood flag which is against the rules. To be honest, I hope going forward that you are not given flood flag as you have not shown the ability to use it in a proper manner. Had I not happened to stumble upon one of the changes a large number of mistakes would not have been caught.-DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I did look at some of their initial edits, though did not put enough time into it to notice that it should be changed rather than removed. That part of this is my fault; their request for flood was never valid, and I should not have granted it. In regard to their use of it they've made multiple edits with the flood flag that are not within the scope of what I granted it for, and due to this breach of trust I am against granting userrights (flooder or otherwise) for them in the future. Vermont (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted revision?Edit

Why were my 2 revisions on User:Arthurfan828/My talk page rules deleted? Arthurfan828 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you put inappropriate personal information. I can't say more than that without defeating the purpose of the delete that was done. -DJSasso (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a Wiki, and we are here to create a Wikipedia. We value you as a contributor, but you shouldn't put things that allow to identify or track you down. The two revisions mentioned contined such information, that's why DJSasso deleted them and removed them from the log. --Eptalon (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Contributions for User:AhmadqatariEdit

Hello, shall we nuke their contributions? Per this, confirmed socking, xwiki promo, locked globally across numerous accounts. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Settled.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Catherine, Duchess of CambridgeEdit

As an involved editor, I am making this complaint on AN for other uninvolved administrators to evaluate:

Relevant diffs:

While none of these edits were made consecutively within a 24 hour period, I believe they are in violation of the spirit of the 3RR rule. I also note that one of the editors involved (Geoffreyrabbit) is currently blocked on EN for similar refusal to communicate with editors in the same subject area. The ISP of the anonymous editor involved here is also closely related to the editor in question. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I have been watching him for that very reason. He is probably due for a block here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:VIPEdit

Is it frowned upon if a non-admin user removes requests on that page if they have been resolved already? I assume there's no issue with doing that but would just like to get an okay from the admins before. Reception123 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is an issue. While I can't speak for anyone else, I suspect the frowning upon part stems from the inevitable rush by non-sysops to clear the VIP page the very minute an editor has been blocked. This is not a competition. Otherwise I think it is fine to remove days-old entries that have been inadvertently left behind on the page. Chenzw  Talk  16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was of course referring to the later case you mention since sometimes there are entries that aren't removed after a few days or receive no comments. --Reception123 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Before I stopped, I remove things as soon as they're blocked, not because it's a "competition", but just to avoid confusion and keep the page to only what's necessary (like a queue). Is that a problem? Computer Fizz (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would rather you not. There is no need to remove them immediately, unless you are pretty sure that the blocking sysop has no intention to delist the entry even after hours later. At least how I go about this is that I have contribs, VIP, and Special:Block already open in multiple tabs, and will be switching between them as I process the vandalism. Nothing is more annoying than an edit conflict when editing the VIP page to mark done/leave additional comments. Chenzw  Talk  16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I usually only do that for admins like mac, bsa, who never use vip at all. However I have stopped after that, and probably won't even edit at all for admins that I know do use vip. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
If OP is referring to my removal at here I will say those are accounts I reported save 1, and all are answered by admins who declined or blocked them. I am just doing some decluttering of the board as my signature is causing some issues too. All are quite stale by the time I removed. This is one of the rare occassions I remove any report and apologies for the trouble caused. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer non-admins just don't touch the board but I would never tell someone off for doing so. I would prefer that we get back to using the board the way it originally was, that we only comment if we can't/won't block and we remove immediately if we have blocked. The commenting just to say "Done" is not necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)