Ard Wiki talk:Administrators' noticeboard

This page is no longer used. To talk about the Administrators' noticeboard, please use the actual project page.

No Title

I'm going to archive this page (by moving it to a subpage, as described here) soon. I will bring back the active discussions to the ANB again. Please let me know if you have any objections. - Huji reply 15:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think this is a page to pass current requests to the admins. I therefore have no problem with archiving older requests. We should hoever look that the last month or so is still present (or available in the archives). Therefore when you do please properly label the archive. --Eptalon 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef block?

Will I get an Indef block for my bad edits here and one TurboGolf 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For those wondering what he's talking about with, see [1] and his user page there. He was blocked indefinitely in August for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Either way (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So was I but I haven't been blocked so I would say no. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You were banned at one point, and another ban may be coming up if you continue to misbehave. Majorly talk 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, I know that, but I mean I haven't been banned here because of what I did on VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If you continue to do bad edits here then yes you probably will. However, they won't block you just for edits on enwiki. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA voting

Will all my RfA votes be striked because I was vandalising under this username on en, I am an en sock and I am blocked until indefinite on en? And also will my User page and talk page be deleted as Housekeeping? TurboGolf 08:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While a users' history on other wiki's could be used in some matters (future RfA's as a candidate for example could be affected as people question if they trust you knowing you have vandalized and used sockpuppets in the past - it would not affect you as a voter), for the most part, unless immediate actions were taken when you began editing here, you start with a semi-clean slate here. Certain cross-wiki issues and problem users are blocked entirely but this is a case by case issue. Just because you were blocked there for something does not mean you are blocked elsewhere. This does not mean that your past will never affect you here, only that it does not always condemn you. You have made possitive contributions since joining here with limited drama so there is no reason for your past there to directly affect any of the things you mentioned here.
Certain people will be automatically struck in votes or have their userpages deleted if it is known who they are, but these users are well known vandals who for the most part are past the hope of redemption at all wikipedias. With most of these people, we do not even bother to say their names when deleting their pages as they do not deserve even that much recognision. Some are mere vandals who have been doing it for years, others are abusive personalities convicted of crimes (such as stalkers). This does not apply to most users, and the number of banned en:wp users we have as regular contributors here supports this. --Creol(talk) 08:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for archival

This thread is long overdue for archival. The last post was made on 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC). It has been one month, one week and four days since any post has been made, and I've seen several threads archived long before the last post has been made that long ago. Can an uninvolved neutral user please archive the thread? Thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

18px Done – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Currently, our archive settings are as follows:

|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 31
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive %(counter)d

Can I suggest that we remove the minthreadsleft setting? I don't see any reason for us to keep old threads around so that the page doesn't look empty. Admin noticeboard should be kept tidy. EhJJTALK 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea to remove it alltogether, or at least shrink it from four to one. Lauryn (utc) 01:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Kill it completely per EhJJ's reasoning. Cheers, Goblin 12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
I am not against removing it, but part of the reason why people leave it is that so people who aren't as familiar with talk page (ie non editors) can see how to start a new topic. How does having an old topic up hurt when it could possibly actually help? To be honest I think we archive way to fast. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think minthreadsleft was added (both here, and on simple talk; its archival settings look similar) to not have the respective page look empty. While I don't claim that 4 is a particularly good or bad choice, I think that the setting should not be removed altogether (as we might end up with an empty page), and that it should not be set to like 1. Looking more closely the current setting probably is not as bad as it looks. Also note that automatic archival only archives the pages where it is used, and not their talk pages, and such. Eptalon (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Urgent: block needed for User talk:, who has been constantly disrupting page Aristotle, so much so that it is hard to make a rollback stick for more then a few minutes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, user blocked for 72h (last block: 3 days ago, for 31hrs). --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the report. Remember that WP:VIP really is the place for reports and will usually get a response quicker than AN, as people watch VIP for reports and may not watch AN for them. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 12:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, didn't know the page existed!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot requested deletion due to vandalism

I created List of American films of 1991 (with correct referencing to the English Wikipedia page) and as soon as I saved the changes, a bot requested deletion due to vandalism. Please review and tell me if this is a mistake or not and how I can rectify it. --Kelpso1 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot is a bit touchy with new accounts.. It tends to over react some times. Not sure which trigger it hit though. Could be the number of links has a limit as that article is by its nature a collection of links. --Creol(talk) 09:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the bot, moved the article to it's proper (local) name and (Thank god for AWB) converted all 182 of the "film"(s) to "movie"(s) as well. And since it was me doing it, cats obviously got touched up as well.. --Creol(talk) 09:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Template import request

Could someone import the template en:Template:Animal Crossing here? There's a number of Animal Crossing-related pages here, so I think it'll be useful for those articles. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your link leads nowhere. Do you mean en:Template:Animal Crossing series? Osiris (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Great, just wanted to make sure. It's done. Osiris (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

direct links to adverts

I notice a number of new registered users who have put in bare links to articles on finance (either as refs or as other websites). Some of these links have been to bare-faced adverts or slightly disguised adverts. We should take them out when we find them. On editor talk pages I have written notes explaining that they should not do this as "our readers deserve reliable and disinterested sources". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give us some names or diffs? Maybe it is a general spambot problem and not a real person behind the account. -Barras talk 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And also why is this section on the talk page? -Barras talk 17:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Pages on which ads or quasi-ads had been placed included: Sales quote; Debt; Promotion; Carpet; Race track; Bankruptcy. I think there were several users, one of which was CptRogerson. Not so many, but at the time I thought we might get hundreds. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Username patterns really like look spambots, the edits with that summary are suspicious. Mentioning interwiki links while we use wikidata nowaydays. All newly created accounts... I will look at it a bit closer. -Barras talk 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I blocked some accounts now. Looks rather clear to me that their only purpose is to spam around here. If you find any other such accounts that fit the pattern, feel free to block. If you are unsure, poke me and I take a deeper look at them. Good catch, Mac! -Barras talk 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have brought Special:AbuseFilter/51 live, which should combat the problem significantly. Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Please consider deleting the following userpage(s) created by a sock puppet of AASMOHAMMADABBASIACTOR:

See also:

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

I am troubled by the invasion of huge copy/paste articles on The Apostle Muhammad & the Messianic prophecies and similar titles. Since 50,000 bytes can't be typed in a short space of time, they must have an electronic origin on some wiki. They seem to violate about three of our guidelines: copyright violation, unsimplified material from another wiki, and very POV. I have not been very effective in stopping the flood of articles, and would welcome another view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

1st thing, there is no copyright violation at all. You can't simply accuse someone of violating copyrights without giving evidence of your accusation. 2nd thing, I simplified the article several times but you couldn't listen. 3rd thing, there is no POV at all. Every paragraph in the article has been attached with a source listed in the bibliography, so the article is consistent with the sourcebooks listed in the bibliography. If you wish to improve the article, then don't delete it, and I will improve it or someone else will do so.-- (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Muhammad vandal. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
To be mentioned, Samwalton9 is one of the "meat puppets" who serve in the cabal of anti-Muslims on the English wiki.. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cabal of meat puppets vandalizing the Islam-related articlesl.-- (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Mac, if you know where the article was copied and pasted from, please tell us. If you can't point to a specific source, you can't claim it's copied and pasted no matter how much you suspect that it was. Just because it reads like it comes from somewhere else doesn't mean it's copied: if people can write articles elsewhere with a certain tone, they can just as easily write them here. Just because it's large doesn't mean it was copied from a wiki or anywhere else: it could have been worked on offline before being uploaded here.
Many times before you have claimed things were copied and pasted, and you have deleted articles for that reason. You need to stop doing that when you can't point to the place they were copied from.
I'm not saying this article should be kept, or that it wasn't copied from elsewhere, just that we can't claim that it was copied (or delete it for copyvio reasons) if we can't point to a source. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It is now established that the IP put it up on English wiki first, which means that if he wrote the material, then he no longer owns the copyright. It just took time before this was established. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

U.S. presidential elections

As we go forwards, IP vandalism on election candidates' pages is likely to increase. I suggest we semi-protect the pages of all candidates until a) the primaries are over and, for the ultimate candidates, until after the elections are over. You might feel we should deal with it on a case-by-case basis as we usually do, but that risks screenshots of vandalised biogs being used for various nefarious purposes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I would also suggest that we discuss what the next step will be if these articles are vandalized by auto-confirmed users. I can see a possibility that those with political agendas may be willing to wait out the minimal time periods necessary to create an auto-confirmed account, and if so, they may edit some of these articles using a Single-Purpose Account (SPA). Even if we decide that current policies are adequate to deal with that situation, we all need to be mindful that edits to articles that are about the political process, the parties, the candidates, or even those currently in office, may have a subtle (or even overt) political bias, and we should be extra mindful of the BLP policies in these cases. Note that when I refer to those currently in office, I mean not only the executive branch, but the legislative branch as well. Politics is dirty business and every party has people who will do anything to help their candidate win. We should do everything possible to ensure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for dirty politics. Etamni | ✉   17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with pre-emptive protecting. It may even be against Wikipedia's policies. If I see protection that is too long or isn't in response to actual vandalism, I will change or remove it. Let's wait and see how much vandalism we get, and try not to imagine worst-case scenarios. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We get a lot of helpful edits to biographies from unregistered users. Some even help in anti-vandalism. Protection is the last resort. The only article we're seeing much vandalism on is Donald Trump, but it's easily manageable so far. The articles on Clinton, Cruz, Carson and Rubio haven't been touched in a month in most cases, and Sanders' article is being actively supervised at PGA. Osiris (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll see. I think an election of Trump vs Clinton would be quite extraordinarily abrasive. We'll see. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What has happened to...

... Albert Szent-Györgyi? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ndash was changed. I've reverted and protected the template. Considering it's transcluded on 1165 pages... Only (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)