Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 50

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

I stumbled across a poor article Hagramayao Jinahari. It is a notable film, so I cleaned it up and referenced it. However, it is almost certainly the work of an indefinitely blocked editor on English Wikipedia who also edits under IPs beginning with 182.66. The editor was blocked for repeatedly creating very poor (and possibly very wrong) articles, many of them on non-notable subjects or apparent dictionary entries and no references. They are all related to the Bodo people. The editor then resorted to sockpuppetry. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jekhai Narzary/Archive. One of the socks is now active here and I'm not quite sure what to do about the following articles which seem very poor and mostly unsavable. Tag for speedy deletion? Redirect?

Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at three of these with some disquiet. They are basically very poor, but not simple fits into our QD's. The subject-matter was so far from my own experience that I decided not to act. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think we could put Agarbad and Jekhai up at WP:AfD on the grounds of "dicdef" relatively easily.
With respect to the other three pages, in an ideal world, someone would take whatever useful information is in the articles, merge them into Bodo people, and try to build out a reasonable, if short, article. Enwiki has some fairly broad articles on the topic (e.g., en:Bodo people, en:Bodo culture), and at least the first even seems to have a neutral POV. But this is so far from my experience that I, like Mac, could not possibly take it on. So the question is whether you, Voceditenore, could take that on or not.
Alternatively, we could take the three to AfD on grounds of no claim of notability. Since these are not "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites", they do not meet the QD criterion. But they still make no claim of notability, and therefore are subject to deletion after AfD. Thoughts, Mac? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just put Agarbad and Jekhai up for deletion on the grounds of "dicdef". I'm not ready to move on anything else until I hear some further opinions. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should be put up. But something people on this wiki seem to often forget is that WP:DICDEF doesn't just mean a sentence describing a concept, that in fact is allowed by dicdef. What Dicdef disallows is an entry that looks like it would be in a dictionary and is usually just a meaning of a word or phrase. Something the English version of the page has that makes it more clear is "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." Agarbad for example is about a concept, its not just a word being described so it isn't really a dicdef. Dicdef is actually meant to prevent wiktionary type articles from being created here instead of there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a closer look at these and was able to create some sense out of Bad (Bodo: बाद) which I have moved to Bad (Bodo culture). A "bad" is a social offense in the Bodo culture, of which there are five categories or types. Agarbad is just one of them and should be deleted or redirected to that article. I can later merge List of Bodo religions into Bodo people, after I've made some sense of it. List of Garja gods is currently nonsensical. Something might be made of it and added to Bodo people. The problem is this editor is simply going to create more and more terrible articles like this. His English is very very poor. He refuses to read guidance pages (or cannot understand them). On English Wikipedia he created 10 articles before he was finally blocked and then 14 more with his sockpuppet. All of those articles have been deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I have earlier on deleted Ronjoy Brahma (poet) per QD A4, and left a note on the editor's talk page. Given the previous history on EN, I am going to take a rather dim view on this, and will not hesitate to proceed with a block if necessary. Chenzw  Talk  12:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

Hi can you give me a rollback right? you can see my all changes for see how I fighting against vandalism on Simple Wikipédia. The tools are very important for me, to fighting vandalism and reduise time for undo a vandalism-change. Apipo1907 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already requested at the appropriate place Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback and were denied. If you want to revist that decision please go comment there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso That is like a new request Apipo1907 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are doing it in the wrong place. As I said go there and comment on the request that you want it reconsidered. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AgentSuperGuy

Hi ! yesterday this user was blocked, to doy he ask his unblock with intimidete or insulting others users. Can you that's possible, change parametres of his block log? Apipo1907 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find his unblock request intimidating or insulting. I think the parameters can stay as they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this talk page of his editor. Apipo1907 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the talk page. I just declined the unblock request there. He/she is angry, sure, but I don't see anything worse. There are no threats or insults that I can see. The block is indefinite, and I think we can leave it at that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Auntof6 when he write in resumy box « I think is fucking fucking rude » or « Unblock me right now » Apipo1907 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wasn't looking at the page history or edit summaries. I have hidden all the ones I saw, and I'll warn him that he'll lose his talk page access if he does that again. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 thanks you for your good work in this wiki Apipo1907 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke

Hi can you delete or remove all pages create by User:2600:1004:b14f:38f5:1080:5cd e:4da4:f163? Apipo1907 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Apipo1907: I don't see any changes at all here by that IP. Can you link to one of the pages you want deleted? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see them: I couldn't find them because you gave the IP address with lower-case letters. The software here apparently wants them in upper case. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School Project

Hi, I'm a teacher and Wikipedian looking to start a school project on Simple English Wikipedia. Are there any administrators who would be able to advise and guide me through this process. I have no issues instructing the students on how to write and edit pages, but I need guidance and help to create accounts and general policy. Thanks in advance, FruitMonkey (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:FruitMonkey. Have you read Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide and Wikipedia:Schools/Projects? Those would give you some help. It would help us respond to your request if you tell us more about your project. Here are some things that would be helpful to know:
  • How many students will there be?
  • How much assistance do you expect to need from adminstrators?
  • Will each student create his/her own account, or will the accounts be created for them? If the latter, you might want to ask an administrator to create them, because there are limits to how many can be created by non-administrators.
  • When is the project expected to start? To end?
  • What times of day will the students be editing? (Be sure to indicate the time zone, since we have users all over the world.)
  • Is there a subject area for your project?
  • Will the students be working directly on "live" articles from the start, or will they work in sandbox pages first?
That information plus general information on how the project will be conducted would help the admins determine who would be a good match for your project. I look forward to hearing back from you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: I see that you have made only two edits here. I highly recommend doing some work here yourself before starting your school project. We have had other teachers come here to do a project only to find that some things here are different from other Wikipedias. In some cases, none of the students' work was acceptable, and it resulted in frustration all around. Even people participating in class projects have to follow the policies and guidelines here. Besides needing to use simple language (see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages for info on that), Here is a list I made of some of the ways Simple English Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias. If you have any questions, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mudasir18

Please block, spam only account, already banned on enwiki, metawiki and mediawiki--HakanIST (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think blocking is called for here. I see the following kinds of changes from this user
  • Adding references pointing to English Wikipedia: this is not allowed, and they were reverted.
  • Adding links to support sites on software pages: since the links were from the company that produces the software, I don't see a problem with that. It would be a problem if the user were adding links to an independent support site, but I did not see that.
  • Adding phone numbers of support lines for the product the article is about. Again, I don't see a problem with this, at least not to the level of calling it spam.
Some of the user's additions were badly formatted, so that was a problem. The only things I see that I consider problems were using Wikipedia as a reference. We can tell the user that it's not allowed to do that, and that's all I think is needed right now. I certainly didn't see anything that I think was spam. If you think I missed something, please point it out. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:Auntof6 , I don't think phone numbers are official support lines for the product, as same number is added to different brands and products. Googling the phone # show it's part of a collective promotional effort. I haven't called the number but I doubt that it has a place in anywhere on wikipedia--HakanIST (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the account indef - this is spambot behaviour, or a user who is trying to be funny by pretending to be a spambot. I am quite surprised that the global abuse filters didn't block those edits. Chenzw  Talk  11:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange category

The category "Pages using ISBN magic links" should not be appearing on our pages, yet it does. I leave this to those who understand the underlying magic... Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tracking category, and its contents are automatically populated by MediaWiki. Articles are being placed into this category mainly due to the use of the ISBN in ref templates (also see mw:Help:Magic links). I have designated it as a hidden category. Chenzw  Talk  11:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey admins, I recently made an application of having the rollback tool please see[[1]] since no one hasn't yet responded. Thank you -- Purple Lamborghini1738 13:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will get to it when they have time to check all your edits. It may have been missed due to the long request after it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Editor

92.12.208.200 is editing a lot of articles relating to Pakistan - could be the Pakistan editor. J991 18:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP: Drake

Please protect the highly-vandalized page about Drake (entertainer). Also consider a possible move to Drake (musician) in line with en:Drake (musician). Thanks, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No protection needed for now: the vandalism has been only today, and seems to have stopped. Only two users were involved; one has been blocked and the other has had appropriate warnings. As for renaming, I created a redirect for the alternate title. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just resumed today. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only once, the anti-vandism bot reverted it right away, and it was several hours ago. We use semi-protection only when it becomes difficult to keep up with the vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has resumed again - and the changes have been hidden - clearly a sign of action needed to be taken ASAP. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the work of a single individual, so I have placed a 2 week anon-only (account creation enabled) block on the /44 IPv6 range for now. Neither this rangeblock nor page protection appears to be a viable long-term solution - a /44 range is larger than a typical end-user allocation, and page protection will probably deny editing to other well-meaning anonymous editors. Chenzw  Talk  17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And once more - from yet another IPv6 beginning with "2600:1..." which means we could be seeing block evasion! << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You drive me crazy

Put up several articles for quick deletion from Special:Contributions/8.34.154.26. Guessing it's the same editor as an IP from yesterday who created Vermilion Bird but I can't find the address for that one. Both created several pages with "You drive me crazy when you start to tease
 You could bring the devil to his knees". Since it could be different admins who handled the qd's I wanted to bring attention to it here. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something we need to do about this? I saw those: it looked like it was a quotation from a song. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the quantity I thought there might be a block for one, I just wanted to make sure you all knew there were two. Not much good to only deal with one part of the problem. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney vandal is back

After big range blocks and locking down pages stopped the Disney vandal, these have started expiring, and it is no surprise that he/she is back. Once again, please block on sight, don't waste time with warnings, and lock pages down again. Maybe we need to look at locking and blocking for three months or more.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remind us what behavior to watch out for? I have a few children's movies on my watchlist because I've seen repeated problems with them, but I'm not sure if it's the same sort of thing you're talking about. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should also invite our non-admin users to report right away when they see this. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Common behaviour is to change the composer, or to add actors. A quick check of enwiki, or IMDB, or sometimes the actor/composers website will show no evidence of their involvement. Be suspicious of any change to a children's movie. I'll put a note on Simple talk too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I definitely see that from time to time. Thanks for the reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning , I've ran into it on this , and wasn't sure about prior edit. reverted both.--HakanIST (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkeybutt JC block evasion

This IP is User:Turkeybutt JC evading the block placed on them here. English Wikipedia talkpage and block log confirms it. In fact, the IP was blocked here before, but they're still at it. J991 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not disputing articles' neutralities or other NPOVist garbage anymore. I don't know whether the Standard Offer applies to other Wikipedias or if talk page edits didn't count (for if I just wanted to ask a question) I was worried I could get blocked again. :( -- 67.162.203.107 (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you are blocked, you are not allowed to make any edit, even on talk pages, except to ask to be unblocked, even if you are not logged in. However, I see that your (Turkeybutt JC's) block includes not being allowed to edit your talk page, so the only way you can ask for an unblock is to send email to the administrators' mailing list. I have blocked this IP again, but that doesn't mean that it's OK to edit from it when that block ends. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a history of refusing (or choosing to ignore) well-intentioned advice from other editors, be in on this wiki or on EN. I would recommend future evasion attempts to be enforced with a block (+preventing talk page access). Chenzw  Talk  02:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries

I think List of countries might need protection again. Lots of reverts today, and IPs are removing content with no reason. J991 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 requests

At Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes the advice says "Sports people are may be notable if they have". I don't want to edit it because I'm not sure if it is supposed to be "are" or "may be". Can one of you change it to the correct one?

Also on the QD template is it possible to add a note something like "It is nice to let the page creator know about the deletion request. You can notify them by adding {{?... to their Talk page". I have no idea what the template is but I know other people use one. I can't be the only one who doesn't know the template for the talk page. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should say may be. All sub-notability criteria are just rules of thumb on when something is likely to be notable. Heck even the grand daddy "WP:N" only indicates likely notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Donald Trump

Mr. Trump is going to be a hot vandal topic for the coming years. Please protect his page indef to be safe. Thanks << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I agree, we have a duty to protect hi-viz BLPs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Gadget Geek: Please note that we do not indefinitely protect pages like this. Mac has semi-protected the article for three months, which last until after the inauguration and early part of the next presidential term. After that, we can re-evaluate if necessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Resp.SIR/Madam, can i write my details? just like as a any renound person's information available in wiki. can i write my details or my hobby or share my knowledge? — This unsigned comment was added by Dhiru jagdale (talk • changes) at 06:11, 17 December 2016‎.

@Dhiru jagdale: Hello, and welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. Are you asking if you can write an article about yourself? That is usually not a good idea. If you meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, it's better for someone else to write the article.
If you're asking if you can write about things you know, the answer is yes, but you would need to use reliable sources in the article. If you don't use reliable sources, then what you write might be considered original research, and that is not allowed.
I recommend reading the pages that I linked here, so that you can learn about the guidelines and policies related to creating articles here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen

The Evergreen page is written poorly, and the author doesn't seem to care. I don't know enough about evergreens to change it, so wondered whether you could change or delete that page MiloDenn (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by MiloDenn (talk • changes) at 18:01, 22 December 2016.[reply]

Joseph Fritz Vandalism

I have just had to undo a large portion of vandalism on the Joseph Fritz page from the ip 2A02:C7F:1E3F:600:A02D:EE03:D286:26CE. Since it is such a sensitive topic I think you should place some kind of block on the page to stop this kind of vandalism. MiloDenn (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We usually protect pages only if the vandalism is so frequent that we're having trouble keeping up with it. In this case, all of this user's edits were within a short period, it has all been reverted, and they seem to have stopped editing, at least for now, so I don't believe protection is warranted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this - I can see the logic in that MiloDenn (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins' noticeboard talk page

There are a lot of things on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard that should have been on this page instead. What would my fellow admins think of archiving those things to the archives of this page, and fully protecting the talk page? Anything that would be appropriate there could just as well be discussed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that. I was mostly thinking out loud to lay out the arguments to support you. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I set this up. I protected the talk page, moved the two recent sections to this page, put the archiving template on the talk page so that all the remaining sections woukd be archived, and changed the verbiage at the top of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎66.87.151.87

He is harrasing me and changing my talk page by blanking itMiloDenn (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mac has blocked, and I semi-protected your talk page. By the way, the place to report vandalism is WP:BIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm me so that I can access my talk page. I think that ‎66.87.151.87 was the guy who read harrasing me earlier, just operating from a different ip, as he also created a page of a user that doesn't exist, but which the other guy also created(Anthony Bradbury), and he attacked the guy who blocked him(badwoski)MiloDenn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have the authority to do that (not all admins can do that). You can request at WP:AN, but we don't often do that. Another option is that I can unprotect the page, and we just deal with the IP-hopping user. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thats fine. I don't really need it, as long as its only for a day. Thanks a lot, MiloDenn (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing argument

Moved from here to Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages because this is a community subject, not just an administrator subject. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Request

May I ask one of my fellow admins to admonish the editor who made this edit? As the target of the comments, I might not be the appropriate person to address it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on this users talk page [2] . -- Enfcer (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing end-of-year RfDs (deletes only)

Reminder: if an RfD is opened in one year and closed as delete in the following year, we can't use the standard generated reason as the delete reason; we have to manually enter the link to the RfD page when doing the delete. This is because the standard reason given in the drop down options is generated using the current year, whether or not there is such a request. RfDs closed as kept are not affected. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when entering the delete reason for these, you enter the page name of the RfD in brackets, so that it gives a link to the RfD. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vandal behavior

Special:Contributions/63.143.234.191 and Special:Contributions/63.143.233.79 seem to be the same person. Besides the article creation, there are additions to some articles. They seem to be a mix of made-up and factual information. Wanted to call attention because the made-up stuff can get hidden by the other changes. --Tbennert (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have rangeblocked 63.143.232.0/21. It is likely that this is also the same person behind another IP range including 108.5.71.19, 108.5.65.250. The person has been known for repeated EN copy-pastes and addition of unsourced ethnicity information en masse. Chenzw  Talk  01:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

Could someone please review my request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Also would it be possible to add a note on the Project Page saying "To request permission to use AutoWikiBrowser see the Talk page"? Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Would it be possible to change the line about signature on Template:Welcome to "Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or using four tildes (~~~~); this will show your username and the date."? This is used on other welcome templates and I think it helps users pay attention to the top bar. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Done A very sensible suggestion.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur vandal

There have been a large number of edits from IP Special:Contributions/82.32.50.222 on dinosaurs. Some of these are just blatant vandalism or hoaxes. Some however maybe real. I have currently blocked the IP. The easy solution is to simply revert all changes, the harder path is to check each one. Enwiki has decided to revert them all, which is what I am suggesting we should do too. IF anyone else has the time or ability to fix the pages, I won't do anything for about 48 hours. Please feel free to comment.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some pages on dinosaur edits, I mean some edits on dinosaur pages -- that were made by an IP. And although they looked good to me, I suppose you think they are vandalism? Computer Fizz (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason there seem to be lots of edits on Dinosaurs going on at the moment, from a couple of different IPs. While some are good, others are as Computer Fizz says hoaxes or vandalism. MiloDenn (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2405:204:A087:E714:357A:8601:1162:2120

There are a number of vandalism edits going on with this user. He keeps making inappropriate pages such as XQUIZEET and removing quick deletion tags. I have warned this user six times and even on his final warning, I still let him off. Still his bad edits are continuing (even after his very final warning) and I keep reverting his changes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was addressed at WP:VIP. Please keep vandalism reports there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

66.87.114.240

There are a number of inappropriate pages being created by this user such as the ones below:

In my opinion, the best thing to do is to block this IP for the next 24 hours due to creating inappropriate pages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user is still restoring deleted material such as with WWE Universal Championship. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin as you know, but I do think this kind of comment should be made on WP:VIP. Maybe copy and paste it over. However, I do agree that he should be stopped, just make sure you have warned him/her fairly. MiloDenn (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this user, but please leave it to the admins to decide whether a block is needed and how long it should be. I am also salting some of these articles, because I think more than one user has been creating them. By the way, it would help if you explain to the user exactly what's wrong with the articles when you leave warnings. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Are all these articles going to be deleted? I have made 57 speedy deletions so far this month. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ones listed have been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Addition table

Please unprotect Template:Addition table. There's no longer vandalism!95.49.119.170 (talk)

The lack of vandalism might be because it's protected. I'm going to leave it protected for now. If you think a change is needed, you can use the {{Changeprotected}} on the template's talk page to request a change. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

95.49.119.170

This user is doing too much vandalism and gave an only warning to User talk:J991 even though he hadn't done anything wrong. It sounds like this user wants to attack other editors even though they did nothing wrong. I don't know what to do with this user but I will undo this user's revisions right now. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the page to report vandalism. Please make appropriate vandalism reports at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has been one of several that have done a lot of vandalism on the page Simple English Wikipedia (at least 20 times). I would suggest that this page be long-term protected from these wanted "hackers". << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just semi-protected it for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs published without permission

I recently noticed an advert on eBay only to see one of a photo I took appear against the sellers product. He claimed he found it on Wikipedia so I checked. Yes it's on Wikipedia under duck breed information .

We need more information to check on this. Can you link to the photo and the place where it's used? This wiki, the Simple English Wikipedia, doesn't host photos, so if it's here we would delete it from here. However, it is most likely on Wikimedia Commons, which is where media files are usually stored. If it is there or on another Wikipedia, you would need to ask for help there. --Auntof6 (talk)
I can probably help you on whatever site it is on. But I would need to know which duck page you saw it on. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username check

Are the following usernames appropriate?

Thanks for your time, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My take:
  • The first one is OK. "Killer" isn't necessarily an attack word. It's even possible that this is the person's actual name. (Ever heard of Wilma Mankiller?)
  • The second one is more questionable. The user name policy says it might not be good to use the name of a political figure. This user name alludes to such a name, but doesn't exactly use it. "Trumpster" could be a reference to the negative meaning of the English verb trump, but it could be something else, too; sometimes "ster" is added to a person's name in fun. So to me, this one isn't as clear.
That's how I see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs deserve and are given exacting protection. The second username is obviously based on Donald Trump, albeit in a comic vein. It may fall short of en:wp:Biographies of living persons 4.2 Usernames. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs from targeting Australia

Several IPs, all from Swedish ISPs, have done repeated vandalism on the above page. I wonder if it should be protected or the users should be suspected as sockpuppets and blocked. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it for two weeks. Maybe the interest will die down by then. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malleability

We could use protection on this page. Various IPs and a logged-in user are vandalizing it. J991 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it for a month. We can deal with the registeted user by blocking if enough appropriate warnings are issued. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I issued a final warning. J991 20:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this user

Please block Macdonald-woss (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for having a username too similar to that of Macdonald-ross and furthermore has been used only for vandalism. Thanks, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd as a vandalism-only account. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename

Category:Languages of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Should be Category:Languages of Azad Kashmir per the main article and category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Can you do this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the ability to do it, but I would want some of our other admins to confirm that that's the correct name. Names of categories for that area have been disputed in the past, and I don't know if this should be called Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, or something else. On English Wikipedia, the preferred term seems to be "Jammu and Kashmir". --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And protect this page

Please protect School as it has seemed to be a vandalism en:honeypot. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Since the ex-president's article was unprotected a week ago, there have been 8 libellous vandal edits by 3 different accounts, and the only constructive editing was to revert that vandalism. Isn't that enough to re-protect please? --95.249.86.81 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djsasso semi-protected for 6 months. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops didn't notice someone commented here on this. Yeah I did this the other day. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gautamiputra Satakarni movie to the Top Gross and Share Movies List

Hello,

Please find below collection information of GPSK Movie as of 13th Febrauary 2017.

Total Gross - Rs 120.15Cr

Total Share - Rs 84.05 Cr.

Update this information in the below link

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Telugu_movies

— This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 203.200.213.170 (talk • changes) at 11:50, 13 February 2017.

That page was protected because too many unsourced changes were being made. If you would like this update, please make the request on the article's talk page using the {{edit protected}} template, and include a source. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

I have been trying to get a listing of thee names of pA. Rivers. I have been thwarted at every turn. I get choices of tours to take or of memorable sites in the state, etc. . I cannot find the names of the rivers alone. I do not want all the creeks or runs, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.32.232 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try en:List of rivers of Pennsylvania on English Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOS

Please block 92.23.141.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I cannot say more as I have some more counter-attacks to make. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006leb vandal sockpuppet

2006leb (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is one of the PhoenixS15 sockpuppets, but unlike the others it was only blocked for 31 hours, which has now expired. Was that intentional? The vandal is likely to come back and use it again. — This unsigned comment was added by 87.21.189.167 (talk • changes) at 21:31, 17 February 2017‎.

@Macdonald-ross: Looks like a question for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was a vandalism-only account used for abuse. It is now indefinitely blocked. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unapproved bot?

‎AgraveBanks-Bot (edits) is making bot edits without a bot flag, and it doesn't look like the bot is approved. Sure, the bot is only making edits on AgraveBanks's user page, but is this still against policy? J991 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my bot does not require a bot flag to operate (clearly), and it's doing no harm just editing my user page. As noted on the bot user page, it only has one function, and I will never add additional functions to it. Why is this even being discussed? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This account is not defined as a bot here. Therefore, in accordance with the policy Wikipedia:Username, I have blocked the account for now. Feel free to discuss, either on this page or in the bot request page. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: What do you mean "not defined as a bot"? It's running automatically, and therefore it is not a "non-bot account with bot in the username". The reason you gave was incorrect. Also, there was no reason to block it, as I could've (and now have) killed the database so that it will not function. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 19:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agrave Banks: What she means is that accounts not flagged as bots are not allowed to use bot in the account name on this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bot does not require a bot flag to operate. Are all bots on this project required to be ones that need a flag? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 20:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, no. But you can't call the account "-bot". You can call it "-automated", or something like that. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason those edits can't be done with your regular account? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Why do you think that your bot does not need to be approved? I do not see where your bot would fall under an automatic approval exemption. Only (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that formal approval should be required for a bot like mine that does not require a flag to operate and does not edit any pages outside of my userpage. I understand why bots that edit the "public" namespace for say need to be approved. However, I do not understand what harm an unflagged bot editing my user page is doing. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you understand what it means for a bot to be "flagged" or to "require a flag." A bot is "flagged" only when it is approved. All bots on Wikipedia require a flag. Only (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "flagged" is that my bot does not require the userrights granted to the "bot" user group to operate properly. I know some bots that would not function without being in the bot group. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 23:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're not using the term "bot" the same way. For purposes of editing here, I consider a bot to be an account that has the bot flag. The policy says that only those accounts can have "bot" in their name. Other accounts might be used for automated processes without being bots. Depending on exactly what is being done, we might or might not require those accounts to be flagged as bots. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Snarky" comments made by User:Only

I would like to address a few recent comments made by admin only that I take as "snarky" and uncalled for/unpleasant. I nominated a recently created article for deletion at RFD because at first quick glance, it didn't appear valid to me. Only then made a "snarky" keep vote where the comment given almost implied that I was stupid or something. I then humorously trouted him for being snarky, and he then blatantly missed my humor and reverted the trout, with another snarky comment in the edit summary. I know that this is a minor thing realtively speaking, but I do not appreciate users doing this kind of stuff, especially administrators. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing snarky about my keep vote. There was no implication that you were "stupid or something." If you believed I was implying you're stupid, then I'm sorry you saw it that way. I was stating a truthful statement: if you had Googled the concept before nominating it for deletion, you would have seen it was a notable concept not worthy of an RFD. I see no humor in your trouting of me. I also think that the whole "trout" idea is stupid and pointless so please don't put that on my page again.
Also, this is the administrators noticeboard so I must ask: what administrative action are you hoping to achieve here? Only (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think real administrative action is necessary for a first offense of a minor thing, but I just wanted to make other admins/crats aware of it. On EN Wikipedia they have a BNB (Bureaucrats Noticeboard) for issues related to admins, but appears we don't have one here. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 01:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, another example of what I am talking about. This admin seems to think that their point and opinion is always the correct one and that everyone else should follow them. They don't acknowledge a varying perspective from theirs. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 02:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the comments I am seeing here are completely fine comments. Not even close to anything that needs administrator (or crat for that matter) attention. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And since I have a feeling this is going to end up there. I should point you to WP:ONESTRIKE so that you are aware of it. Your many socks on en.wiki had an issue with creating hoax articles and in removing valid information/articles. If that sort of behaviour continues here you will end up blocked without warning. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I haven't created any hoax articles. And can you provide exact diffs of where I removed valid information from articles here? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 13:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I said again, I said if it continues here. Not that you had done it yet. If you had done it already, you would be blocked already. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

this page revision of my user talk page needs to be deleted. It is disgusting, inappropriate, and obviously made in bad faith. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid revdel. Its been reverted. Move on. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SALT request

The page Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam should be autoconfirmed SALTed temporarily. It's been re-created and deleted twice going on three times by an IP and the content has not been appropriate any of the times it has been created. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been re-created by only one unique editor, so we should first consider a block before create-protecting the title. Chenzw  Talk  15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page

The page linked in the title contains sexually explicit language and is inappropriate. However, because is technically is a JavaScript page of another user, I can't QD it. I say technically because it's definitely not powering anything, and it almost seems as if the user did it on purpose so that it wouldn't get flagged. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Kasyap (entrepreneur)

Withdrawn I am now in the process of having broken 3RR by violating the rule whilst engaging to prevent misuse of Wikipedia and removal of maintenance and QD tags from a non-notable article. The other party involved is User:Vaibhav Kasyap (Businessman) who I will notify about this request. I cannot complete further edits and have alerted an administrator to the article on the #Wikipedia-simple channel on IRC, but have been unable to raise assistance. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @StevenJ81: Clarification: maintenance tags (QD is not exactly a maintenance tag) can be removed by anyone if the issues are taken care of. In this case, of course, the issues weren't taken care of. But you are right that we probably wouldn't have considered this a case of 3RR. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Doh. Of course, you're right. I was of course thinking of removal without repair. Self-trout. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. Since I've not been on simple.wikipedia for very long, I filed the request purely to make sure I didn't impolitely drop myself in the toilet. It was better I think to have said something, than left it and potentially to get told off later! Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apartheid...

... has been used recently as a scratch pad by IPs. Protection suggested. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 3 months. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Geez, with all this vandalism coming, I think we really need to start a WP:RFPP page soon. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in general, we try to block vandals before we protect pages. But you're right, there has been a lot of vandalism lately. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a need for a new page, this page gets so little activity the request can easily come here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But with the spike of recent and frequent vandalism on pages, we would not want the noticeboard to have a bunch of protection requests. There's at least a reason why a WP:RFPP page exists on enwiki and the same is true for other language wikis despite the level of vandal activity on some of them being about the same as here at simplewiki. They allow us to separate different requests, just like how we have our own VIP page. Same goes for protection. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually my point, the whole point of this board is for such requests. And protection requests even at the rate we are seeing right now are rare (3 requests in the last month). Now if we were getting 20+ a day then yeah we should have its own page. But as it stands one or two every few days is for all intents and purposes none at all. One of our goals here is to be simple in all things, in other words one place to come for stuff instead of multiple splintered boards etc. unless it gets to the point where it would be simpler to have two. At this point we aren't even remotely close to needing to split the two pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matthew Peter-Davis

This user's page on the main English Wikipedia says he is blocked as a sockpuppet of I Love Bridges. Isn't that the same user who was socking here as Agrave Banks not long ago? --129.67.116.128 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per en.wiki SPI their block started on 3/8/17, it is now a known sock of I Love Bridges / Wiki you now, Wiki you later!. Account has been blocked per Sock. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/5

The filter in question warns and tags signature additions, but does not consider the signatures within the deletion templates, which is a quite common thing across-the-board. I think this exception should be defined in the filter.

Vito Genovese 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes and nonsense by User:82.32.95.4

Someone might want to take a look at this user's edits. There is a list of different species of wastebasket, and an obviously silly page about a made up cryptozoologist who was apparently murdered, only the hoaxer can't quite decide how. Plus lots more pointless or incoherent stuff. --129.67.118.22 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More very problematic articles by socks of a globally blocked user

Last September, I alerted you to the edits of globally locked account Alec Smithson and his numerous IP sockpuppets. He is known for creating hoax articles and articles which may be about real people or places, but which make false assertions about them which are completely unsupported by the references. In addition, some of the books he cites are known not to exist. More background here. Since then, many more IPs and another globally locked Smithson sockpuppet, Eco2346 have been active on Simple Wikipedia.

Basically, you can assume that any article here containing the words "Natoli" or "Biotti" will have been edited or created by the Alec Smithson socks and they should be checked. Ditto articles on obscure Italian artists and art historians. The IPS all resolve to Telecom Italia and are located in Milan or the towns surrounding it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP's

Would an admin semi-protect the articles Roblox, Minecraft, and American Revolutionary War due to increasing frequencies of vandalism. Thanks. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The level of vandalism on these doesn't call for any kind of protection. Protection, including semi-protection, is used when we're having a hard time keeping up with the amount of vandalism on a page. These haven't reached that level. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, we only protect if we can't keep up with the vandalism. Think many edits per hour by many different editors. Usually, but not always sustained over a number of days. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Do the recent changes to Adolf Hitler count towards the need for protection (4 IP vandals in the last 48 hours)? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 5 IP users making 14 vandal edits to Hitler's page in the last 48 hours. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to mention that one way of helping with vandalism is to add frequently-vandalized pages to your watchlist. That way, you can see when those pages are changed and undo vandalism sooner. I have added Adolf Hitler to my watchlist, and I've added many other pages for this reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing this for a while. One of the pages on my watchlist is Julius Caesar, which has seen no helpful changes for several months. Does this show a need for protection? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the idea is that people are vandalizing many times faster than we can hit revert. We almost never protect. As a small wiki we want to be as wide open as possible to capitalize on what few good IP edits we get. A good example is say 50 edits in a matter of an hour or two that come from like 4 or 5 or more editors. If it is only a couple editors its easy enough for us to block them all and if its only like a few edits here and there its easy enough for us to just revert. The idea is that there is so much vandalism, that nothing but protection will stop it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page Cats has seen vandalism from an IP address and three new users in quick succession. Similarly, the same IP made 14 vandal edits in a 2.5 hour span but has been blocked and the vandal edits have stopped. I suppose this is not one of those situations where protection would be absolutely necessary. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, Enfcer protected the page "Shu (god)" for a whole month after four IPs vandalised the page over 5 days. Is that not enough to suggest that protection is needed for this article? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference is the Cat article as you stated the IP had been blocked. And just because I semi-protected it, other admins may think otherwise, and are free to reverse me. -- Enfcer (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And more vandalism on Cat - coming in so quickly that someone's got to be feeling the same way I do. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was vandalism there for a period of about 35 minutes, but it ended about 9 hours ago. At least one of the IPs has been blocked, and the registered vandal has been indeffed. The other IP hasn't vandalized since their final warning. User:Macdonald-ross and ChenzwBot reverted the vandalism pretty quickly. I know it's aggravating, but protecting a page isn't something we do lightly. Whenever possible, we're supposed to handle frequent vandalism by blocking users rather than protecting pages. Exceptions are pages like Donald Trump, which we expect to get a lot of vandalism because he is frequently in the news for being controversial. So I'm choosing not to protect Cat at this time. Another admin may disagree. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why was Adolf Hitler protected in a similar case? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is pretty much a thing left to individual discretion. In the case of Adolf Hitler, one major reason leading to the protection call is the fact that vandalism picked up very quickly shortly after the expiry of the protection. Taking a quick look at the protection history and the page history of the title, we can see protection going back years, and that protection was mostly renewed shortly after the expiry of the previous one. The level of vandalism on Cat, however, is nothing compared to this, and even if protected, would probably only have a short protection duration (probably no more than 2 weeks). Chenzw  Talk  22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say, then, about the fact that John Cena was protected for three months even though the level of vandalism is only about the same as Cat? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like Chenzw said, it's left to individual discretion. Some admins are quicker to protect than others. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long history of Cena's biog being vandalised by IPs, and it has had to be protected before. We are under clear direction from the Foundation to protect BLPs from vandalism. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't have been protected. Was a single user vandalising so didn't remotely meet the threshold to protect. And it actually had never been protected before. I have removed the protection. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet from Italy

Where can I report these IP vandals as possible sockpuppets? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would just be a dynamic IP address. Unless they are using the same account or avoiding a block, its not really socking. In the future though Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is what you are looking for. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Semi-protected for 4 years? Isn't it too long? Can administractors shorthen the time to a few months or at most one year? Thanks. --219.78.191.209 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enfcer: What was your rationale for the 4-year period? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale when I set it for 4 years, was since this President is such a polarizing person, any page directly dealing with him has and will likely continue to be vandalized, as his was up until its protection, by many IP editors. And since it is a 4 year presidency, just made sense to protect it for the duration of his administration. This is also his campaign for 2016 page. There should be little need to edit that, as the campaign is already over. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP for Justin Trudeau

Please at least semi-protect it. A block has not slowed the vandalism, and a rangeblock is unlikely to. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this BLP protected for a month. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair there was only one edit after the block. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching wikipedia in my class April 27

Hi! I'm teaching the students in my class how to contribute to Wikipedia. Eighteen students from my class at UC Berkeley will be creating accounts. I read the instructions about teaching in class and was instructed to put a notice on this board to avoid being blocked. Do I need to provide more information? — This unsigned comment was added by Zonumepadla (talk • changes) at 07:52, 23 March 2017‎.

@Zonumepadla:Please add information about your proposed class project at Wikipedia:Schools/Projects. Give as much detail as you can, including what the students will be working on, whether they will be working on live articles or in sandboxes, and whatever else you can think of. You might also like to read Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide. It would be very helpful if you were familiar with how to contribute to Wikipedia in general and this Wikipedia (Simple English) in particular. Simple English Wikipedia does quite a few things differently from other Wikipedias. I have a list of some of them here.
The fact that your account has made only one edit here is a bit of a concern, because we've found that school projects led by people who are not themselves familiar with how to edit on this specific Wikipedia sometimes have more problems and have their work deleted more often. One thing I noticed right off the bat is that you didn't sign your post here: all posts on talk pages should be signed by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the post.
You might like to request a project ambassador, which would be a user experienced in editing here who would help guide you an your students through the requirements, serve as a resource when you or your students have questions, etc. There is a list of editors willing to help with that on the projects page.
I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to ask if you want further information. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.239.53.231

Hi. Please nuke that IP address, it created a lot of vandalism pages. Matiia (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matiia: The IP has been blocked for 6 months. For future reference, the page WP:VIP is for reporting this kind of thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

The IP at 2600:8800:3307:5F00:C594:B873:8C90:E8E2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked globally after vandalizing a talk page using text from an offensive comment that is very similar to the title of a page that has been protected from creation. I suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of 2600:8800:3308:6000:4938:9272:49e4:1e91 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who, if I'm getting it right, was blocked here for creating that bad page. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only registered accounts can be sockpuppets. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about block evasion? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the "original" IP isn't blocked anymore so it's not block evasion. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Yes, it's clearly the same person/edits. Only (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, then, it could be a shared IP-range. Rangeblocks have been made before. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the same content by Wargun01 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and LOV592 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), both of who are now blocked. It's time to look into a serious case of block evasion. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username?

Is this a bad username? J991 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will block. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Fibonachi11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on en.wiki for adding phishing links to articles (see en:User_talk:Smartse#Repeated_phishing_attempts). They're doing the same here: [3]. Can someone take care of them? Smartse (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues via the IP: 46.251.119.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I've just blocked that IP on en.wiki as well. Smartse (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked both IP and problem user here too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian vandals

I have noticed that these four IPs have made lots of nasty vandal edits recently. Considering they are all registered to this Italian ISP, could a checkuser be done to make sure it's not the same person? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think different IPs can't be shown to be the same person. In any case, checkuser requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. This page is for communicating with admins, and most admins don't have the checkuser right. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible bad usernames?

Do these two usernames represent companies? Goforth studios (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Arrayexperts (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). J991 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just a username I created - Goforth studios (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for LGBT rights in Palestine

I request that article LGBT rights in Palestine be semi-protected by the persistent vandalism of several users and IPs in recent days (in addition to insults and offensive comments). Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not now. There hasn't been that much vandalism by IPs. Semi-protection won't help with the vandalism by registered users: the way to deal with those is to block, and I have indeffed the ones who vandalized this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: This wiki does not have defined criteria of time and editions to autoconfirm users? —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, it does. I didn't notice that these were new accounts. I'll semi-protect the page, but you might want to keep an eye out in case a new page is targeted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False-Offensive Biography Edits being reverted

I am an author. A biography and background of my book were published by Wikipedia years ago. The page is SUZANNE OLSSON. My daughter and grand daughter happily created the initial article. There is nothing wrong with this...but as I saw the way their page was continually hacked, I fought with some editors to make corrections. This resulted in me being banned from Wiki by these very same editors. The topic of the book is about religion, and this generates personal opinion, 'slants' and biases from some Wiki editors. Because some Wiki editors are religious, they tend to slant the article to reflect their personal views. This is usually unfavorable to me. After several years, it came to my attention that as the article currently appears, there remains gross errors and unfavorable 'slants' in the current article.

When corrections were again attempted, the same Wiki editor again reverted to his preferred edits, although these contain gross errors.He continues to attack the contributors.

It is impossible for me or anyone to make the corrections. One example is that the edits claim the tomb of Jesus in India was first mentioned by the Ahmadii Muslims. This is blatantly false, yet every attempt to correct this and insert the correct information-with links- has resulted in revisions back to the false statements by the same 'editor'. I would like the contributions by 'Brainydad' to remain because they are most accurate. I would like the page to be locked. I am asking help from Wikipedia administrators. This has been going on for too many years now. Please help. Thank you. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? Your account doesn't seem to have edited anything except this page. Two things to keep in mind:
  • This is Simple English Wikipedia, a different project from English Wikipedia which you can find at en.wikipedia.org. The admins here probably can't help you with a problem there.
  • Wiki admins get very sensitive about threats of legal action, and many people have been blocked for that. If what you are asking for is reasonable, you don't need a lawyer to get it. Just be polite.
Okay, I can see now that you are on the wrong project. Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an article about you, so you will need to raise this on English Wikipedia. Here is a direct link to your article: en:Suzanne Olsson. Given that, as the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest, and given that people you say are your relatives have been investigated for sockpuppetry related to the article, I'd advise not wading in with threats or accusations. It won't help. Instead you should read this guide to dealing with conflicts of interest, and rather than trying to edit the page directly, you could seek help at the Teahouse. Good luck. --129.67.117.188 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You:: I am doing the best I can to sort this out. This never began as a "conflict of interest". It began when family members realized there were gross inaccuracies left on the edited pages. The problem continues and usually involves the same editors- Anyways...I'll try to get the info corrected on the Wiki page. Thank you for the links.You are most kind and helpful..I'll start on them now. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hide revison

Hi. Can you hide this revision from my userpage (you can semi-protect my userpage too, but I don't think it's necessary now)? Thanks. --Zabshk (query) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page. I'm not going to hide the revision, though: we try to do that only for the most offensive edits, and I don't think this one qualifies. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. --Zabshk (query) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New user posting fake block notices

User:PCMPAKurat has recently added Checkuser block templates to two userpages of users who are not blocked. A bit strange...? --82.53.62.188 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. What's more is they are also (falsely) claiming to be an administrator. I have tagged the two userpages for deletion as vandalism. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no more bad edits since User:Only issued a final warning. If it continues, please report at WP:VIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing inaccurate quick deletion tags

I recently noticed that another user tagged three pages for deletion as nonsense. They are very short, but the topics exist on enwiki and the content seems to be correct. Since it seemed to be a mistake, I removed them, but now another user has blindly reverted, and left me a silly passive-agressive warning notice too. Is that actually what is supposed to happen on this project? I thought that only the author of a page was banned from removing tags. --87.6.122.193 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who "blindly reverted" you, I must recommend you read the note I put on your talk page and my reply on my talk page. My messages wasn't "silly" or "passive aggressive" I was just informing you that only administrator should remove QD tags. Also I personally think those QD tags were justified.--Crasstun (talk | contributions) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually anyone can remove a qd except the creator or significant contributor of the page if they feel the reason is not valid. But where there is disagreement then leave it to the admin. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We often get qd requests on articles that deserve deletion, but where the requestor hasn't chosen the right qd option. The admins always evaluate the reason specified, and use a different one if necessary. That said, we do greatly appreciate it when requestors use the right option. It might help if all concerned read the qd option definitions, because the shorthand versions presented by, for example, Twinkle, don't fully explain how each is to be used.
As for removing the tags, non-admins can remove them if they fix the issue; otherwise, they should be left for admins to take care of. In cases like this, where there's a disagreement about whether there's an issue at all, the better action would be to use the {{wait}} template, as described in the box that appears with a qd nomination. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from a school IP range

These two IP users

are both registered to the same ISP and could be part of a shared IP range that would possibly be better if they were blocked for a long time as they are part of a school. Based on the behavior, I suspect that

was created to evade the block, and so that account should be blocked indefinitely, if it is still possible. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to the 'crats to respond fully, but please note:
  • We do not block IPs just because they belong to a school, even if the IPs have vandalized. I also don't think we do range blocks for only two IPs. (And the 'crats will not confirm whether or not the registered user is using one of the IPs.)
  • Both these IPs now cannot be used for editing by logged-in users. That will expire when the IP blocks expire.
  • Neither the registered user nor the IPs have made many edits in total -- no more than a dozen or so each. That is not cause for getting this excited about the vandalism.
Please try to keep perspective about how bad vandalism is, especially when it's as innocuous as this seems to be (at least the ones I spot-checked). --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Auntof6 says. These edits all happened today. If they begin to show patterns of long term disruption, we'll deal with it further in that case. For an example of how we deal with school IPs that cause disruption, see Special:Contributions/96.5.241.159 and its block log. Escalating blocks over a period of time. Not "it was disruptive today...it's a school....let's go with a long block." Only (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old RfD needs closing

Would one of my fellow admins please close the old RfD that's still outstanding? I'm not closing it because I disagreed with what seems to be the consensus. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do about all these accounts saying they are a sockpuppet of User:PhoenixS15?

Perhaps they are sockpuppets of the same accounts that have been posting the horrible "I am g**..." messages and pages, all listed at Requests for checkuser. One user, Jskskskk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)), has evidence of both still on the talk page. We probably need a steward to come and look into everything as this is quite serious and hard to deal with. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First PhoenixS15 does not have an account on Simple wiki. Secondly a steward will only get involved if its an emergency, and no active local editor has the permissions needed to deal with the problem, at that particular moment. Third this user is a major sock-puppeteer see PhoenixS15. Fourth, a couple of the new accounts, are likely that same users, and were blocked promptly. Fifth, the IP used and claiming to be that user was globally blocked of a couple of days by a steward which that is a global block and within their rights, and I support the global block that was issued, which I extended it through a decent size local range block for the next week. It is not really that hard to deal with, and some of the more offensive or disruptive edits have been revision deleted. The range block should slow it down some for the next few days. We may need to re-evaluate and make it a larger block or extend it, if the circumstances dictate. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will ban USER:CityofSilver or I will take legal action against Wikipedia. I NEVER added any "promotional material" to any articles. Additionially, the so-called promotional articles have REMAINED on the article. Only MY edits that I added about infrastructure have been removed. This infrastructure information exists on many populated place articles on Wikipedia. If this information is not needed, then every article should have this information removed. No talk page discussion was started. This is a personal attack against me.

I have found a source to clarify when the bridge was constructed and restored the information. I also noticed promotional material, removed it, and provided that I removed promotional material in the edit summary. Any edit that I attempt to make now is "reverted" and now I am accused of adding promotional material, despite removing promotional material. Before starting a discussion on the talk page, I am now placed in an "edit war" by CityOfSilver with the

All somebody has to do is check the article history to see that I indeed did not add any promotional material. I also tried to remove promotional material. I also attempted to "undo" the revert. Since I was not able to, I tried to restore the article completely and then proof-read the entire article. When I was finished, I would have provided the edit summary and start a discussion in the talk page.

I do not know how to file a complaint against a Wikipedia editor, perhaps administrator, CityOfSilver, but that editor is violating WP:CIVIL. I looked on CityOfSilver's talk page and have found that this person is calling somebody's edit's "Trash". This is unacceptable. If I am going to have to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia. If I am banned, then you will definitely be sued. In Correct (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC) In Correct (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be on the wrong Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia, and we have no user here called CityofSilver. The only edits you have made here were to complain about that user's edits. However, since we have a policy against making legal threats, you have now been blocked indefinitely on this Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding image removal and wrong content in biography

wikiguy, please delete image from this article as it hurts muslim's emotion and is against belief of muslims

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Already answered at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Remove image as soon as possible. You won't get a different response here. eurodyne (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on pages about U.S. Presidents

There has been a lot of vandalism from different IPs on pages about U.S. Presidents recently. Could this be a IP-hopper or something similar? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific, so that we don't have to randomly check US President articles to find what you're talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's just 209.234.167.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See the user's contributions for details. We ought to keep an eye on this IP for vandalism on the other articles about Presidents. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had blocked that IP before you posted here. Still, there hasn't been that much vandalism from it, only 20 edits total, only on a few pages, only three edits today before I blocked, and all the edits on May 3 were within an hour. I don't see that as worth getting excited about. We're never going to prevent all vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_50&oldid=8039442"