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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Request Semi-protection for Dodgeball

Dodgeball: Vandalism (1 Nov, 12 Nov & 10 Dec) by Cross-wiki abuse (ja:LTA:DODGEBALL). --Y-route (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Please protect this page immediately! --Y-route (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There have been only 3 bad edits today. Before today, there hadn't been any in a week. We semi-protect when the amount of vandalism is hard to keep up with, and that's not the case here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request 3

Hi, Could someone protect Jimmy Wales please as there's been excessive vandalism from one person, The person is on a different IP each day or so so I don't think rangeblocking would be of any use?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, protecting the page for 6 hours was not enough. Depextual (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting, Wonder why it was only protected for 6 hours given it's been vandalised every day as well as having various edits revdelled..... interesting. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stale request. Page hasn't been edited in 2 days. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for flood flag -- Violesse

@Auntof6 Hi can you please give me a flood flag for 1 hour? I am correcting French commune articles which are incorrect/out of date. Please see my edits: Special:Contributions/Violesse. Violesse (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: Please specify exactly what changes you want to do with the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 For all articles in Category:Communes in Aisne which contain "in the region Picardie", I want to change "in the region Picardie" to "in the region Hauts-de-France". That was the task which I was currently working on (in alphabetical order) Violesse (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: OK. I don't know if you've been given the flood flag before, but here are the parameters of using it:

While you have the flag, you can only make the changes it was given to you for, no other changes.
If you finish before the flag expires, you must wait to do other changes until either 1) the flag expires or 2) the flag is removed.

If you agree to that, I can give you the flag. Based on your comment below, it sounds like you might need it for more than one hour. Please confirm how long you would like it. I can't guarantee that I will be here to remove it if you finish early, so you might have to wait. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I have not been given the flood flag before. I now understand the conditions, so thank you for explaining. I would like the flood flag for two hours and I will only make these changes. If I finish early (unlikely) I will make no other changes. Violesse (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: You have the flood flag for 2 hours. Happy editing, and thanks for doing these updates! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Unfortunately the flood flag appears to have failed because the edits are still appearing in Special:RecentChanges. It may be better to remove the flood flag and I can try again a different time. I will not make any more edits now. Violesse (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: Would you try a couple more? I'm wondering if it's related to the fact that I used a custom expiration time instead of one of the standard ones. I just gave you the flag for 3 hours (one of the standard times). If you wouldn't mind just doing 2 or 3 to see if they also show up. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Yes, I'll try. Violesse (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I think they are still in Special:RecentChanges. Violesse (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: Yes, they are. I have removed the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Ok, I'll try again a few days later, but I won't make any more edits like this until then. Violesse (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: If you only do about 100 at a time, you could do them without the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violesse: Also, the number of pages you expect to edit, and how long you think you would need the flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 There are approximately 600-650 pages remaining which need that edit, but I could do them at a rate of 2 per minute for 1 or 2 hours and then stop after the flood flag is removed. Violesse (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any admins are available to give me the flood flag, I would like to have it for one hour to make this exact same set of changes. Violesse (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP attacking other editors, seems like that they switched IPs, they used the edit summary thing to attack other editors, and talk bad about admins

Special:Contributions/41.251.6.232

Special:Contributions/62.122.114.147 🎄 Adelaides lement8723 🎄 20:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation): please remember to use WP:VIP to report vandals in the future. Thank you! BZPN (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelaideslement8723 Chances are this is the "raging lunatic" (see [1]), either way WP:DENY, WP:VIP and repeat pretty much, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your comment, I will remember that next time. 🎄 Adelaides lement8723 🎄 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Semi protect Talk:Pope John Paul II, LTA target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not enough activity to need protection -- only 2 bad edits today, and the last edits before today were almost a week ago. We usually protect only when there is so much vandalism that it's hard to keep up with. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel 2

Hello, could any oversighter revdel this as it's disturbing? Thanks. 2601:402:4400:3A90:36CB:D3:AC7E:DBDF (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I should say that I'm not an oversighter, so I could only change the visibility. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel on Melanie Martinez

Sorry, I don't know how to find the version number on the app, but can you please revdel the IP vandalism on 12 December 2024? It's an invented, but gross, disgusting story about an imaginary child and a real person. Thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 9881823 96.27.136.118 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one, thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Indigo:

Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Thank you so much 😊 ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disable or delete filter 71?

We have global filter 110 which tags article changes that add emojis on most wikis, including here. Filter 71 is outdated but does not allow emojis in articles. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki was draftified until 2025 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_in_Konfrontacja_Sztuk_Walki, but was re-created as an article again shortly after. The page probably needs to be protected from being created again until 2025. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles: It looks like that was on English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia, a separate site. You need to address this on the other site. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I must have gotten here by Google. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Barack Obama

Hello. Please permanently protect the Barack Obama article to a level only for registered users. This article is constantly vandalized (racist, vulgar and offensive texts are added) by various IP editors. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN:

Not done We don't permanently protect articles. We would semi-protect if the amount of vandalism was hard to keep up with, but I don't think that's the case here. In the page history, I see only a few edits on any given day during this month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: don't you think that protecting this page would help reduce vandalism on it and free editors' time for other tasks? These edits are very vulgar (apart from the fact that they should all be hidden along with the edit summaries) and we should not allow such content to regularly appear on this page (and any reader can see it). However, as an administrator, your opinion on this matter is most important - I am not pushing for this article to be protected. Thank you for your reply and best regards, BZPN (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: Yes, I agree that it would be more convenient. However, en:Wikipedia:PREEMPTIVE says this, in part:

Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible.

I do see how this is frustrating. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Import request: Infobox boxer

Hello! Can you please update Template:Infobox boxer importing updates from en:Template:Infobox boxer? Thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Indigo:

Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thank you so much!! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giffari Naufal Arisma Putra

I tagged a new article Giffari Naufal Arisma Putra for QD for lack of notability. The tag has been removed by Laz Adha and 103.157.49.41 three times so far. Could this get reviewed rather than edit-war over the tag? Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted by @Ferien: - thanks for the help! Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subtemplates of Template Precision

Hello admins, can someone please delete all of these? None of them are used anymore and all were deleted on enwiki in 2017, so they are deprecated. They are fully protected so I can't tag them. The doc pages should also be deleted. Depextual (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ferien (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi protection

My talk page. Asteralee recommended me to request it due to persistent sock puppetry. Although I'm not the only one who has been harassed by the same user. Regards, Jet Pilot (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Since it looks like it has been the same IP, I have blocked that IP instead. Report again if the vandalism continues. Also, it's not sock puppetry if it's an IP, because sock puppetry involves registered users. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Jimmy Wales

Please protect Jimmy Wales. The page has been vandalized many times by various IP's since it was last protected on 12 December (for 6 hours only). Depextual (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alright, done for a week --Ferien (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Depextual (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staling the Jats article on one sided WP:POV

Within my due concern i want third party intervention on this insensible and reckless editing within an unpleasant manner by various IP and account are urging to changes this article rapidly and after getting caught from administrator they still phrasing such hooliganism activation all over the same article and making inappropriate Sikhphobic comments to bolting their people dignity without any solid reasonability i think someone need check this reverence around to counter them 103.73.166.137 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection for Dodgeball

Dodgeball (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This page should be semi-protected, preferably for a long term or indefinitely because of persistent vandalism by cross-wiki abuse. (ja:LTA:DODGEBALL) This Cross-wiki LTA repeatedly vandalizes dodgeball-related pages across multiple wiki projects. As a result, some pages have been semi-protected indefinitely in the regular English version. (ex. en:Dodgeball, en:Category:Dodgeball, en:World Dodgeball Federation, en:World Dodgeball Association) Sakura Torch (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for 1 week fr33k man 17:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block request

NO ACTION:

Having consulted another admin elsewhere, it seems creating a new account and editing from them is fine as the user isn't vandalising, misleading, being deceptive etc etc. Regardless of intentions I still very much disagree with this and still believe given the users history they should be limited to one account but it seems I'm very much in the minority with this so I'm closing this as to stop this being a further timesink.

I will never understand why this is okay, how this meets en:WP:SOCKLEGIT or why Ade shouldn't be limited to one account but that's a me problem apparently.

I'm exhausted from all of this and truth be told the time spent fighting over this could be better spent on articles.

I just think it's ludicrous that someone who has a history of socking basically gets a free pass to repeat that history again here but I've done my bit here, If no one sees a problem then that's fine, Just don't come running to me when this blows up in your face and this user is found with 10-20 hidden socks!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adelaideslement8723 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Hi, Could someone block ~~both accounts~~ Jayden Johnson 2314 please as they're still using both accounts for no reason, This user has been blocked for the exact same reason at Enwiki (socking and CIR),

I did file a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser but I guess in hindsight that was the incorrect venue as I wasn't requesting a CU, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I AM NOT SOCKING!! YOU JUST WANT TO BLOCK ME FOR NO REASON AT ALL!! >:( Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CAN BLOCK MY OTHER BUT NOT MY MAIN ACCOUNT AS WELL!! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I have been making good edits! You can check my contributions! SO CIR DOES NOT EVEN APPLY HERE! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayden Johnson 2314You are violating the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry rule. You said on Davey2010’s talk page that you were highly aware [of the guideline]. You have also been using both accounts at the same time. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 18:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS HIGHLY AWARE OF THE GUIDELINE!! I KNWO THE RULES! :( Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I DIDNT MEAN TO VIOLAE IT I AM A YOUNG EDITOR! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your age, you are still meant to follow the rules. ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 18:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS! UNTIL @Davey2010 REPORTED ME FOR NO APPARENT REASON THIS HAPPEND AT THE CHECK USER REQUEST AND NOW HERE AT THE ANB?! WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to a block of both accounts, though I would want to emphasize for Jayden Johnson 2314/Adelaideslement8723: unlike most other websites, on Wikipedia we want people to use only one account. It's ok to have a secondary account, but not ok to be editing from multiple accounts at once. Also...replying in all caps and in this style is very unlikely to result in people thinking that your participation on Wikipedia is constructive. Collaboration is a big part of Wikipedia, and that involves engaging constructively with people who have concerns about your conduct. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
@Vermont Thank you :') Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sorry for typing in all caps, its just that I am very frustrated... Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock is now resorting to commenting using IPs[2][3]. It's clear we're being trolled and it needs to stop. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THAT IS WHEN I ACCIDETALLY LOGGED MYSELF OUT! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 You said in your edit summary "Get the F out of my talk page"

YOURE CUSSING ME OUT!! Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me perhaps stress the following: the user has adsmitted to being both accounts; having multiple accounts is not forbidden... Eptalon (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I never said it wasn't but that's besides the point, please can you state which criteria of en:WP:SOCKLEGIT applies to this user ?,

And for the record if more than one account was acceptable don't you think their 10 accounts on Enwiki would not have been indeffed?. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 I am really sorry of what I said and bombarding your talk page, I didn't really mean it, just listen, what you said in your edit summary really set me off. I was so frustrated, I am pretty sure you are too. I hope we can call truce to each other, there is no need to fight. And yes @Eptalon I only have two accounts for legit use only. I am not socking so please don't block me. 𝙹.𝙹.𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜 📬📧 04:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is still using both accounts, I've gone through en:Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts and all of the accounts there are AWB, Public (shared computer), Doppelganger, WMUK etc etc etc, Whilst the user isn't vandalising the project or doing things they shouldn't be they still don't have a valid reason for using this account either and so the JJ account should still be blocked,

If we're not going to action this then can someone please explain why as they clearly don't meet the SOCKLEGIT criteria, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:16, 22 December 2024 (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.

Sock on Simple English Wikipedia

Socks via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder are continuously targeting my talk page here, the latest being Zjholder29912Mjforrest. Two requests:

1. Could this new sock please be blocked?

2. Could my talk page here please be protected? I don't really use Simple English Wikipedia all that much, so if a permanent protection on my talk page is at all possible to prevent any more sock issues on my talk page, I would not be opposed to that at all.

Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now back with a new account at 29912Theshavia. Magitroopa (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Zjholder now as well. Please put a stop to this. Magitroopa (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shut up I'm not Zjholder (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done MathXplore (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end RfD closures...

Hello, We currently have quite a few open RfDs. As I don't know how well the system handles closing RfDs that started last year, we should try closing as many of them as possible before the year ends. Eptalon (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to close RfDs that started last year. Admins can resolve any issues with closures by simply entering a custom delete reason by creating their own link to the RfD they've closed to delete the article in the edit summary, which has become increasingly done recently with grouped RfDs and so on. If we're feeling ultra lazy... we could create a new deletion reason prefilling a variable of "current year-1" for these half a dozen of RfDs that will be overdue by 1 January? :P --Ferien (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Bhumibol Adulyadej

Hello. Please protect this page at a level only for registered users. It has been constantly vandalized for months - IP editors introduce false information that constantly has to be reverted. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Protected for three months (autoconfirmed) Eptalon (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BZPN (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Pope John Paul II

Reason: Repeated vandalism by IP editor.

Pope John Paul II ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 18:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The vandalism has stopped but you can look at the history [[4] here, it shows that the IP has vandalized a lot of the page, and I have reverted some of it, so did other editors, and this IP is using edit summary to attack other editors. ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 18:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The long-term abuse on the page has stopped for the time being, but I will keep a watch on it. With this editor, it is best to avoid protection, as he'll then boast about him "winning the battle" and will go around harassing a bunch of other editors through other methods. --Ferien (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Ferien Okay thank you. ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 13:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive Spices

Invasive Spices (talk · contribs) has been active here since November 2023, shortly after they were blocked indefinitely on enwiki for "Persistent creation of unhelpful redirects despite many being deleted at WP:RfD, and repeated personal attacks against RfD nominators". Some of the redirects they've created recently have been taken to RfD and I'm concerned that the pattern is repeating itself. I don't mind as much a discussion at RfD, but their responses recently at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Coercive sterilization of Native American women are crossing the line into WP:HOUNDING and WP:NPA. Specifically, [5], [6] and [7]feels more like hounding than a good faith discussion. Their responses at [8] are hostile, show bad faith and again are more hounding and hostile than healthy discussion. This needs to stop from Invasive Spices. While it's not always fun to see someone disagree with your perspective, it's part of the Wikipedia process and hostility like this does not help the goal of working together to improve the project. Ravensfire (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation):Yeah, I saw invasive spices's supposed "CE" when it was actually a hostile response. Which I would totally remove. because hostile comments like that are not okay, and they scare away users who are trying to help out the project. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 03:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Chenzw, Griffinofwales, Ferien, Lee Vilenski, BZPN who have commented at the RFD discussions mentioned above. Ravensfire (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) I agree it is getting increasingly concerning. I engaged with the editor in a few of those RfDs and noticed the same trend. For what it's worth, I think it is very unbecoming to essentially stalk an editor's past edits, and use them to call out alleged hypocrisy in an unrelated RfD. It would have been a different matter had those diff links contributed anything substantive to the RfD, but I don't think they did, and that is going into the NPA territory. Chenzw Talk 04:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) The editing pattern is bizarre. As they were blocked on enwiki for similar behaviour, maybe we need to remind them that WP:ONESTRIKE exists. And, if you do look through the links they provide, most of them are nonsense, and a lot of the arguments they make are also nonsense. Apparently raising RfDs is against WP:NOT... Somehow.

Personally, I think they are not here to create an encyclopedia. I don't think those redirects are worth much, Wikipedia search is capable of searching for a term without these overkill redirects. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ravensfire for raising this issue. It seems to me that this user simply wants to continue his disruptive behavior on simplewiki because he has been blocked on enwiki. I think it's WP:NOTHERE, and we should follow WP:ONESTRIKE. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Regarding the NOT issue, I believe what they were trying to point out is the guideline mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives: The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). However, as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Coercive sterilization of Native American women, while a redirect does not fall under WP:NOT, not being on WP:NOT (note the double negative) does not necessarily mean that said RfD is groundless. If we were to interpret WP:NOT and only WP:NOT when considering RfDs, then all virtually all redirects would be immune to the RfD process, which would be an absurd conclusion. Chenzw Talk 09:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But that just says "main guidelines". We generally use enwiki's guidelines where we don't have our own. W:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion could maybe be imported or a version of it simplified to have it here. Specifically w:WP:RFD#DELETE point 8 is the one that most redirects for deletion topics end up at.

Realistically, though, the issue is with the editing history. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per WP:ONESTRIKE, a textbook case in my view. Almost identical behaviour as they were blocked for on en. --Ferien (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Moore

Archie Moore (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 14:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection would likely just move him along to other pages. Watching recent changes and bot rollbacking to hide the editor from it when I can. --Ferien (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks 👍 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 14:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pope John Paul II

Semi protection, longer than a month due to longterm LTA target. See also relevant abuselogs. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on this page that generally gets very little attention would likely move the editor onto mainspace pages that affect our readers more, therefore

Not done --Ferien (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Hi, Could someone move Seven & i Holdings to Seven & I Holdings please as per enwiki, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like on enwiki there was a discussion and there wasn't much more than "retain what we already have". If we had a similar RM, then we'd retain it how it is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski I had no idea an RM was done but either way I'm not seeing where the problem is ? .... Enwiki has the article as "Seven & I Holdings" so it's common sense just to follow suit?.... If Enwiki changes it to the lowercase i then sure we should follow suit with that too,

It seems nonsensical to have the enwiki article as Seven & I Holdings and we have it as Seven & i Holdings.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) We don't have to match exactly, I do think we should have a discussion, and not just blindly follow what other wikis do. From looking at the last RM, observers suggested that around half of sources used an uppercase I, and others just "i".

There was no consensus to move in that case. From looking at a few sources, it seems to me that the uppercase I is more of an anglaphone interpretation than anything else. I'd personally suggest that we go with whatever the company calls themselves in these cases. That's obviously difficult because it's a Japanese brand. There logo is clearly that of a lowercase "i", and the company website in English suggests it is too.

Happy to move if someone has a strong feeling on this, as it's clear a lot of sources use the uppercase I. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't but it makes just to follow them, Seems daft to have the enwiki article at one name and Simple at another. "it's clear a lot of sources use the uppercase I" .... so your comment here is pointless then?, If you have a problem with the name you're more than welcome to file a request at RM or start an RM at enwiki, Whilst we're not enwiki I still don't believe we should be mismatched with enwiki for the sake of it,

I should also point out in case no one's aware this isn't a RM request, Seven & I Holdings redirects to 7-Eleven, Seven & i Holdings is an article, I guess technically Seven & I Holdings could redirect to the lowercase i but again we shouldn't be mismatched, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts here..

In general, I think it's a good idea to follow enWP. (WP:FOLLOW)
Our MOS does not provide guidance on this subject.
The enWP guideline MOS:TMRULES says Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".
Both the Seven and i and Seven and I articles should point to the same place.
As stated in the enWP RM, there is not a consistent use of "and i" or "and I" in sources (this appears to be still true).
This is more appropriate for a ST/talk page discussion rather than AN.

With all that being said, I believe that per points 1 and 2, we should move the article to match enWP unless the community believes that we should update our own MOS to use the local language's formatting, something I would not be against. Griff (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for a template

Hello! As of now, {{Strongly support}} displays Strong support ("Strong support"), but Template:Strong support is a red link. The template can only be moved by admins, so can you move it for me? Please and thank you :) :D ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) I've turned it into a redirect, so it'll show up when used. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]