Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

A block request

Hello! I request a block for user Desaded-Lode. He has vandalism changes. Me and other user has send warning templates but he/she is not stopping. --Julius 12345 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Julius 12345, thank you for the report. In future, please report any vandalism like this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. If someone edits after an only warning (or, usually, final warning), they can be reported straight away and don't have to be warned again. Thanks! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay and thank you very much. Have a nice day. Julius 12345 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Mihira Bhoja semi-protection request

Mihira Bhoja (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

There's been a fairly determined temp account hopping editor that's been pushing some caste POV nonsense on this page. It's stuff that's been rejected firmly on en wiki. The edit summary on the last sceed crossed the line though. Would someone please semi-protect this article to shut this down? Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am not an admin, but I recommend that share that request on email. That is very inappropriate. Julius 12345 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The edits themselves have been suppressed. I've chucked on protection from non-autoconfirmed for a week. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank ya! Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Interstate 15 in California

Can that AFD be closed? It’s overdue. ~2026-47790-3 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Ternera (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I do want to point out, this RFD and all others made by User:Aksord have never actually been transcluded on the RFD page. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, didn't see that it wasn't transcluded. I am happy to undelete it, reopen the request, and transclude it if that's the correct way to proceed. Ternera (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ternera: What we usually encourage is to ask the person who opened it if they meant for it to be "live". If so, explain that they need to transclude it, and the date can be extended. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Aksord, I have undeleted the article so you can transclude it at WP:RFD. There are instructions for doing it at that page. Let me know if you need any help! Ternera (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Aksord created two other AFDs that were never transcluded. I’d type them out but I’m outside in 15° weather so I won’t . ~2026-51941-4 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Outrageous backlog of untouched RFD discussions

Good evening,

There is currently a backlog at Requests for Deletion, as many recent discussions have received little or no participation and are now past their expected close dates. As a result, several requests remain open without clear outcomes.

When convenient, could an administrator review the RfD backlog and close any discussions that are ready, or advise on how best to proceed with those that have had no participation?

And if anybody is open to participating in the current discussions, that would be appreciated as well! Happy editing!

SoyokoAnis - talk 23:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi SoyokoAnis, I can take a lot of the blame as the person who has opened many of the discussions currently open on RfD for the number of untouched discussions being "outrageous"! But any RfD with no opposition counts as a "soft delete", meaning that it can be deleted but restored upon request / cannot be deleted as G4 if recreated. Having untouched discussions is ok, we don't want inflated RfDs with loads of delete "per nom" votes - a couple of meaningful comments are better than many minimal ones. I don't think there is too much to say for a lot of the RfDs we have on offer at the moment. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 00:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that page creators are usually notified of RFD, so if they disagree with the deletion, they can simply comment. In those cases, a discussion is likely to take place, and a soft delete would be invalid. As such, the process works efficiently even without votes. BRP ^ever 00:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I should say with the Japanese footballer stubs I have been nominating, I have chosen to not notify the creator of the articles at RfD. (There is already a flood of them on User talk:Nameless User~simplewiki!) --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 00:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I only see two RFDs that can be closed, so I think we are doing a good job of staying on top of it. Ternera (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever, @Ferien, @Ternera: Thank you all for the explanations that’s helpful to understand how RfD works here and how soft deletes are intended to function on Simple Wiki. I appreciate the clarification and attention to the matter. :D SoyokoAnis - talk 00:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Block Evasion and Tag-Teaming: HarryinLondon sockpuppets

• The Aviation Tracker ({{Block evasion}})
• RoyalEnfieldCT({{Block evasion}})

This is a clear case of Block Evasion and Tag-Teaming by the indefinitely blocked user HarryinLondon.

Evidence: One of these accounts, RoyalEnfieldCT, has just been (1 day ago) indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia as a confirmed sockpuppet of HarryinLondon. Proof: + unblock request rejected by Administrator Yamla with the comment:

• "Nonsense. You aren't any good at hiding these abusive sockpuppet accounts." Proof: link
  
  

Connection to "The Aviation Tracker": The second account, The Aviation Tracker is created just after RoyalEnfieldCT got banned for sock puppetry on English Wikipedia and this account start doing complex edits, is undeniably part of the same farm because they are tag-teaming with the confirmed sockpuppet. Both accounts are editing the exact same set of articles (Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Battle of Chawinda, Kargil War) within the same short timeframe. And also editing the exact same edit. When one account is reverted, the other immediately steps in to reinstate the vandalism. Even the edit summary was similar, proof look at the edit by The Aviation Trackerhere "Your source doesn't even provide 600 causalities..." when this edit got reverted, on the same day RoyalEnfieldCT restore this edit with the almost same edit summary here "Not a single source mentioned about 600 Indian casualties..." another proof is that when i created a section on The Aviation Tracker Talk page that was deleted by the RoyalEnfieldCT proof . HarryinLondon socks failed to edit on 2025 Indo pak page because it is protected. Zubarkokar (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No I am not lying not a single neutral source mentioned about 600 Indian casualties in Kargil. You are lying. This is mentioned in the main article of Kargil war too. First provide the evidence of 600 losses. Earlier you provided a evidence of 600 Indian causalities from Al Jazeera article that too mentioned about 527 casualties. You should stop lying and accept the reality. First provide neutral source which mentioned about 600 casualties not from any source which tells about from the history of "Pakistan Army" or something else like that. Both official and neutral sources mentioned about 527 Indian causalities. Stop lying and provide the line of the neutral source here which said about 600 Indian casualties. You are lying since previous month. Suddenly I became a sockpuppet account ? RoyalEnfieldCT (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Self-Admission of Block Evasion:

You just wrote: "You are lying since previous month." Your account is only 3 days old. How do you know about my edits from "last month"? and your second account Aviation Tracker is just created 1 day ago when u got block from English wiki.

This accidental admission proves you are the banned user HarryinLondon returning to continue the exact same dispute you were blocked for. Zubarkokar (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Another dumb talk I am watching simple wikipedia for many days. Watching your edits @Zubarkokar since previous months where you are involved in Vandalism on Wikipedia since. You put neutral sources just as 600 casualties however no direct line is mentioned only book numbers and plates. I also saw you reverted multiple edits in simple wikipedia article which was mentioned in Main Wikipedia article about 1965 India-Pakistan war, 1971 India-Pakistan War, 1999 Kargil war. You are clearly involved in vandalism. In 2025 one too I saw you somehow with your biased and false claims somehow blocked one editor by lying to an administrator who is making the article neutral by mentioning everyone's losses. RoyalEnfieldCT (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Final proof of connection:

You just admitted to knowing the specific details of the HarryinLondon ban ("blocked one editor by lying"). A random new user would not know or care about an old administrative block from weeks ago. Your deep knowledge of that specific case, combined with your admission of watching me for "months," confirms you are the same person. He explicitly defends the banned master's edits as "making the article neutral," proving he shares the exact same agenda. I am leaving here the evidences is already enough. Zubarkokar (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't talk dumb

I mentioned numerous times that I saw you changing articles and change them by telling the administrators that someone is lying. You also complained against an temporary account who is probably not logged in. Despite he provided proper sources of 3 Rafael IAF jets participating in Cope India Exercise 2025. You somehow convinced an administrator and made that article according to your choice. You are lying in every India-Pakistan related conflict article and mentioning sources from Pakistan or associated with Pakistan. Now somehow I became a sockpuppet according to you. From where did you learned so much lying ? Now I should mention a complain about you on the section of vandalism. You are disrupting only simple wikipedia articles compared to main wikipedia articles because you are not extended confirmed and mentioning biased sources everytime RoyalEnfieldCT (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Update regarding English Wikipedia Block: The user's RoyalEnfieldCT unblock request on English Wikipedia has just been declined by Administrator Yamla with the comment:

• "Nonsense. You aren't any good at hiding these abusive sockpuppet accounts." (Link to Decline)

This confirms that the identification of this account as a sockpuppet is solid and indisputable. Requesting that Simple English Wikipedia follow suit to prevent further disruption here. Zubarkokar (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No I am not a sockpuppet at all. You are lying since today. First you lied in Kargil War simple article now you are lying here too. I am new account made just 2 days ago watching you and other biased accounts making false claims I made this account. Stop lying, and I know I will be unblocked there is some definitely mistake and misunderstanding there which leaded to this. RoyalEnfieldCT (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Because I challenged your false edits suddenly I became a sockpuppet with your claims ? RoyalEnfieldCT (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add that the blocked user on the English Wikipedia has been investigated, and has gotten into similar issues as seen here. Howhighcanwego (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Update: Connection to Temporary Accounts The user targeted the exact same set of articles using Temporary Accounts.

• Temporary Accounts:
  • ~2026-44253-7 (talk · contribs) (Edited Battle of Chawinda)
  • ~2026-44303-6 (talk · contribs) (Edited Indo-Pakistani War of 1971)
  • ~2026-42285-6 (talk · contribs) (Edited Kargil War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965)

These edits occurred between 20–21 January. Immediately after this activity, the registered account RoyalEnfieldCT was created to continue the exact same POV pushing on these specific pages. It is evident that these temporary accounts are also operated by the indefinitely banned user HarryinLondon. I request that these handles be blocked immediately alongside the sockpuppet accounts to prevent further evasion. Zubarkokar (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Update:Reverting to Banned Revision

Here is the diff evidence showing The Aviation Tracker is strictly enforcing the edits of the now-blocked sockpuppet RoyalEnfieldCT. Today, RoyalEnfieldCT removed content, deleting -1,246 bytes just before being blocked: Diff Link. After their block, I reverted the article to the stable version: Diff Link. Within hours, The Aviation Tracker reverted again to delete the exact same 1,246 bytes, restoring the banned user's version precisely: Diff Link. When the neutral editor SoyokoAnis attempted to fix this, The Aviation Tracker reverted them as well to enforce the banned user's version. They are doing this across multiple pages, which confirms they are proxying for the banned master account. Zubarkokar (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm this and it is very much disruptive. SoyokoAnis - talk 15:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever being the blocking administrator, may I get some clarity on the situation? I am not quite sure what happened but I see the person who made this discussion was blocked per WP:ONESTRIKE and the person who this discussion is about was not blocked at all. I was honestly dragged into this and was just completing some anti-vandalism work. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis The blocks weren't made in light of this discussion. Who this discussion is about is blocked for abusing multiple account, and who started this discussion is also blocked for continuing to do that despite enwiki block for the same reason. BRP ^ever 05:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

That being said, the pages both parties edited have a lot of POV pushing so if someone finds time, it might be worth looking into them and cleaning up. BRP ^ever 05:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete User:Red Cake Cherry Fruit

Please delete that userpage, created by globally locked (and banned) Rgalo10, the filter 87 prevented me from tagging it for speedy deletion. Lenis Felipe (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

it has been blanked, that's plenty Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

VPN IP Block Exemption Request

Hello, I'm SoyokoAnis!

I'm requesting if I could be IP Block exempt for the Simple English Wikipedia. The location I'm at does not allow access to the Wi-Fi unless logged in or bypassed through a VPN for some reason. I believe I make edits that are in trust and do not intend to abuse.

(sent from iPhone, not quite sure where to spend it) SoyokoAnis - talk 15:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis Done for 3 months. Please let me know if you require it further than that. I will extend it then. BRP ^ever 15:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! SoyokoAnis - talk 16:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for page protection

• Daisy Ridley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Excessive vandalism Saroj (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done for one month. Ternera (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

A protect request: Nigger

Hello! I request a protect to the article nigger. That article has many vandalism changes. Thank you! Julius 12345 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now. We only protect articles if it is the only option left. There is quite a lot of vandalism on the page, but not to the stage we can't keep up with it yet. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 10:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I count a total of 18 edits this year. And yes, given the subject matter it is clear that the page will attract some vandalism. Some time back I left a comment on the talk page about the quality and size of our article compared to enwp. I don't think much has been done. Eptalon (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That is good comment. Julius 12345 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for info. Julius 12345 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)