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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Requesting protection for Bashar al-Assad

Recently, there's been edits of unsourced material regarding Bashar al-Assad's living status. There is no confirmation of his death and seeing how the article is the center of an ongoing political event, I suggest protecting the article to avoid further BLP violations. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

protected, for two weeks. I don't want to prevent people from adding useful info, yes there has been some vandalism. Eptalon (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)

Looking at the history of Kamariya Ahir (Yadav), many of the edits to the article seem to be disruptive, including vandalism and edit warring. Additionally, I found that an RFD was started on the article last month, and the notice was removed by one of the article's primary authors. The main editors that I have seen engage in these kinds of edits are Nlkyair012 and an IP-hopping user, using IPs that start with 2409:40d0 and 2401:4900, with the most recent IP they have used being 2409:40D0:1027:8289:8D70:FA7:992F:D230 (clarification: Nlkyair012 has been engaging in constructive editing, as they are the one reverting disruptive editing on the page by the latter IP, although they have been involved in content disputes that would be better handled with discussions, while the IP has more of a history of disruptive editing, such as section/article blanking and redirecting without consensus).

If any action can be taken to stop the disruption on this article and determine whether it should be kept, as well as what should be done with it in order to restore it the way it was before disruption started, that would be appreciated. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) edited 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello sir, after an RfD for issued against this page it was clearly mentioned that the administrators will close the RfD after a week but they didn’t. So I thought maybe I should simply remove it from there and I’m sorry for that🙏🏻. The thing is that i was so constantly trying to make that page as detailed and accurate as possible and not to mention I was the one who expanded the page at the first sight, but unfortunately some people(ones you mentioned above except 2401:4900) were trying to vandalise the page so I was naturally trying to protect my work and whatever they were doing on the page you can clearly see that they were doing it out of jealousy or something and whatever I’ve done to the page are cited with very strong evidence, news articles and books that make the article very detailed and accurate. I asked @BRPever to kindly look at the cites and sources I’ve used and to protect the lock the page (as I’m not the creator of the article i cant do that ) ,and to improve the page, verify the infos of the page that are good sources, to remove the RfD and block the ip of the potential vandalisers on the article page. Nlkyair012 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWx - could you please put a link (in this thread), to the last article-version that you think is okay? 2001:2020:359:C5B6:10C3:7669:B5B0:9ADF (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been the last stable version of the article. However, a lot more content was added to the article following this version here, which has since been heavily disputed (example diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, also including attempts to redirect the article at 5, 6). I will note that @Nlkyair012: you have made constructive edits to the article by reverting the disruptive editing that these IPs have tried to make to this article, including their attempts to redirect the page without consensus, and that the IPs have used vandalistic edit summaries, such as this one when attempting to blank portions of the article or redirect it, but there seem to be so many disputes regarding the article's content that the article has remained unstable since the large content addition.

I originally added this entry to AN following my reversion of what looked to be vandalism on the page, and I was attempting to restore it to a pre-vandalized version (seeing the formatting errors that were still present on the page) when I came across this complicated editing history, and went here in the hopes that an administrator could perhaps figure out and deal with what was going on and restore it to a stable version. One thing I strongly suggest that Nlkyair and the IP editor(s) do is to use the talk page to come to a consensus of what should be done on this article. This would prevent further reverts and disruptive actions from being taken, and would result in changes that more people would agree with. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir i totally understood all your point, thank you once again for concerning about this article Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put light on this matter too, one of the IP editors, @2405:201:600f:f17b:a1d4:92d4:6d3a:738b used a deteriorating word when he/she vandalised the article by saying “Jhaat kuch nahi hain hampe”(here) that’s an abusive term in Hindi language. I expanded the article vert hardly and these kind of Ip editors on a rage bait try to destroy the whole page. I would kindly request any administrator to kindly lock protect the page, block such ip users and kindly help in improving the article further. Thankyou 🙏🏻 Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Please see,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamariya_Ahir_(Yadav)&oldid=9933208
.--If that talk-page edit was okay, then fine. 2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection request for Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)

Hello there, Could someone please protect Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) please as several of IPs keeps on vandalising this article, all of them consist of personal attacks either towards the subjects of articles or other users. And kindly add me as I was the one who was preventing the article from vandalism by revdel and expanded the whole article on the first sight so I might further add/update more in that page.

Thankyou— Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest: 1) Put the article to the following stable version, This version. 2) After one week, we take a look at semi-protection, if we want to start with that, then. 2001:2020:315:A1B8:8E:4F08:E72:8C72 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir many admins has noted that I’ve done a pretty good work in handling the article even as a new man. And id also say that the stable version you are talking about is pretty much nothing.This is the best possible, most accurate and stable version according to me and more detailed and backed with detailed sources is more good ig? Except the vandalisers come and try to ruin this page its pretty much stable and I’ll be putting the protection notice down back for extra attention by other working and online admin thankyou for concerning. Nlkyair012 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend moving this conversation back to the talk page of the article, rather than discussing this matter here. @Nlkyair012: I do support protection of the article if consensus is to keep it, as disruptive behavior from IPs has persisted for some time, though also be careful not to refer to people who just disagree with your viewpoints as "vandals". People constructively discussing their different viewpoints on a certain topic, or how they think an article should look, is allowed, and is often how people come to a consensus on Wikipedia. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 21:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion to open a discussion on the Kamariya Ahir Yadav article’s talk page. I’ve now started the discussion as you advised, and I’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to review it. Your input would be valuable in helping guide the discussion and ensure a constructive outcome.

Here’s the link to the discussion: Talk:Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) page.

Looking forward to your feedback and guidance.

Best regards,

— Nlkyair012 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is a mess and needs a lot of work. There are more than 70 references where most of them are just bare mentions in the list. Clearly lacks significant and reliable sources. It will be better as a redirect with some mentions in the Yadav or Ahir.--BRP^ever 10:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha man why are you so concerned about this page? I feel personal attack from you at this point many admins have gone through the page and its sources they verified and improved the page a lot and eliminated the “mess” you are talking about. Please don’t do this it’s a request the page is good as it is and I’ve seen you coping by saying not reliable source and etc but you never actually went through many of em. Not every source can be detailed and stuff some are detailed and some or brief mentions. And i also saw you not replying to the RfD page anymore? Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry for rude behaviour sir but you know it’s frustrating as hell when you did something very carefully, accurately and putting all efforts someone tried to say oh this is not right or like vandalising the page even when it’s all right and with NPOV. I have mentioned you in my topic on discussion over Talk:Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) kindly put your thoughts over there thankyou and sorry again for not being professional Nlkyair012 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you pinged me above. I have no intention or time to be involved in every case, as I have much of other things to do as the year comes to close. I am at this point very annoyed because someone moved the page while the RFD was ongoing, and many other users just keep on removing the template from the page without even reading what's in the template. And someone comes and tells me I am personally attacking them. I am requesting another admin to review the discussions about this going further and stepping back.-- BRP^ever 11:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, may you have a nice day

— Nlkyair012 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection request for Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)

Hello there, Could someone please protect Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) please as several of IPs keeps on vandalising this article, all of them consist of personal attacks either towards the subjects of articles or other users. And kindly add me as I was the one who was preventing the article from vandalism by revdel and expanded the whole article on the first sight so I might further add/update more in that page Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate if this thing would’ve gotten done as the vandalism on this page is getting out of hands, I’d really request @MathXplore for a favour to kindly do this for me, and I’ll also add to the discussion page of Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) the proofs to support , and will make sure that I tag you there. cheers and have a nice day

— Nlkyair012 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nlkyair012: Semi-protected for a month. I also removed the RFD notice, because no corresponding RFD exists. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, @Auntof6. I am incredibly grateful for your action in semi-protecting the page, as it has truly relieved a lot of my stress. Knowing that the page is safeguarded for the next month allows me to focus on improving it further without worrying about potential disruptions.

Once the current protection period expires, and after I’ve spent the next month working to make the article as perfect, stable, and comprehensive as possible, I may kindly request your assistance again to consider permanent protection for the page.

Thank you once again for your support, and I hope you have a wonderful day!

Best regards,

- Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nlkyair012: We don't permanently protect articles. After the current protection expires, if there is repeated persistent vandalism again, then you can ask for the article to be protected again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir Nlkyair012 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I’d also like to inform that an RfD did exist already for that page but due to the moving of page from Kamaria to Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) has made a confusion on RfD page. The current RfD page exists in here. I don't really know why the RfD didn’t close at 16 November 2024 on which the date it was due to be closed on. 3 people are leaning towards keeping the page and 2 on deleting. If possible I request you to kindly look at the matter, either delete the RfD or delete the page.

Thank You, — Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

IP keeps creating promotional, spam articles after being warned

Special:Contributions/2401:D800:2C0F:8A4:580:52E0:D2E7:8E8 ☆ Adelaides lement8723 ☆ 03:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And along with that, I put them all up for deletion. ☆ Adelaides lement8723 ☆ 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done MathXplore (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ☆ Adelaides lement8723 ☆ 04:11, 12 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

Hello. I’d like to request the temporary flood flag to remove the shortdesc template from several dozen articles. One hour should be more than enough to complete it. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: I can give it to you for an hour if you're still around. Please confirm that you're around. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: Also, how many articles are you talking about? If it's not more than about 100, you can go ahead without the flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6, of course there are less than 100. My request resulted from the fact that in the meantime, Violesse was massively editing without a flag, and I didn't want to additionaly clutter up the RC. Thank you for your reply. And in such a case, access to AWB would be useful (I wrote about it on the appropriate page, so I can connect this task to it). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: OK, it sounds like you don't need the flag, then. Let us know if you need it in the future. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 13 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]

Unprotect request

Can someone please unprotect my userpage User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archives/2023. --IWI (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 13 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]