Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 57

Request for flood flag

Can I please be marked as a flooder for a day? I'm working on clearing out Special:LintErrors/wikilink-in-extlink. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 12 hours, please read WP:Flood flag and ensure that no changes outside of those under the purview of those lint errors are made. If you need to make other changes, wait until the time has run out or request the right he removed once you're finished with the lint errors. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: I'm already done with most of them, and was going to work on other lint errors next. Can I do those (i.e. is the scope limited to just the one type of lint error)? --DannyS712 test (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Vermont (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Giorno Giovanna Protection

Hi, I'm requesting page protection of Giorno Giovanna as users keep adding incorrect information to the page. rollingbarrels (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Djsasso --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Longer semi needed for Assam

Striaght off protection, the same vandal strikes again, I think we can try a longer period of protection. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented a partial block for the time being. Holding off on an extended protection of the page for now because it is pretty obvious that the edits all originate from only one individual. Chenzw  Talk  08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, anything that works and if there is a range now, will be good to just block the range. Thanks much for handling.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

They are back with another IP, as what I noted in a section above, there is simply no range and hence, protection is warranted IMHO.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Something that you may not be aware of that we are a bit different about on simple is that we don't really protect pages except in the extreme situation. Think multiple ips with 10's of edits each in a single day. There is very little edits to this page at this point so reverting is generally the best course of action. This page has only had about 25 edits good and bad in the last year. It isn't close to being a protection candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I sort of know that we do not protect pages unless extreme, thanks for your guidance on when it is extreme. I'll watch and revert if necessary. Thanks for the guidance. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, some admins may end up protecting before that as it all comes down to the situation and what kind of vandalism is happening. But generally the rule of thumb is, if reverting can't happen fast enough to fix the issue then protect it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Noted with thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cecil Hotel (Los Angeles)

This article might need indefinite or temporary semi-protection, seeing that most of it's edit history is vandalism. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Very odd complaint on talk page

I nominated an article Controversial Reddit communities for quick deletion and (once I had already removed the nomination) a very odd message was left on its talk page. I'm not quite sure how to react to this. What should I do? Should an admin handle it? Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 15:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beaneater00: Checking... stand by please Operator873^talkconnect 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it as it was clearly written to attack a specific individual and to "get their name out there". The page has been protected from being recreated for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That stupid bot thing

It's fucking up my edits Whenever I change summet It changes it back in like 5 Seconds but the shite I'm editing is true Sort the bot out Or I will sort you And your dog out — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamWilk (talk • contribs)

Needless to say account blocked by Chenzw. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Adani2345675

Adani2345675 has made only two edits and both are creating vandalism articles. Should they be banned?Naddruf (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not yet. For one thing, user has received only one warning. For another, they made only two edits (the bad pages), both were within a few minutes and they seem to have stopped editing for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian IP spamming talk pages

Russian IPs have been spamming talk pages for the past few days. The comments seem to be random, and the IPs look similar, suggesting it is the same person. Each IP is used only once. The IP range starts with 176.59, so a range block may be too wide. Examples include this, this and this. Any ideas? Nigos (talk · contribs) 09:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I matched the same range clock that en.wiki used. Should help atleast somewhat. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Morris

Hello,

I see that the article about Ryan Morris was recently deleted due to promotion. What changes to this article or additional criteria needs to be met in order to be approved with the Wikipedia guidelines? The objective of writing the biography of Ryan would certainly not be for promotional purposes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowshoes13 (talk • contribs)

@Yellowshoes13: Hello there! And welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. First, I'd like to ask what your connection to Ryan Morris is? Also remember to sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Operator873^talkconnect 02:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Operator873: I met him at a business conference that he spoke at last March. I spoke with him briefly afterwards and we took a picture together. I often watch his content via social media. He doesn't really know me though. Thanks for your response! ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowshoes13 (talk • contribs)

@Yellowshoes13: When signing with four tildes, don't copy the nowiki tag he put. Just put four "~" characters together and it'll turn into your name and the current time. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: Ok got it thank you Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

About the Ryan Morris article, it appears such an article has never existed here. Such an article has been created and deleted on the english wikipedia before, but it's required admin access to create since 2017. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: Interesting. Could I draft the article and if it checks out according to guidelines, you approve it? Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a draft namespace here, you'd have to draft it in your userspace (i.e. User:Yellowshoes13/Ryan Morris). If your article meets Wikipedia's policies about notability, lack of promotion, being encyclopedic, and everything else, you can move it into the article space. Hope this answers your questions :) Computer Fizz (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: I'm looking to write a biography of him. Would I need to do anything differently? Yellowshoes13 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yellowshoes13: You might want to look at this. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: Thank you so much for all of the help. I just wrote the draft and submitted it for review. I made sure to be objective and not use anything that would seem promotional. Hopefully it is approved! Yellowshoes13 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

/21 Range partial block for spam

Fellow sysops: I have partially blocked (main space articles) the range 37.111.232.0/21 which affects exactly 2,046 individual IP addresses. The only edits from this range have been introduction of spam into articles cleverly hidden as references. Please review and adjust or remove the block as necessary. Operator873^talkconnect 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Verify someone's identity to reactivate their page

Hello- A former teacher of mine and mentor in my career recently had his page deleted. Here is his FB post about it: bit.ly/EdsWikiFB

What requires notable and what kind of evidence do you need to revert his deletion?

He started in radio in 1968 at age 12. Legends of Country is a syndicated show he has ran for 15+ years. I'll add this from one of his bios: 'Legend's of Country" as a two hour show can be heard on a number of radio stations including....102.7 FM KORD Tri-Cities, Washington. 91.5 FM KUBS Newport, Washington. AM 1350 KRLC in Lewiston, Idaho. AM 1150 KASM Albany, Minnesota. Bob 106.5 in Minn. 102.9 FM Homegrown Sound Dos Palos, Calif. KTIL in the Tillamook Ore area, KATQ in Plentywood, MT, Wildhorse internet radio in South Africa and others.

Besides and while making strides inradio accomplishments for 50+ He has also been the instructor at the local Trade High School Program. He has a radio station classroom open to high school teenagers to use. He teaches incredible life lessons. The man believes in these kids - kids that need that push and positive reinforcement.

I could go on about this man, his personal, and radio greatness, but I hope you can do just a little more research about why he should be considered a Notably Radio Personality.

Please get back to me on further actions and what can be done to make this happen.

I appreciate your time and effort on behalf of Ed.

You need multiple independent sources that are not related to your former teacher. Those sources need to be reliable and prove that the person is notable. The page was probably deleted because you did not prove the person's notability. You should also gain community consensus if the page is deleted again. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions on my my talk page. I hope this helps you. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thebrad509: Oh, and being the instructor at a local high school and allowing others to use his radio station does not establish notability. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was started on the wrong wiki. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for create protection of Nitin Patkar (Indian Artist)

These pages have been recreated twice after quick deletion and the subject is not notable. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At only two recreations a protection is not likely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Djsasso, the article Nitin Patkar (Indian Artist) has been created again. I see no signs that whoever is doing this is going to stop. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 05:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the third recreation now and they are edit warring the QD tag. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have create-protected the article for a month (only autoconfirmed users can create it). I hope the issue is settled by then. --Eptalon (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We rarely protect pages here, blocking individual users is usually the first step. Though its moot now since Eptalon protected it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Feces article

The Feces article is being heavily vandalized by several IPs and the User:Iced.chai.tea account. At the time of writing there have been about two dozen vandalistic edits within the span of 15 minutes. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) / 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A protection doesn't seem necessary at this point of time. Blocks should be considered instead. Chenzw  Talk  07:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Cousin

IP editors (presumably the same person) adding wrong info in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxxon0 (talk • contribs)

@Zaxxon0: Doesn't look like it's quite out of hand yet. Continue to monitor and re-report if necessary. Operator873^talkconnect 02:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

They've done it again here. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what exactly is wrong here. Is the description of the cousin relationships false? Chenzw  Talk  23:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

Please remove my rollback right, thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Done--Eptalon (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request @ MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js

Kindly change adminrights['Lofty abyss']=1; to adminrights['Lofty_abyss']=1; to possibly fix the issue that Lofty abyss's talk page is not highlighted. Minorax (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

While I have fixed the issue in an earlier diff, I took the opportunity to perform an overhaul of the code. It is significantly shorter now, and there is no longer a need for unintuitive use of %20 in the adminrights object. Chenzw  Talk  14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account of User:LaurenCox600

It is said on the User:لورن کاکس 600 page that the name means Lauren Cox 600. LaurenCox600 is a blocked user, so that account is probably a sockpuppet and should be blocked. Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) /

@Beaneater00: please rethink this post. Your spreading Vermont-Revi talking points about me. This is not how editors should behave. If I’m you, I would rethink this post. —لورن کاکس 600 (LaurenCox600) - talk 06:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@لورن کاکس 600: I don't understand what you're trying to imply here. I have reported you because I think, with good reason, that you are a sockpuppet of the blocked account User:LaurenCox600. I don't have anything to do with Vermont or ~revi, though I do appreciate their work against vandalism and sockpuppetry here. Is this supposed to be a threat? Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) /

Blocked.--BRP ^ever 07:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@BRPever:, she has created another account (User:لورن کاکس (دوپلگانگر)). ~~

Blocked this one too.--BRP ^ever 07:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

96.4.231.13. Sk4mp (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sk4mp, Please report to WP:VIP --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Stale at this point. No need to report. -DJSasso (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, will report such cases to WP:VIP in the future. Sk4mp (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Error: Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter

Hello!

I was making redirects to my Slovenian user page in a few languages (15 or something like this). And then I published a page "Look at my page." on this Wikipedia. I got an error, so I made something more about me because Wikipedia thought, that I was a bot. But without success. An error says, that I have to say to the administrator that I was right.

Any help from your side? (Maybe I asked this on the wrong place.)--AstroFizMat (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the global filter here. Please seek assistance from meta instead. Chenzw  Talk  02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@AstroFizMat: I think I will help you recreate the page. Sorry I cannot discuss the filter in detail but I should be able to help create the page per what you wanted. Apologies for this false positive.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: A better place for to refer these kind of queries will be to m:RFH but SRM can work too. Meta sysops can handle these if I am not wrong. I realize there had been a couple of such issues on simple, will see how to manage this.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Protection Placed on Climate Change Consensus Wiki Page

Dear Administrator,

I would like an explanation for why, when someone had been editing the wiki page entitled "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," the article was abruptly reverted to it's previous content, and a secure access lock was placed on it.

A casual perusal of the revision history will reveal that all the editor's changes had done was to balance out the content, so it was not overly skewed to one point of view or a very narrow array of data. Furthermore, a cursory glance at the reasons such protections are placed is explicitly due to vandalism.

Please read the below, contrast it with what is on the current page, and tell me how the below constitutes vandalism. Then, do kindly return the page to it's previous revision, desist from locking the page, and free this vital intellectual resource back up to the arena of ideas.

A Terse Dose of Gratitude Might Be In Order, -LiveOnHall

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.104.227.168 (talk) at 04:31, 9 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

From NASA's Global Climate Change website There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports. 'The broadest consensus it that the earth has warmed about .6 degrees (perhaps as much as .8) Celsius, or about 1 degree F, since the mid 19th Century. Mitigating the case for a human cause is the fact that about half of the recorded warming took place before 1940, when the CO2 emissions were about ⅙ what they are today. These and other data comprise arguments from Environmentalists, who claim that - although the Earth is warming - temperature increases are not alarming, not predominantly human caused, and may actually be delaying the onset of the next "mini ice-age." This owing, in part, to a solar minimum akin to the much-studied "Maunder Minimum," a period of low sunspot activity.

Regardless, many publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and some of the remaining contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiveOnHall (talk • contribs)

@LiveOnHall: That specific article you are referring to does not exist on this language edition of Wikipedia. Please direct your queries to en:Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change. Chenzw  Talk  05:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

request for flooder

Hello. I'm currently flooding new changes while clearing multiple backlogs. Could I possibly have flooder to prevent this? Computer Fizz (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What backlogs, what tools are/will you (be) using, and for how long? Vermont (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Deprecated cite parameters (for now, might do some others later), no tools, and until it's gone. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:FLOOD. It's a right given for a specific purpose within a defined time, and no other edits are allowed during that time. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: yes, I'm aware. The "specific purpose" here is clearing backlogs, and I plan to get it removed when I'm finished. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"When I'm finished" is not a time I can put into Special:UserRights, and "clearing backlogs" is not a specific purpose. There are hundreds of backlogs. I will grant you flood for the purpose of removing deprecated citation parameters for a period of two hours; to ensure I'm not granting it to you when you're offline, I've messaged you on IRC to coordinate it. Vermont (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm done with flooder now, if anyone wants to remove it. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately all your edits are now going to have to be undone. Clearing backlogs does not mean just removing things. In the case of the cite parameters all that had to be done is remove the hyphen in access-date to make it accessdate. Please don't clear any more backlogs unless you know what you are doing. All these changes actively made the wiki worse and now will waste time being fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It is worth noting that en:WP:CS1 states that accessdate is a valid alias of access-date. Our local configuration on Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist confirms that both parameters are valid and supported. While I am not sure why the previous revisions of the affected articles were placed in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, suffice to say template matters should not be handled until and unless there is sufficient understanding of the relevant templates/modules (especially modules!). Chenzw  Talk  16:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(update) While investigating the remaining 3 entries in the above category, it turns out that the erroneous categorisation is due to a cache issue; purging Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist seems to have resolved this. Chenzw  Talk  16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

They go in that category because the parameter is deprecated and the one that should be used going forward is accessdate. However, at the moment both work to facilitate the change over from one to the other. This is what I was referring to when I said don't make changes if you are unaware of why things are the way they are. I have fixed them all at this point, took me a couple hours. The three left the category because I fixed them while you were looking. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

At present there is an inconsistency between the module and editing guideline: deprecated parameters should be marked as false in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist so that the module can actually categorise articles accordingly (relevant code processing deprecated parameters starts from line 3625 of Module:Citation/CS1). Marking a parameter as false kickstarts the real magic that results in categorising the article into the maintenance category. From the point of view of the citation module, both forms of accessdate are functionally equivalent (valid non-deprecated parameter, line 218 of Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration also recognises both forms as the same parameter). Chenzw  Talk  16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there was a bug as well which has been fixed. Either way for any backlog there is usually a better way to fix than to just remove. Usually involves moving the data to the new parameter. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

To clear up, yes, access-date is placed as deprecated. But some contained both accessdate and access-date. But it's true that they should have been replaced with access-date where it didn't. The other thing here is that I made some of the edits without flooder and nobody spotted any problems, and flooder was approved for removing accessdate, because I didn't specify what I did in the request. I can try to say exactly what is being done in the request, but I'm not sure if that would actually change anything since I assume the granting admin looked at the previous edits and didn't see anything wrong. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

They likely didn't look which is why you need to specify exactly the edit you intend to make. You also made edits which were not related to the request you made while you had the flood flag which is against the rules. To be honest, I hope going forward that you are not given flood flag as you have not shown the ability to use it in a proper manner. Had I not happened to stumble upon one of the changes a large number of mistakes would not have been caught.-DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I did look at some of their initial edits, though did not put enough time into it to notice that it should be changed rather than removed. That part of this is my fault; their request for flood was never valid, and I should not have granted it. In regard to their use of it they've made multiple edits with the flood flag that are not within the scope of what I granted it for, and due to this breach of trust I am against granting userrights (flooder or otherwise) for them in the future. Vermont (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted revision?

Why were my 2 revisions on User:Arthurfan828/My talk page rules deleted? Arthurfan828 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you put inappropriate personal information. I can't say more than that without defeating the purpose of the delete that was done. -DJSasso (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a Wiki, and we are here to create a Wikipedia. We value you as a contributor, but you shouldn't put things that allow to identify or track you down. The two revisions mentioned contined such information, that's why DJSasso deleted them and removed them from the log. --Eptalon (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Contributions for User:Ahmadqatari

Hello, shall we nuke their contributions? Per this, confirmed socking, xwiki promo, locked globally across numerous accounts. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Settled.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:VIP

Is it frowned upon if a non-admin user removes requests on that page if they have been resolved already? I assume there's no issue with doing that but would just like to get an okay from the admins before. Reception123 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is an issue. While I can't speak for anyone else, I suspect the frowning upon part stems from the inevitable rush by non-sysops to clear the VIP page the very minute an editor has been blocked. This is not a competition. Otherwise I think it is fine to remove days-old entries that have been inadvertently left behind on the page. Chenzw  Talk  16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was of course referring to the later case you mention since sometimes there are entries that aren't removed after a few days or receive no comments. --Reception123 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Before I stopped, I remove things as soon as they're blocked, not because it's a "competition", but just to avoid confusion and keep the page to only what's necessary (like a queue). Is that a problem? Computer Fizz (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather you not. There is no need to remove them immediately, unless you are pretty sure that the blocking sysop has no intention to delist the entry even after hours later. At least how I go about this is that I have contribs, VIP, and Special:Block already open in multiple tabs, and will be switching between them as I process the vandalism. Nothing is more annoying than an edit conflict when editing the VIP page to mark done/leave additional comments. Chenzw  Talk  16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I usually only do that for admins like mac, bsa, who never use vip at all. However I have stopped after that, and probably won't even edit at all for admins that I know do use vip. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If OP is referring to my removal at here I will say those are accounts I reported save 1, and all are answered by admins who declined or blocked them. I am just doing some decluttering of the board as my signature is causing some issues too. All are quite stale by the time I removed. This is one of the rare occassions I remove any report and apologies for the trouble caused. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer non-admins just don't touch the board but I would never tell someone off for doing so. I would prefer that we get back to using the board the way it originally was, that we only comment if we can't/won't block and we remove immediately if we have blocked. The commenting just to say "Done" is not necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification regarding removing unblock requests

Just would like an admins opinion on this discussion so we can know what the correct way to proceed in such cases is. The main question being if unblock requests that are blatant vandalism should be removed or kept for an admin to see first. Reception123 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly should be the latter unless it's so disruptive that requires oversight / RD2. Admins can then yank TPA if needed. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The "blatant vandalism" benchmark is potentially ambiguous because unblock requests made on this wiki more often than not do not have a serious chance at being considered for unblock. However, what I can say is that unblock requests made by a blocked user on their own talk page, regardless of merit, must be left on the page for administrators to review. If it is a legitimate request, non-sysops are not technically able to act on it; if it is an obviously disruptive (e.g. "UNBLOCK ME NAO!!!") unblock request, a non-sysop removing it is just going to encourage a revert war on the page, with the reverting editor unable to block talk page access for the blocked user anyway. So in either case the handling of unblock requests requires the use of sysop tools. I agree that this becomes rather dubious for the above-linked case, since the anonymous editor was responding to a false block notice. But since this kind of situation relies on discretion on a case-by-case basis, it would be preferred if the judgement call is left to an administrator to make. Chenzw  Talk  13:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

As an involved editor, I am making this complaint on AN for other uninvolved administrators to evaluate:

Relevant diffs:

• Special:Diff/6809805
• Special:Diff/6810178
• Special:Diff/6835633
• Special:Diff/6835638
• Special:Diff/6835655

While none of these edits were made consecutively within a 24 hour period, I believe they are in violation of the spirit of the 3RR rule. I also note that one of the editors involved (Geoffreyrabbit) is currently blocked on EN for similar refusal to communicate with editors in the same subject area. The ISP of the anonymous editor involved here is also closely related to the editor in question. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I have been watching him for that very reason. He is probably due for a block here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Special:diff/6839799
• Special:diff/6839798
• Special:diff/6839801
• Special:diff/6839803

Can we have more eyes here.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the last four, they seem to be regular ediits; nothing out of the ordinary: Fixing a link, replacing an image, and similar. So where's the supposed vandalism? --Eptalon (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Edit warring, not vandalism. Keep up. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is technically a little close to 3RR where it isn't but 3RR doesn't need the time. The images are changed to a lower quality one which doesn't show the subjects well, and they are warned here too. I hope this explains.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please hide this comment

Could an admin please hide this vandalism made when an IP created the talk page? Thanks. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That is ordinary vandalism and does not qualify for revision deletion. Chenzw  Talk  13:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Oklahoma

The article has been vandalized during the last days. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I blocked the offending users, it turns out they are known customers. Editing restrictions should not be necessary any more. --Eptalon (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Abdullah Alnefisi and relentless vandalism

Its just an advice from my side that aforementioned article shall be speedily deleted by any one of you administrators. I know the process for nominating any article for deletion but i do not consider this vandalism worthy enough to waste my time upon or anyone's. It has already been deleted from English Wikipedia because it does not fulfill most of the criterions. Reason? Simply because it surely is created by an editor who has a conflict of interest or is being paid by the party. He can also be a supporter of the political party associated with the guy so it is definitely a major vandalism which should be reverted. The creator of the article is - Ahmadqatari who has been creating pages relentlessly, all of which should be deleted. More administrators would be needed to handle this situation so i ask all of you to pay close attention to the situation. Upto you. If you want to have me replying to you then make sure to tag me. ClumsyMind (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

See the above section. He is a LTA which have countless accounts and spamming. Some I had nominated at RFD, rest if you want can send to RFD if necessary. Most are notable though. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Camouflaged Mirage Notability is a factor but don't you think that the article is in horrendous condition? All of the content needs to be removed and then added appropriately again. Citations were in arabian language and so i can't even understand a trace. And even if i did understand, i keep myself away from politics. The condition it is in, is not acceptable anyhow. I am going through a bit tiresome work currently so i can't do that RFD process. Thanks for your attention. ClumsyMind (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@ClumsyMind: I will like to nuke all the articles, but then deletion isn't cleanup, bad conditions articles unless fulfill QD cannot be deleted when they are notable. Most (and the above) are MPs and according to NPOLITICIAN, being a MP entitles you subject notablity, hence, A4 doesn't apply. You need to go through the RFD. And sources in other languages aren't valid reasons to discard them. Thanks for the attention to this Long Term Abuser --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: I totally agree. I wasn't discarding those citations but rather expressing my inability to help because of inadeptness in arabian. Anyways, i may look-out this matter after a month or two probably. ClumsyMind (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Decision stream RfD

Please note that a DR-esque review was initiated on my talk page at User talk:Chenzw#Page:_Deep_decision_graph. I have endorsed the existing RfD result. Chenzw  Talk  14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD consensus seems clear to delete for lack of notablity, however, once again there is involved closing. However, the close is correct as the arguments of lack of notablity haven't be refuted by the keepers.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier; the thread on my talk page is technically not the same as DR, because the original editor's concern was on procedural grounds, and not on content grounds. In this case, the opinion of the community is not sought for at this point of time (that is, unless said editor wants to pursue this further on WP:REFUND, for real). Chenzw  Talk  14:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just as a reference, we are talking about this RfD. I was the administrator who closed it; IIRC, I did it mainly because the whole article was based on one academic paper, alone. Wikipedia is no good for publishing original research. In addition to this, there were several irregularities, mostly from editors who voted to "keep" the article (many of them were new, and only had few edits).I also think that discussions about undeletion should happen at the deletion review page, and not the talk pages of individual editors. As already pointed out elsewhere, it is the task of the closing admin to judge consesus/assert whether the article should be kept. This is usually done without regard to the personal opinion of the person closing. In short: if interested, parties should file a request at the Wikipedia:Deletion review page. --Eptalon (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon:You said you deleted also because of irregularities (many editors who voted keep were new), but you did not mention that the nominator was also new (I think?). Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: your ping doesn't work. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that is because the consensus is mostly judged based on the discussion of the nomination. Eptalon linked RFD as a reference so I am not sure why mentioning the nominator is important in the comment he made. Does that affect the consensus in any ways?--BRP ^ever 23:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
In our RfD process, anyone can nominate an article for deletion. The community will comment, and an admin will decide and close. We also had some requests which were filed by unnamed editors.--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism on Number

When I checked the [page history of Number, I saw excessive vandalism. I recently restored a good version, but I am concerned that the page will be vandalised again. Can someone please protect the page so that only admins can edit it? From 153.107.48.106 (talk) (contributions)

Admin-only protection is not routinely done for articles. The article does not have a sufficiently long and sustained history of vandalism to justify protection at this point of time. Chenzw  Talk  05:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you check the history, you can see that the page has gone through removal and re-adding of most of the words (+ or - 13,000 bytes) several times. The page was almost blanked! If you can't protect it, can you please keep an eye out for vandalism? From 153.107.48.106 (talk) (contributions)

Over the past 2 years, the average time to revert vandalism on that page is less than 2 minutes, and the most recent blanking was due to a mistake on my part (me reverting the anti-vandalism bot). The rate of vandalism on that article is considered low compared to our more frequently vandalised articles. Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks! Commuter3 (talk) (contributions) By the way, I am the logged-in version of 153.107.48.106 (talk) (contributions)

Delete this afterwards!

Import Request

Would one of you be able to import the latest Template:S-line and all its subpages from enwiki? Our current version is missing some subpages I want to use. There are way too many subpages to do it manually. Desertborn (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Import doesn't really work that way. I can bring over the most recent version of the template and any templates it uses directly (We do have the latest already). But not all subtemplates are directly used so it won't necessarily bring everything over. They have to be brought over one by one just like you would have to do copying them. If I get some spare time I will look at seeing what is missing. Otherwise in general we just bring them over when needed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can copy the specific ones I need. Desertborn (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot reverting edit that is not vandalism

This bot reverted this edit. I think there is something wrong with the bot. That edit was not vandalism. Arthurfan828 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a spam link.--BRP ^ever 16:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Clustermarket

Clustermarket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Promotional username, violation of Wikipedia:Username. Ahmad^talk 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Done --Enfcer (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there an arbitration function here?

I have had some edits rolled back by user Gotonda who has declined to respond to my notations on his talk page of why they were inappropriate.(We basically disagree over what is NPOV). Does this wiki have people who settle edit wars? From the number of dead people I had to clear off the List of the oldest living state leaders this wiki needs all the help it can get but if the environment is incurably toxic I'll find a better use for my time.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for the same pov issues as on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, dj. I just didn't have the energy to request a block and was going to wait for a little more misbehavior by the IP editor. If any active editors have questions about my rollbacks, please do check. I just did not want this kind of "What aboutism" and "You have to teach the controversy" to creep in. Funny that the IP got here first and brought it on themselves after I'd warned them. --Gotanda (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

need help for article

Hi dear respected admins, I'm a serial entrepreneur i want an article/biography on Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy i cannot publish article about myself. Can anyone please help me to move my draft User:Syedfalak/draft to the article space (if my draft is eligible). You are welcome to edit my draft before move it to the article space (if needed) Thanks! Syedfalak (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2020 b(UTC)

Please ask at Simple talk thank you! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Syedfalak: Hello. I'm an administrator on this project. I've noted your comment on the Simple Talk page where it appeared you understood the draft and by extension the company and yourself do not appear to meet notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. The burden is on the article's author to locate and include significant and in-depth coverage by a credible source to prove your notability or the notability of your company. Several of the sources you have listed do not meet the significant and in-depth coverage requirement or do not meet the reliable coverage requirement. Specifically, open forums and blogs are not reliable or credible. I decline to move your draft to article space. You should also note that you shouldn't write about yourself. Operator873^talkconnect 19:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Operator873: Hi, thanks for your reply.. As I have mentioned in simple talk page that there are many articles published without any reliable sources and they have tag on the top of articles that "This biography of a living person needs more sources for reliability Please help improve this article by adding reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged or removed." so my question is, is that possible to move my draft to the article space with this tag which i mentioned above or any other tag to let people do to improve the article by adding reliable sources? Or any other way to move draft to article space.. I don't know about Wikipedia as much as you and others know, that's why I'm asking for help. If you help me I'll be very thankful to you. Syedfalak (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2020 b(UTC)

I'm madder than hell

Some dumb ass put in wikipedia that it was good to put fresh grass in box with young cotton tails before eyes are open and my bunnies died in horrible pain from bloating wtf kind of operation are yall running dont yall check facts

What article did you see this information on? Vermont (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gale5050

This user is CU blocked on enwp, blocked on meta for NOTHERE (both with TPA revoked and email disabled - TPA due to abuse, email due to threats email). He had been given the ONESTRIKE warning. For his contributions here, most are on user talk and none had been productive. This is not productive either. Neither is this. This seems they are just trolling as well as repeatedly speaking of self-block/blocks on other projects and asking if they are blocked. Their content edits are just so few and this constant wikibreaks, asking of nonsense, and trolling is what get them blocked on meta here. I think this is way into NOTHERE/CIR/etc already. Looking for an admin to review.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+They had been warned not to make logged out edits here and on this very board, they logged out edit again here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+this is clearly not useful either. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to make constructive changes. I am just not good at it. The reason I was blocked on Meta was because Billinghurst said I’d be better at content Wikis. I committed sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia because I was blocked for using multiple accounts, when I didn’t know any better. Take that into account when deciding my punishment. I just need some time to mature on Wikipedia and learn how it all functions. An indefinite block won’t do anything. What an admin MIGHT want to do is a block that is 1-3 months to allow me to mature and learn my way around Simple Wikipedia. I had TPA revoked on Meta for the simple reason of I didn’t learn anything from the first two unblock request. I want to help, but I am just not good at doing so. Can anyone give me advice? Gale5050 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

P. S. I had eMail disabled on Meta because the blocking admin looked at CentralAuth and blocked it per enwiki. Maybe a mainspace block so I have to discuss pages and a better contributer can help. Gale5050 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You can be not good at non-constructive edits, but when multiple people counsel you at multiple wikis and asking you to log off and not edit any more but you persist and continue this chain of conversations over at meta, wikidata and enwp, multiple emails of admins, this cannot be it. Enough advices had been given and I don't see this can go anywhere save for an indef. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: I try to log off and stop, and I can for a few days, but it is really hard for me to resist editing. I made only one edit from March 23 to the 27th. Vermont told me to get off for 3 years. That should be the LONGEST a block lasts. By indeffing me, you fail to consider I could mature. My "im" edit was constructive as people might be confused. It really is just too hard to resist, so by having an enforced 3-year wikibreak, I can mature in 3 years and in 2023 learn how to edit constructively. That is all I am saying. Gale5050 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. you could give me 24 hours to make a large, constructive edit for an article. If I pass, no block. If I fail, a block is required. I think a 2nd chance might be needed. Gale5050 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gale5050: You might want to do it now. The im thing I don't doubt is constructive if it's once-off, but repeatedly asking isn't. This isn't constructive please.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: ok, so when this is done, I will learn how to PROPERLY use Simple. See, an indefinite won't teach me that. But a shorter block of anywhere of a few weeks to 3 years might. Maybe I should have some time, as my immaturity is currently my biggest weakness. Gale5050 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. if you check I-95 and major junctions section, I added I-287. Come on, that has to be constructive. Gale5050 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. sometimes I do not realize I am logged out. I sometimes forget. Gale5050 (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You had been blocked for block evasion on meta by logging out, so it's not as benign as sometimes I don't realize I am logged out. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly while you ARE right, at least about that, if I do double check I should be allowed to edit here, right? As there is no UTRS, at least if I am blocked, do not revoke TPA and/or eMail. I promise never to send bad eMails again. But yeah, that ONE time I block evaded. Gale5050 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole issue is Vermont already told you not to edit via logged-out and you did so again. Okay, please do that one productive page edit. Thanks much.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
First off, I am going to stop indenting. Second off, I did the productive edit. I’d say 40% are constructive, 40% are trivial, and 20% are unconstructive. But not vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gale5050 (talk • contribs)

Ok, so because no one else is responding, in bold, I'll put why I think I was helping you guys. Wikipedia can be a contreversal place, and it can be hard for some people to edit, like me. Also, what you have to consider is a 1-year block, or a 2-year block, or even a 1-month block, will allow me to change. On Meta I was not blocked for abusing TPA, but solely because I made 3 unblock requests. That happened on enwiki too. WP: NOTHERE should not apply as I do want to help, just not good, so if you'd just give me a chance to prove myself, I won't dissapoint. Plus why is a 3RR violation a day block and NOTHERE as an indefinite one? Honestly, if you pick a block, don't consider my bad, but my good also. P.S. both me and User: Camouflaged Mirage have to sleep, please do not use that against me. Anyway until someone else does something, I'm outta here. Gale5050 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I spoke with stewards and with the history of abuse, we were able to globally lock the user so she will no longer be a problem. --Examknow^talk 18:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Examknow.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Verify Sources

Hi dear respected admins. I want to know that these below websites articles can be use as a reliable sources for Wikipedia article?

• Youth Ki Awaaz | https://www.youthkiawaaz.com
• MenaFN | https://menafn.com
• Medium | https://medium.com

Syedfalak (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

ChenwzBot accident

An anonymous user made an edit on Yesterday and ChenwzBot reverted the edit, while it was actually helpful. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 01:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arthurfan828: Which edit?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: This one. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arthurfan828: You can speak to Chenzw on his talkpage?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: Ok. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 17:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Move requests

I would like two pages moved that I can not move myself because of redirects.

• Help Wanted (SpongeBob episode) → Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants)
• The Simpsons Halloween episodes → Treehouse of Horror

Thank you. TnT20052013 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@TnT20052013: I'm not sure I agree with those moves. Please explain why you want them done. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the original titles are better --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6:

• Every other television series episode page with a common title just uses the show's name in parenthesis (unless the common title is related to the show). However, I found out removing 'episode' in the name may make the article name a little less understandable. If the original title is kept, should other episode pages with a disambiguation title have the change?
• Treehouse of Horror is the proper name for the series. It would make the article more understanding, and the links from the other wikis go along with the name.

TnT20052013 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection Request

I request any pages relating to COVID-19 be on semi protection due to it being a contreversal issue. According to https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/ there are 423,000 cases in America alone. Not that there is sufficent vandalism but that could easily happen and with so few admins I think it is needed. We have 16 admins. Enwiki has 1,309 and THEY had to semi/EC protect THEIR articles. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AD (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) We can't really protect articles if there is no issue. En-Wiki is far more active then we are with more editors, that's why their pages have so much protection. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I know, but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia is semiprotected and this, this and that is not. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AD (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I don't get a say in this, just telling you why the pages are not protected --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ll ping an admin. U choose who as you CLEARLY have more experience. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AD (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No need. An Admin will protect the page(s) if and when needed. We don't need to do anything. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Thegooduser: ok fine. I will make a formal complaint if vandal IP editing occurs. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:2E (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea. Just request the protection here if it does happen. Happy Editing! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We protect pages if they are getting a lot of vandalism. We don't protect them as a preventive measure.

@Thegooduser: It would be much simpler if you just let the admins reply to requests on the admins noticeboard. If people are making a request or asking a question here, it usually means that they want an answer from, you know, an actual admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Auntof6, Yea, I was just letting them know why the page was not protected, but as I mentioned above, I get no say in anything else here. I had no intention of being disruptive. Sorry. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing talk page access

I think User:SesameStreet1727 are misusing their talk page access. They first changed Djsasso's unblock review and then made this unblock request. Ahmad^talk 20:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Handled by disabling access and deleting their user talk. Bsadowski1 21:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(Comment) How will they be able to appeal if there is no WP: UTRS here? If eMail is disabled they are out of options! 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:87 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

They can still send to the admin mailing list...--Eptalon (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And we also have OTRS on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Unprotection Request

I’d like to request the article on requests for permissions be unprotected as anons might want to vote on issues. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:6B (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anons are not permited to vote on permission discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: why?2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:6B (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a guideline called Criteria for Adminship that this community agreed on. One of the things it says is that anonymous users cannot vote...--Eptalon (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Chdondon1990

Dear all,
I wanted to let you know about what is happening with User:Chdondon1990 on fr.WP : Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Agence de comm tunisienne. To make it short, he has just been blocked indefinitely in the context of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. As you can see on this fr.WP page, multiple accounts have been blocked previously but he has continued to create new accounts and most of his contributions are about Tunisian celebrities. As further explained here, the personal website of this person (named Chedi Amir) mentions he is a digital manager for various Tunisian celebrities and it is evident from looking at his contributions on this version that most of them are about the same people he works for.
I am not too much contributing here but hope you can take actions so this can be addressed on this language version too.
FYI, Bassem Hamraoui and Leïla Ben Khalifa were deleted on fr.WP as not meeting notoriety criteria.
Moumou82 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this piece of information. If you think that the aticles you mention do not meet notability guidelines, I would invide you to file requests for deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Concerns on fr.WP are more connected to the violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which I think should be a concern here as well and should lead to sanctions. Just be aware da.WP also blocked indefinitely the user.

I know notability guidelines vary from one version to another so I leave the assessment of created articles to local contributors.

Moumou82 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Paid contribution is difficult to prove; sockpuppetry is less of a concern when editing articles. I see two ways to nominate trhese for deletion: 1) They are finally not as notable as expected and possibly 2) the editor who created them had a conflict of interest. Using notabililty is probably easier. But again: i can only encourage you to propose them; notability guidelines are pretty similar over all Wikipedias. --Eptalon (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Paid contribution is not difficult to prove because he admitted here to be a digital manager working for various celebrities. When you look at his contributions and the celebrities listed on his personal website, he mostly writes articles about them and fighting on multiple WPs to get them restored when they are deleted. As a consequence, this user is now blocked on three different WP versions.

Now, if you think he should be free to remain active here, it is up to you but nobody will be able to say that an alert was not shared. Moumou82 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting us know. --Eptalon (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Something strange using Twinkle for RfD

Hi, I never used Twinkle until recently. I selected RfD and added the reason "OR" on the page Origin story. It tagged the page correctly, but it seemed it didn't make the discussion page and I am not sure how to create it manually now without the link from the tag. And, now Requests is kind of messed up. Sorry about that, but can someone tell me what I did incorrectly or how to fix this? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order. Due to caching, it may be possible for the RfD discussion page to momentarily appear as non-existent (even though the page is already there). This issue affects #if: parserfunctions and transclusion in particular. Chenzw  Talk  07:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonas Lohrmann

• Article has already been deleted and is now re-created --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved.

--Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection/admin attention needed - Shazir mucklai

There is an active request for deletion for Shazir mucklai, but at least one person is repeatedly removing the RfD template/link from the article. I think that the page should be better protected from such changes while this discussion is ongoing. --Jamie7687 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jamie7687: Thank you very much for letting us know this is happening. The best method for dealing with this issue is to revert the edit, provide a user warning explaining why it was reverted, then report as vandalism if it continues. I've warned the account in question and reverted the change. At this time, article protection isn't warranted. Operator873^talkconnect 17:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting temporary interface adminship

Hello! Could I have interface adminship for a few hours (or a day, in case I'm not online when it's granted) to make a change to MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js? There's a fix that needs to be done to prevent editors from accidentally making changes logged out, specifically when using Twinkle. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Next Hour -- Enfcer (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

small error on the nelson Mandela article

i just made an account to point this out so go easy on me. On the 2nd sentence of the early life section in the nelson Mandela article they say "He had thirteen siblings by the same father, and two mothers." while the cited source for that sentence states that nelson Mandela's dad had 13 children including Nelson Mandela and using the word siblings says that there's 13 children not including Nelson Mandela. The cited source also states that the 13 children came from 4 mothers not 2 so the sentence should be changed to "He had Twelve siblings by the same father, and Four mothers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boringboredom (talk • contribs)

Noah Schnapp

Please semi-protect this page due to vandalism --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rapid cycling vandalism apparent in article's history. Article protected for 24 hours, then will reevaluate. Operator873^talkconnect 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Operator873 Please renew the protection --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 17:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done via request here Operator873^talkconnect 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Flood Flag

I plan to fix the pages at Category:CS1 errors: dates, and do not want to spam new changes, could I have the flood flag for 1 hour so I can fix as much as I can, thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: the flood flag should only be used when your making the same specific change to multiple pages. It shouldn't be used for varying edits which it sounds like you'll be doing in this case. As an example, it would be against policy to fix a spelling error if you were holding the flood flag for replacing a deprecated template terms with the correct one. Also, it's always good to allow fellow editors to review the changes via the RC feed. Operator873^talkconnect 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay! I was planning to fix the dates where most them are written in the wrong order, or missing a zero. Is it okay if I changed a bunch of them at once? I don't want to get risk getting blocked for spamming new changes, that's why I requested this. But I'll do it slowly without the flood flag. I don't need flood flag then, Thank you --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing too fast isn't a reason to get blocked unless you're editing faster than a human could. Enjoy! Operator873^talkconnect 21:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In the past, our rule of thumb has been that it's acceptable to make about 100 of the same kind of change in a short time without using the flood flag. You'll sometimes get complaints even with lower numbers, but it's allowed. One principle involved is that, to the greatest extent possible, changes should be visible in recent changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Auntof6 If I were to go over 100, will I get blocked? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That would depend on the circumstances. If you have more than 100 of the same kind of change, then either get the flag (in which case you'd need to abide by the rules of using the flag) or do only 100 of them at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Peg + Cat

I would like to request semi-protection of Peg + Cat, because a group of IPV6 anons keep adding fake information like it is a future TV show that will be released in the 2030s, especially after the range block.

I would recommend a month protection at first, then a three month protection if it continues, and if that still happens, an indefinite protection. Sortawant (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sortawant: Right now, the amount of vandalism on the page is not enough to protect. There was quite a bit of vandalism around the end of April, but only five total changes (including two reverts) so far this month. I have added it to my watchlist so I can see any further vandalism. As a side note, the level-4 warnings you left should have been preceded by some lower-level warnings. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Unprotection Request

I think the List of current heads of state and government should beat unprotected. The last edit was in November 2019. Since then, some things have changed in the world. The article is 6 months behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomer1557 (talk • contribs)

It has been updated. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

UPE Report

User:LaurelWest edits give the impression that he/she has a financial stake in promoting a topic, but have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. DROOLmugs (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

These can be seen here: Special:Contributions/LaurelWest Peterdownunder (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

One World: Together at Home to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers

There is no general agreement for the being taken out of One World: Together at Home to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:D180:4500:547E:5CA3:3658:189 (talk • contribs)

2604:3D08:D180:4500:547E:5CA3:3658:189, what is it that you want help with? Your message here lacks context and isn't understandable. Vermont (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see; the deletion review of One World: Together At Home to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers. The page is not going to be undeleted. Vermont (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is that? 2604:3D08:D180:4500:547E:5CA3:3658:189 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The article wasn't written very well so it looked like it was advertising. I have created a better stub at Together at Home. Feel free to expand on it, but try to keep it neutral in tone. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Flooder flag for Path slopu

Hi greetings, I am requesting flooder flag for doing this AWB task. I think that may flood RC. So I'd like to use flooder flag. Thank you.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Path slopu: You discussed several tasks there, some of which you were told shouldn't be done with AWB. Please specify which task you are referring to, how many edits you think will be involved, and how long you think it will take. Also note that you must agree to adhere to the following:

• You must log on in AWB after being given the flood flag or it won't take effect. If you are already logged on in AWB, you must re-log on after the flood flag is applied..
• During the time you have the flood flag, you must work only on the approved task(s), both through AWB and where logged on directly. This applies even if the flood flag stays in effect after you finish your task(s). Even if the flag isn't removed as soon as you'd like, you still have to wait.
• When the flag is removed or expires, you must log off of AWB to cancel it.

Some questions:

• Where did you get the figure of 5000 pages missing reference sections? Check Wikipedia currently shows only 145. Does your list include pages that are missing note sections? Those can appear to need reference sections, but the code that needs to be added is different. I also see that you added a reference section to at pages that didn't need it (Sea of Azov and Azov and others).

That is due to the same issue we discussed in my talk page. That contains articles lacking reference section (but with no references).--Path slopu ^(Talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Will you be manually checking each change? The External links and See also section changes would need to be checked because they aren't used consistently. For example, some pages use See also for external links, and some use it for additional reading: you wouldn't want to change it to Related pages for those. Adding reference sections should also be checked, because their placement can vary. It's also possible that some of the situations in your list will be fixed before you get to them, and we don't want to add duplicate sections.

I'll check all edits before saving. Thanks for the advice.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Awaiting your replies. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I posted the above before I decided to remove your AWB access for now. No objection to you getting access again if the issues can be resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I agree with the guidelines you have mentioned above. However I don't need flooder flag now as per the reason I have mentioned in my talk page.(wikibreak). Thank you.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk page

Hi. Consider protecting my talk page due to ongoing vandalism. -- Tegel (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for six months.-BRP ^ever 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Folsom Prison

There are Two Folsom Prison's. One in Georgia and one in California. Mr Cash's song "Folsom Prison Blues" is about the one in Georgia not the one in California. IF he had shot a man in Reno, Nv. just to watch him die he would have been incarcerated in a Prison in Nevada. The Reno refered to in the song is Reno, Georgia.

Aside from the fact that this page is not the place for this kind of discussion, the things you say appear inconsistent with what's in the English Wikipedia article. In fact, we don't seem to have an article on any prison by this name, and the article on the song doesn't mention a specific prison. Maybe you meant to leave these comments on English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote "When photographer Jim Marshall asked Cash why the song's main character was serving time in California's Folsom Prison after shooting a man in Reno, Nevada, he responded, "That's called poetic license."" -Djsasso (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Global Goal Live: The Possible Dream

There is no general agreement for the being taken out of Global Goal Live: The Possible Dream. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:48BA:B65D:4493:63D3 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletions will continue if those pages continue to serve as/look like advertisements. Chenzw  Talk  16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting JavaScript Pages

User:Krett12/KretTW.js User:Krett12/all-twinkle-warning-choices-in.js User:Krett12/common.js User:Krett12/test.js User:Krett12/test2.js User:Krett12/twinkleoptions.js.

Please delete all these pages under QD U1, as Javascript pages may not use QD templates. Krett12 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, all these pages please User:Computer_Fizz/common.js User:Computer_Fizz/huggle3.css User:Computer_Fizz/monobook.js User:Computer_Fizz/tw.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2/jquery.tipsy.css User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2/jquery.tipsy.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2/jquery.ui.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2/mediawiki.RegExp.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2/mediawiki.util.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkle2_a_main.js User:Computer_Fizz/twinkleoptions.js User:Computer_Fizz/twtest.js Computer Fizz (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Vermont (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Chiranjiv Makwana

This article have been created and deleted several times. Please protect it indefinitely.--Trade (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not seeing anything in the deletion logs. Could you be referring to a different article? Hiàn (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the name. --Trade (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have create-protected it, for three months. (Usual level:autoconfirmed user). --Eptalon (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection Request

Really, this should be semi-protected for a year. I mean not that there is vandalism, but I am telling you it is going to be at some point and we need to prevent that apocalypse of misinformation. 67.81.198.147 (talk) 3:56 PM EDT May 17, 2020/ 19:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I am starting to think 1 year is too much. Maybe 3 months. 67.81.198.147 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The page is being closely monitored, and if necessary we will take protective action.Peterdownunder (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pages to delete and protection

Please delete all of the following below: Arthurfan828/Arthur and the Square Dance Arthurfan828/Buster and the Daredevils Arthurfan828/Caillou (character) Arthurfan828/Caillou Fan Arthurfan828/History Arthurfan828/List of Caillou characters Arthurfan828/Pancake Tower Arthurfan828/Paul Salameh Arthurfan828/QD log Arthurfan828/ROBLOX Studio Arthurfan828/Restore feature Arthurfan828/Sandbox Arthurfan828/Wikipedia:Draft pages Arthurfan828/Work at a Pizza Place (ROBLOX game) Arthurfan828/common.js Arthurfan828/global.js Arthurfan828/minerva.js Arthurfan828/sandbox Arthurfan828/skin.js Arthurfan828/twinkleoptions.js Arthurfan828/undo.js Arthurfan828/undovandal.js Also, can you please indefinitely protect my talk page and my userpage please? Thanks. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 22:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with RfD Second Nominations

Hello, it appears that the RfD system is failing to accept second nominations in the same year. See for details. I tried very hard to get this template to work, but it wouldn't accept the second nomination and pointed to the first, with no parameter to change the link. I ended up having to substitute the template and edit that way, which is very yucky. I am surprised it seems nobody has had this problem before, as this seems like it would happen for any two rfds in the same year. The nomination page being created also got messed up, somehow. This was fixable by editing the {{lc}} template, but I would still like to see if there is a permanent fix. Naleksuh (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• • I know I just retired. However, I had to let you know there are still errors with the substitution. It says: “Template {{RfD}} has been incorrectly substituted.“. Thanks. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's known. I'm hoping this will be resolved directly from the source, by possibly adding a new parameter to Template:Rfd. I'm mostly pretty confused how nobody has even had this problem before, wouldn't this affect all second nominations? Naleksuh (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the transclusion. The relevant template parameter is |request=. As far as I am aware, Twinkle doesn't support handling nth RfD nominations, but I will take a look at the code later to see if this can be a quick fix. Chenzw  Talk  02:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to RfD templates so that the request creation link will actually respect the request parameter now. Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the problem with the {{lc}} template. It's particularly strange because other RfDs so far have not run into this issue. Twinkle uses exactly the same preload template for new RfD pages. Chenzw  Talk  02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Khalid Abdelkareem

Someone keeps recreating this article. Please protect it.----Trade (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It has only been created twice, so at this point it does not qualify for protection as twice is not Recreated often, we do routinely watch for this. Thanks for pointing it out, we will watch it. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blacklist

Can the media wiki blacklist/abuse filter prevent a certain sentence of words being added to an article or any Wikipedia page? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Yes the Special:AbuseFilter can be used to identify certain phrases that are added to pages. It can be configured to simply log the edit, tag it, throttle the user, prevent the edit from saving, or even block the user trying to make the edit. It can also be configured take action based on namespace, whether the user is logged in, or age of the account. 67.219.113.93 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also why isn't User:Abuse Filter listed on the list of admins? It can be useful to stop vandal attacks when no admins are present --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 19:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: @Operator873: what words are blacklisted? 24.146.153.145 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

About 10% of the edits hit an abuse filter.--Eptalon (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)