Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 59

Syco

Excessive vandalism on Syco - please protect, if necessary. Thanks, Aranya (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Djsasso (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Hamuyi

The user is blocked indefinitely on enwiki with WP:CIR cited. Since the user has arrived they have created an article about an un-notable subject. Following the QD tag being placed, they then started an unneeded RfD for the article. I propose we implement WP:ONESTRIKE as it is evident that the user is still not competent enough for Wikipedia. There are also other issues I cannot mention in a public setting. --IWI (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Some examples include this article that was also created that had to be significantly cleaned up; this incorrect capitalisation; here where they seemed to not understand that the birds were in a different section, thus leading them to remove the whole section; and this message, which in my view is not the kind of message a user should give in most situations. I think this most likely fits into the ONESTRIKE category, considering the nature of the enwiki block. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Going to block. I've kept an eye on their behaviour and it's clear the CIR concerns first brought up at enwiki are visible here. Hiàn (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have jumped to this so fast. Onestrike while it can be used for this. I would probably have AGF'd something like CIR for a bit longer because they could be trying to get better as opposed to a vandal who comes here and continues who clearly isn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

They were warned about ONESTRIKE in June. Wouldn't exactly call that "jumping fast", if I am being totally honest. --IWI (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And did almost no editing in the time between then and now in article space (most of his edits have come since yesterday). ONESTRIKE is a last resort for bad editors who clearly came here for no good reason. CIR on the other hand could very well be someone meaning well but just unable to fix. The solution here is to work with said person for a bit and show them how they could be better before dropping the hammer on them. It is very WP:BITEy to do it in this situation. We need to get people out of this mindset that has crept onto this wiki over the last year or so that simple wikipedia is a place where we play the game of wack-a-vandal or wack-a-user. It is very detrimental to this wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Why should our users have to clean up mess created by new editors? Some people are inherently not competent enough for Wikipedia, or at least not yet. Various attempts were made on enwiki to help the user, but they don't seem to learn from errors pointed out to them. Here, Infogapp advised him to not welcome users who have not edited yet, and he has continued. I am certain that this user is editing good faith, but this is not enough; competence is required also. This kind of disruption moves other editors away from writing articles and instead cleaning up the endless problems. This situation is exactly what onestrike is for. They were repeatedly warned on enwiki; why should we repeat such futility here? This is not an attack on the user, but merely a pragmatic approach that is ultimately good for the encyclopedia itself (the most important thing). What if some of the issues created never get fixed? I am also concerned about the growing problem of some administrators on the English Wikipedia sending disruptive editors here and treating our wiki as a place to redeem themselves. --IWI (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not a growing problem, it has always been the case. Whether we like it or not that is how we get almost all of our editors. If we want to increase our editor base we learn to be more lenient when good faith is involved. Because if we can correct the issue, then our userbase increases by one, which for us is a very big deal. Secondly, since he was not banned at en.wiki ONESTRIKE technically does not apply to him, he was only indefinitely blocked, onestrike requires a community ban. Now I realize some admins (including myself) at times will say a block is onestrike when they haven't been banned on en.wiki we are technically wrong in doing so (though sockpuppeters are considered defacto banned which is where I see it happen most often). I should also point out while we shouldn't welcome editors who haven't edited here yet, that is in no way shape or form something a person should be blocked for. You need to use some common sense. Blocking is a last resort. -Djsasso (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course they shouldn't be blocked for that alone. In no way was I suggesting such a thing. --IWI (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I took some time to think over my action, and I think DJSasso has a point here that I clearly neglected to consider when I chose to prematurely bring down the banhammer. It was a bad call on my part and my initial comment here should have been very, very different. This wasn't a correct application of ONESTRIKE - and if any admins choose to overturn the block, it's not in my place to make any objections. I don't have much more to say other than my apologies for Hamuyi, and that I still have to continue to learn and do better. Hiàn (talk)_{/editing on mobile account.} 20:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, you were acting in good faith, my initial comment was mostly just made in a "I wouldn't have done it, but its done." sort of way. Was a totally understandable action to take. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You and Djsasso have two viewpoints, both of which are equally acceptable approaches. I tend to agree with Hiàn's view, but that's just me. --IWI (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There's another option. Why not ask Hamuyi to leave? Say "We saw your work on Simple and some of us think you still are not competent enough to edit in English. Would you please go away without a formal block? That way, if your English skills improve in a few years, you won't have to go through all the drama of filing for an appeal, and you won't be at risk of a global ban the way you would if you were indeffed on two Wikis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Such messaging is contrary to the mission of the wiki. If CIR is really an issue, then a block/ban should be considered (as has been done here). We shouldn't be asking users to leave of their own accord for the purpose of avoiding the need to go through drama, whatever that means. It is worth noting that in the past (at least a few years back) we would typically consider mentorship arrangements before blocks/bans are even suggested, but the crunch in editors' resources has made it a less feasible course of action in recent times. Chenzw  Talk  04:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving a page

Why do I not have permission to move pages? ɑccelerɑte9868 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

New users can't move pages, you need to be autoconfirmed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ɑccelerɑte9868: In the mean time you can ask here for any moves you want to do, and an autoconfirmed user or administrator can do it. --IWI (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Template move

Please move Template:Infobox F1 season to Template:F1 season per enwiki. The latter was created as a duplicate by mistake, and is currently a redirect. --IWI (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. It actually was created as a duplicate on purpose, the mistake was forgetting to redirect the old one. -Djsasso (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That would not be an ideal way to do it. You should have updated Template:Infobox F1 season and moved it to Template:F1 season, over the duplicate. Now we have the page history of the template at the wrong location, like a copy-paste move. I had fixed the issue by transferring the data to the correct page, it just had to be moved over the redirect (that I could not delete) in order to preserve the history, which was not done. --IWI (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Move completed to preserve history as requested. Operator873^talkconnect 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire purpose of doing it that way was to split the edit history into the two separate articles. The edit history was not lost, it remained on the redirect where it was intended to. This is often done when there was a template created here first and then a much newer version at a new name is brought over. It makes it so the edit history remains much more clear and not convoluted and often incorrect when a template is imported over an old one. (and you had not fixed it, you made a copy paste move without attribution yourself) -Djsasso (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the user that created it intended to do that. Obviously when updating a template, you will update the existing page, not create a new one. An import has been done for attribution purposes. I copied so that the data would not be lost during a page move and an import could be done. Having the edit history for one template split between two pages doesn't make sense if it can be avoided. It is almost never a good thing to have split edit history for the same page, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. The user mistakenly made a duplicate; the way to fix it would be to delete it and import on the existing page instead. --IWI (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I was the user that created it. I intended it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nearly 100% certain that you did not create it. --IWI (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong. I imported to the new name just the other day. You can look at my logs from that day and see what I was editing then if you wish. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Look at the edit history. You imported over a person's new page. I can't see right now as it is deleted, but I know it was the case. In any case, it would have been better to move the existing template to the correct name and imported it there. It is totally illogical and wrong to create a whole new page for the same template, when the move function could so easily solve the issue. It is not a good reason to split edit histories; there is nothing confusing about a template update in the edit history. Regardless of who created it, they did so incorrectly. --IWI (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That would be because you are looking at the two templates as the same template. Because it was at a new name, it was effectively a new template (until Operator merged them). The old history for the old name remained with it. And the history of the completely fresh template remained with it. Now the template is a mismash of the two. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

They're the same template, just updated. You can see the difference here. It is similar enough to be considered the same template. As a result, splitting the page history is not needed. --IWI (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not going to keep arguing. Would make a bigger mess to unravel it now. But if you look the source it is completely different in your diff. Yes they obviously serve the same purpose and do the same thing. But the new template did not contain any of the code that the old edit history was attributing, thus it was being left behind at the old name where the old code had been that it was actually attributing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Well we clearly disagree on that one. Not an argument, just a discussion :) --IWI (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  I am not quite sure from where/what you determined that both versions of the template were "similar enough". They look neither visually similar nor syntactically similar. Chenzw  Talk  16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The parameters are similar, such as showing the champions. Sure, it's different (as the old version was outdated), but is fundamentally the same thing. Thus, should be on the same page. I'm willing to bet the old version can be found somewhere in the edit history of en:Template:F1 season. There is absolutley no reason to split this over two pages, and I'm surprised anyone could think that. --IWI (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll remind everyone here that this is Wikipedia which means if the action is disagreed with, it can be undone through polite, civil discussion. Operator873^talkconnect 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said it couldn't? Only issue here is that the undoing of it happened before that discussion had completed really. -Djsasso (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I found both versions in the same page history on enwiki here. The new one is simply an updated version. The old one was a very outdated version of the same template. I can see why Operator took the action as it seemed like a pretty clear cut case. Still can't see any reasonable purpose to split this over two pages at all. Doing so should be avoided if at all possible when we are talking about the same template/page. --IWI (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both came from the same template originally, but think of ours as a fork of the original. Once it came here it became its own thing at its own location. I forked a clean version of updated code to a new location so it wouldn't have all the extra unnecessary edit history of the old fork. What happens when you do it the way you are suggesting is that it sandwiches edits from here and there between each other which in many situations is completely fine and I would do in most situations. In situations where we have the opportunity to not have a confusing edit history because there is a completely different version of the template (as in the code isn't remotely similar) it becomes more prudent to go the route of having the shorter edit history without the mish mash of unnecessary edit history from both wikis. I don't disagree that they came from the same place, however they are separate forks. -Djsasso (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

For example the fact that both you and Tvx1 now have the exact same edit in a row has broken the attribution because both of your edits say +411. Technically that is supposed to not happen and we need to delete the whole template and restore the edits other than yours to fix it. We used to have an editor who used to go through making sure those errors were fixed but he stopped editing a number of years ago. So technically at this point the edit history of this template is broken as you can't see who the actual author of that change is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I see this whole situation as someone did what they thought was best. Another editor disagreed. A third editor (ie a 3rd opinion) agreed with the 2nd editor and made the change. As far as I'm aware, that is exactly how it's supposed to happen. Now is the point at which a more broad discussion should happen involving the community since it's apparently that big of a deal. Operator873^talkconnect 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair the discussion hadn't been commented on for four days before today, so I think most everyone had walked away already. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is why using the import tool is not always ideal. Updating an existing template is a lot easier if just copy/pasted with attribution in edit summary to avoid conflicts. --IWI (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at African Americans

African Americans has been repeatedly attacked by one or several vandals since August 5 - Diff of the last attack. The attacks are not really frequent, but maybe it would be a good idea to semi-protect the page for a limited period of time. The same pattern of vandalism occurs at Black people, but less frequently. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added both pages to my watchlist. On Simple Wikipedia we generally don't protect a page unless the vandalism comes in big waves of multiple editors on the same day where an admin wouldn't be able to keep up with the reverting. Relatively speaking these pages have had little vandalism, if it picks up to the point people can't manage I will protect it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah agree. Not really frequent enough to warrant protection. It isn't like enwiki where we have hundreds of thousands viewing the page. Current abuse is manageable. --IWI (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If those articles are on more watchlists, that's a good solution. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User "Chaipau" making disruptive edits in the page "Chutia kingdom".

The user named Chaipau is constantly removing sourced information from the "Rebellion" section of the page Chutia Kingdom, calling it irrelevant. ([1]). On another previous occasion he had tried to remove the section, stating that one of the sources is not reliable, when there were two other reliable sources available. Instead of simply removing the non-reliable source, he had tried to remove the entire section, just to push his own POV. ([2]). Request the admins to restore the sections and take necessary actions on the user.223.176.7.51 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This is simple English Wikipedia, we don't have that page. Let the EnWP admins handle it, you also reported there. --Eptalon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection request

Please consider fully protecting Template:Main other. It is transcluded on over 121,000 pages so semi-protection isn’t really enough. --IWI (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say the same for Module:Check for unknown parameters, which is used on over 116,000 pages with no protection at all. --IWI (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes on abuse filter 105

I have created filter 105 to mitigate edits coming from the Pakistan anon, who has been particularly active lately. Technically speaking, this filter exists to enforce a community guideline, and I am generally not a fan of such abuse filters. The volume of editing from the anon has been rather bad, though, so if the filter looks okay (and won't block every innocent edit), please move it to block mode with the warning message that I have specifically created for the filter. Chenzw  Talk  15:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4

Naleksuh (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh, I think this should go on Simple talk and not here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Such things like that are put on the noticeboard generally from a global perspective, but I see nothing wrong with doing both. Naleksuh (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, got it --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Move Purple Mangosteen to Mangosteen

Per this, needs an admin. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

en:User:Thegooduser/alternateaccounts

Can An Admin, Indef block, and remove TPA and Email for all those doppelgänger accounts on this wiki, thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Were they originally yours or someone spoofing you? -Djsasso (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Djsasso These were made by me, I don't remember the password nor the email I set for them (If I ever did), Since I'm more active here now, might as well block them here too, to prevent any disruption here if they get compromised --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Just noting that none of those appear to have been registered here. If someone logged in and visited simplewiki, an account would be automatically created. You could see whether the stewards would consider a self-requested global lock at meta:SRG (they did for my old account). --IWI (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a script that logs them out, but I don't know if it works or not, so safer to request global lock --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle issue

There is an issue when using Twinkle to report users to VIP. See this as an example. --IWI (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be working for me. Would need more info on what they were doing when it happened. -Djsasso (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh I managed to reproduce it now. Looks like its when you do it specifically from the contributions page. Will see if I can see how to fix it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a recent UI change broke the old way (admittedly a rather hackish one) of retrieving the username. I have applied the fix in morebits.js which uses the modern method of calling mw.config.get. Please remember to purge/bypass your browser cache for the new change to take effect (I didn't fully do so before testing, so you see that I ended up making a report with the issue too). Chenzw  Talk  16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Good, thank you both :) --IWI (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: I tried to report an IP range from the Contribs page and got this error again. --IWI (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Unprotect uncyclopedia

Plz68.197.157.236 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That page has had issues with vandalism so needs to remain protected. Feel free to create an account and in a few days you will be able to edit that page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712

I am requesting that DannyS712's rights be removed due to repeated misuse of admin tools. His modus operandi consists of immediately blocking a user who has just made a a good-faith post to a talk page, usually without talk page access, so that the user has no chance to explain or question him. He then revdels the post, claiming "personal attack", thus hiding the evidence that the post was in fact good-faith. An example of this behavior can be found here. 154.64.219.15 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I invite any admins that want to to review the example given. I'll note that the example given is not "good-faith", and even if it was, the single example given would not represent "repeated misuse". Since the IP that posted here is an open proxy, in violation of a global policy (m:No open proxies) I will be blocking it locally and requesting a global block, though I will leave talk page access enabled DannyS712 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the example, and my view is that this whole request was in bad faith. Although an admin blocking a user who makes a complaint about them could be seen as questionable, in this case I support the action. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to scrutiny, but the global policy is fairly clear, since "[open] proxies are often exploited for abusive purposes" DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

LTA using a proxy. I revoked TPA and extended the block. This needn't be discussed further per DENY. Operator873^talkconnect 20:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Unprotect MAcdonaldross talk page

so ips can talk to you and also thegooduser 63.143.237.91 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Why no reply 63.143.237.91 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Undo a vandalism move

A user hijacked article Ralph Breaks the Internet by moving it to E217 series. I am trying to undo that vandalism but can't revert the move to put things back the way they were as the redirect was overwritten by some other content preventing the move back. See revision history of pages involved to see what was done [3], [4]. This ended up making the edit history not match the content of the pages. User did same on enwiki but that was fixed fairly quickly there.Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. In order to fix this the page currently at Ralph Breaks the Internet will need to be deleted and E217 series moved back. --IWI (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Auntof6 performed the move. --IWI (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at Learned society and other places

85.255.235.54 (talk · contribs) has just done a dozen or so vandalism-only changes, nearly all have already been reverted. However, he also created Learned society, which should also be deleted quickly. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

New multi-IP vandal, I'll call them "The Trumpet"

Ok, some IP vandal-who uses multiple IPs, mind you-has been going onto talk pages and doing topic titles like "TRUMP 2020". I figured you guys can handle it, as you guys always do.--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

RD1 request

Hi, can an admin RD1 the few copyvio versions. Thanks. Source is this. Thanks Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and per my email to the admin list. --IWI (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Operator873^talkconnect 16:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Page move for Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska

Please move Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska to Yakutat, Alaska, per enwiki. Destination page is a redirect with two revisions. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Can some admin help, or give me authorization to do a page swap beyond gloabl rollbackers remit to do the move. Thanks so much. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Old name left as redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

However, please note that it is not usually necessary to match our article names to enwiki's. I've seen a lot of such requests lately, and reasons should be given other than "to match enwiki". --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Indeed, we shouldn't blanket match enwiki, this one I agree with IWI as the new name is sort of shorter --> simpler ? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6 and Camouflaged Mirage: I find it to be a good rule of thumb to follow their broad consensus unless there is a specific reason not to, per the spirit of WP:FOLLOW. There are some situations in which we may differ – this doesn't seem to be one of them as Camouflaged Mirage said. --IWI (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requests for page importation

• en:Template:IAFD studio/doc to Template:IAFD studio/doc
• en:Template:IAFD distributor/doc to Template:IAFD distributor/doc
• en:Template:Bollywood Hungama person/doc to Template:Bollywood Hungama person/doc
• en:Template:Adult Film Database name/doc to Template:Adult Film Database name/doc

--Saroj Uprety (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Move Template:Infobox video game online service to Template:Infobox online service Saroj Uprety (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Saroj Uprety: Imports done. Why do you want the move done? The second one already redirects to the first, so pages referring to either would get the same result. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Because that template is not just for video game services, but for each service and to make it compatible with English Wikipedia. Saroj Uprety (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Saroj Uprety: Either name would work. We aren't required to match names with English Wikipedia. I'm not going to do the move, but I won't challenge it if another admin wants to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Ok thanks and I meant that not all services are video game services. Like Apple TV+, it is not a video game service. Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir

I have a problem with this page on wikipedia about me. They are all a bunch of lies and i want it deleted. I can attach my I.D. card to see i am the real

person. Thank you

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pontonbluelagoon

> User:Pontonbluelagoon -

Hello, the page you cite was mostly edited by your account, it is your user page. When you are logged in, you can edit/replace it with another page. To get it deleted, simply replace it with a blank page, or place the template {{QD|U1}} at the top of the page. An admin will then delete the page.--Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

RfD cleanup needed...

Hello all, there are some "overdue" RfDs that need closing. Since I nominated most, I'd prefer not to close them. Note: I might nevertherless close affected RfDs if they are a week overdue, and there's no comment as to why they weren't closed. So please go ahead and close some of the stale ones. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at Human

The article Human has been targeted by different IPv6 addresses since Oct 15. Today, 2601:283:c202:7180:2c86:c9cd:732d:6a2a (talk · contribs) has already made 9 disruptive changes. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked the /64, which was the only IP range responsible for the unexplained content removal. Chenzw  Talk  16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gadget

Can anyone install this gadget?--Saroj Uprety (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please import en:Template:Bollywood Hungama movie/doc.--Saroj Uprety (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

en:Template:Disney+ movie/doc--Saroj Uprety (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Pages imported. I didn't set the gadget as enabled by default, so please enable it manually in your preferences. Chenzw  Talk  12:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Saroj Uprety (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed user

Is it possible for someone to add the "Confirmed" tag to my account since I have 1900 edits on en.Wiki but I have to enter captchas to make edits here & will only be autoconfirmed in 4 days time. I wish to keep editing but captchas get in the way. Thanks, Terasail^[Talk] 18:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't typically do that as editing here is considered separate from what you have done on another wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: If it is inhibiting someone from improving the encyclopedia, then I see no reason not to do it. They are clearly not someone who should require to fill out captchas. --IWI (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

But isn't inhibiting them, they can still edit. A little surprised they have had to enter captcha's more than once. Thought it only asked a user to do that once. -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I don't know why I just got it twice in a row and decided to ask here and simple talk about the confirmed permission. It isn't a big issue & I understand why it isn't given out. Thanks for the response. Terasail^[Talk] 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If it keeps doing it let me know and if I am still around I will grant it because I don't think it should be doing it on every edit. Although it might do it once in awhile to make sure you are still a human, that I am not sure of, its been awhile since I have looked into it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal note

I have registered a new username and account, mainly because the security system was being difficult about my old registration. I will make edits under the new username only. This is just to let everyone know that I am the same person as user:Macdonald-ross, but now edits will be made under this username. Checkusers can identify my location. Editors may still call me Mac! Or 'Brick', I guess... Balham Brick (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Balham Brick: Please do not use this "new account" until we can authenticate your claim. If you're having authentication issues, I can reset your account's password. If you're having 2FA issues, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Operator873^talkconnect 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had already done a few edits. The event which precipitated the problem was as follows. My account was blocked on the grounds that my password was inadequate. Nine times I offered more complex passwords, but to no avail. Then it seemed there was no alternative to creating a new account (you will realise that I know little about modern computer systems). Balham Brick (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Balham Brick: May I know how many characters you used for the password, can you try to have one at least 10 characters. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-Adminstrator Comment) We cannot use the Check user tool to identify your location... --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

My password for this account has 10 digits. Originally the Macdonald-ross account had 8 digits; at some stage I updated it to 10 digits. My record of this is less clear than I would like, obviously, but events in real life have not been helpful. Balham Brick (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As long as you have met Special:PasswordPolicies, there is no way you will be blocked. The best way now is to send an email to cawikimedia.org. @Balham Brick:

@Thegooduser: CU can be used for possible compromise, and the IP geolocation tool can then be used to find the location. No comments if a CU is appropriate in this case.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be to edit under the original user name. I am still at a loss to know how or if that could be achieved. Balham Brick (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Balham Brick: The only way is to email Trust and Safety via the email we have given you. If there is a recovery email you can try email resets. Or else I think if you can find a trusted user to vouch for you, otherwise, sorry there seems no way. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion worked, and I am back with my original handle. I now have a 10-character handle password. I see no reason to use the other account again. Thank you for your advice! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross Very glad to see you back Mac :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Macdonald-ross Just a friendly reminder, that if you don't plan to ever use that account ever again, you should block it locally, and request a global lock, so in the case, that account does get compromised, they cannot say it's you. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A proposal

Hello Admins.

I am here to ask you for your input on an idea I had come up with. As you may or may not know, I am currently blocked on enwiki for sockpuppetry and vandalism. I am ashamed of these things, and I understand your lack of trust in me. However, I am in a unique position. Most sockpuppets, at least what I can see, are only made to cause infinite harm to the project. However, I would like you to to see how I have grown as a user, from simply blanking random pages, to stop others from causing harm. I would like to propose a way to help those who have grown return to the community in a positive manner. This would include them being unblocked, keeping tabs on them, and ensuring they are supporting this project. At the end of a defined period, they will be reviewed by an administrator or by consensus that would either unblock them for good (as long as they do not make any harmful edits), determine that they need more time with a user, or completely deny their return. I understand letting a user be unblocked could end badly, however, I also think it's the opportunity for them to show who they really want to be, supportive or not. Please let me know what you think. rollingbarrels (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like what we used to do for mentorship arrangements, a few years back then. Unfortunately, I am not sure if the editor numbers and activity will be able to support this program nowadays. Chenzw  Talk  12:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) I'd be very happy to assist and support editors who were blocked as socks (those who have grown) to become a new & better editor. I'd be very happy to do a mentorship agreement if needed. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again: Repeated vandalism at Human

Once again (cf. above, #Repeated vandalism at Human), the article Human has been targeted by different IPv6 addresses: Today (Nov 13) the address is 2601:283:c202:7180:86c0:efff:fed3:cf57 (talk · contribs), yesterday it was 2601:283:c202:7180:85be:6faf:c750:366b (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, they always remove bonobos from the list of apes closely related to humans. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I think it need page proctection. Tbiw (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

In general we don't protect here unless completely necessary. In this case a range block has/will fix this situation so no need to block every anonymous editor. -Djsasso (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

en:Template:User zh-yue-3

If imported, would I be able to use that babel userbox here? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Yes. I just imported it and I was able to use it on my user page. (I didn't save it, though, since I don't know that language. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Auntof6! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to import glossary templates

Any thoughts on importing glossary templates from enwiki? For example: {{glossary}}, {{glossary end}}, {{glossary link}}, {{glossary link internal}}, {{term}}, and {{defn}}. (For all glossary templates see the category en:Category:Glossary templates). I can see them being fairly useful, particularly for embedded glossaries or wherever a topic cannot avoid defining certain terms. I'm interested to know if it's feasible. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally we bring over templates as they are used/needed. I can't really think of any articles here that have embedded glossaries. If someone creates an article that needs them they can bring them over. But generally being that we are Simple English Wikipedia you should be attempting to write such an article without the need for a glossary. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! While yes it should be avoided where possible, it is also somewhat a fact of the matter that articles define certain terms. Two points from the Wikipedia:About page that I had in mind:

• things are a little different from the things the ordinary English Wikipedia does not do. For example, in the Simple English version it is more important to explain slang, idioms, and jargon.
• For detailed writing about science, politics, or religion, articles sometimes need more words, but the English must be simple. Sometimes, an article needs words not included in the Basic English combined wordlist, but it explains all the difficult words. Articles may also need some complex words because of the article names in the ordinary English Wikipedia, and to use normal words would make the article too simple. Articles on scientific topics might also need complex words.

I would also consider that without proper glossary formatting, embedded or unembedded glossaries should be avoided. There are already a small handful of stand-alone glossaries on Simple English Wikipedia, but they lack proper formatting. The result is that on any article where uncommon terms are unavoidable, terms that have their own pages can be linked to but other explanations of terms are hidden in body paragraphs. I would also add that since embedded glossaries can only fit a small number of entries, any article using one would be limiting itself to only the most essential uncommon terms. Cheers, Oeqtte (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

remove my wikipidia account

my account name is Imane Khaldi and I want to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imane Khaldi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Imane Khaldi: I'm sorry, Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted/removed. You can have it renamed: see Wikipedia:Changing username for information on that. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Right to vanish if you plan to never edit again. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Import

Please import en:Template:Indian Rupee/doc. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Saroj Uprety:  Done --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Malformed RFD

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Please review notability should be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Souhardya_De and transcluded. Can't move as the destination page isn't trivial in history.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Now seems creator had done a cut-paste move, need histmerge. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Racist vandalism at Black People

An IP has made a racist and obscene edit at Black people: diff. The same IP reverted immediately afterwards, but I'd still like to ask an admin to change the visibility in the page history. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Peterdownunder (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen

Vandalism immediately after release of protection, it's one IP for now, can monitor and block if needed but hoping some admin can protect again if deemed necessary as the reverting is counterproductive and is for someone who is recently dead, some respects should be shown (that's not a protection reason I know, but still). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Only one instance of vandalism since the protection expired, so no action for now. I've added it to my watchlist. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Might want to reconsider now, given it is going on for a couple of days. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

View Source

Shouldn't it be change to "see code"? This is the Simple Wikipedia. --GeometryDashFan12 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This shouldn't be here, but rather WP:ST. I will say see is more complex than view, like we don't use "see also" but we use "related pages", I think view source seems easier to understand. @GeometryDashFan12 Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Flood Flag for Hot Cat work please

I'm doing some redirect category stuff can an admin grant me this please so that way i don't flood the New changes area thanks! Derpdart56 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Harassment by Dafdgasf

The user sent me an intimidating email threatening me to use my rollback and patroller flags to do I don't know what (I didn't understand what they meant). This is not the first time I have received such emails from this wiki. Such behaviour is not acceptable and must be sanctioned. Esteban16 (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Esteban16 would you mind forwarding the email to me? dannys712.enwiki@gmail.com - there are a few LTAs that send harassing emails, and if I can confirm its an LTA I'll block and request a lock (or a checkuser can check their ip...) DannyS712 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Updating Simple Talk's header

In the header, under "Are you in the right place?", should "See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant)." be changed to "See WP:RFP to request additional permissions (which administrators can grant). rollingbarrels (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It is only meant to be the most common things on the list, users who would be requesting the sorts of permissions that are more advanced than rollback would likely already know where to do. That list is more for new users to the wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Something is being Reported and needs to be Removed from Wikipedia.

When searched on Google about 'Present caliph of Islam' There comes a Wikipedia page about 'Ahmadiyya caliphate' which has been reported by Many People because its Misleading information. I would not ask you to take the page down myself.. But i ask you to check the feedback of that page and see for yourself.

We can't chance what pages Google shows you when you do a search. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Clalipha of Islam now

It's humble request when people search the who is the current caliph of Islam Wikipedia shows the masroor of ahmedia community it's not true please delete that wrong information he is not a proper Muslim as he doesn't agree to prophet Muhammad pbuh is the last messenger so at the moment no one is the current caliph of Muslim world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.196.32 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, you are probably referring to the page Ahmadiyya Caliphate on English language Wikipedia: This is Simple English Wikipedia; the team of editors and administrators is different. The team of Simple English Wikipedia administrators cannot do much to change that article. As the page is protected, the standard procedure would be to leave a message on the talk page of the English Wikipedia article. --Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The Cellar

The Cellar in Arlington Heights Ill also had Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin play there just prior to thier demise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4103:4c0:35cb:66b6:5506:2dac (talk • contribs)

Sock to block

Would someone block Shyamghar as a sock of Swarajmishra7. Shyamghar has been blocked on enwiki as a sock of Sahil9610. Swarajmishra7 is a sock of Shyamghar per the archives at enwiki. See also w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahil9610. Doesn't need a CU, so not reporting at the requests for checkuser page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contributons} 13:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure of whether you are supposed to notify users if they are reported here. I didn't see any banners or obvious templates to place, so if they need notifying could someone do that for me (in the correct way). Thanks in advance, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contributons} 13:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pages created by blocked user Fliutbryusdgh

Fliutbryusdgh (talk · contribs) has been indef'ed. There are some strange pages recently created by them which I'd suggest to remove:

• Ministry of Defence which they created as a redirect to S.A.S..
• MOD (Marehan, Ogaden, Darawiish) which has no corresponding page on EN-Wiki and is not mentioned in en:Marehan.
• MOD as a disambiguation page with the preceding article as its primary target. EN also has en:MOD, but Marehan, Ogaden, Darawiish is not mentioned there.
• The Mod Squad as a redirect to Peggy Lipton who was an actress in that TV series. There is a longstanding link from Peggy Lipton to The Mod Squad, users following that link are now redirected to their starting point. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have created articles for the Ministry of Defence and Mod Squad articles so those are no longer an issue. And I changed the disambiguation page to be the same en.wiki. Will have to look into the other article to see if it is actually a thing. -Djsasso (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a better solution than the one I proposed. Thanks. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging histories

Hey folks. I think this probably involves an admin's help, so I'm going to post here. I'm feeling adventurous, and I'm going to attempt to rewrite the Voltage article. What I'd like to do is start from scratch in a user sandbox, and when I get it close to done move it over to the mainspace. To make that work, would somebody have to delete the voltage article, move my new copy into the voltage name, and then undelete all the old revisions to preserve the history? Or am I overthinking this? Still a little rusty. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections to my method above, I'm going to start sometime this weekend. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are the only editor in your user space you can just copy paste it into the main article. If a number of you collaborated on it then it would need an admin to merge the edit history in. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok cool. I figure it'll probably just be me, so that'll be a lot easier to do. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom

I've received an e-mail from a user here that I need to forward to ArbCom. Is there an ArbCom here or should I use the main English Wikipedia ArbCom?Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra No arbcom here, if you think is sensitive can contact WP:OS or if CU is needed can contact one of Wikipedia:Administrators (with checkuser rights) listed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends a bit on the issue, but probably any uninvolved bureaucrat will be able to help.--Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone might want to look at THIS.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Well I reverted and warned them, will leave to an admin to see if it needs RD. (RD2?) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to inform you: I have removed the problematic revision from the logs, normal users can no longer see it. The user who left the notice is now globally blocked. --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The user is globally banned and should be ignored. --IWI (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it isn't the OP being globally ban and should be ignored, but the person that is problematic that is globally locked. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarifying. --IWI (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've got an email from this user too, do I need to contact anyone about it? Belwine • 💬 • 📜 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You can contact the CUs, it's an LTA who likes to send these emails, we have a couple of them already. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, my advice is to ignore the emails and not reply. --IWI (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Year-end reminder about closing RFDs

Greetings, fellow admins. This is my yearly reminder about RFDs that:

1. Are closed in the year after the year in which they are opened (for example, RFDs that are opened in 2020 and closed in 2021), and
2. Are closed with a result of delete

Those of you who know about this can stop reading. Others (including non-admins who read this page) can read on for details.

With these RFDs, we can't use the standard computer-generated close reason. That is because the generated reason always indicates the current year, no matter when the RFD was actually created. We would need to hardcode the reason, which just consists of the RFD discussion page name enclosed in square brackets.

Things that would help minimize this problem include:

• Waiting until next year to open RFDs, if reasonable to do so
• Closing some RFDs early, if reasonable to do so

Also keep in mind that the year is determined by UTC time, whether or not that is the local time of the closing admin.

As always, feel free to ask any questions you may have -- that includes you, non-admins! --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Fellow admins: Today is year-end: Please look at at the open RfDs, and close as many as possible (those 2-3 days before closure or those where the result is unlikely to change?). This will avoid extra work next year.--Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And as a yearly reminder, you can use the computer generated reason. You just have to create the redirect, not really sure why you like to make a bigger deal of it than it really is. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's not create redirects. That could confuse matters, and if the page is recreated and goes through another RFD we'd have to undo it. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

But in either case, extra attention needs to be paid. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not just do a second nomination? --IWI (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of possibilities. Doing a second nomination requires doing it manually, which is, IMO, even more work. I was just trying to point out that there are issues with these; what people choose to do about it is up to them. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean yeah do it however you want to do it, I was just pointing out iirc that redirects have been how it was handled since well before you started posting these posts every year. I just have never really understood the worry over what really is an inconsequential thing. -Djsasso (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The easiest way is definitley to just type the RfD page in square brackets. That's how I'd do it. --IWI (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue with the RfD templates or the RfD itself? Belwine • 💬 • 📜 20:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Belwine: When an admin deletes a page when closing an RfD, there is a computer generated method of the reason for the deletion as shown in the deletion log. This won't work now if the RfD was started last year because it will assume the RfD is from 2021 and will link to "/requests/2021" so it has to be typed manually when deleting the page. Djsasso suggested redirecting the 2021 RfD to the 2020 one. --IWI (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. There is an option where you can just add "|year=2020" and that just seems to make it show 2020. See the comparisons before and after here (before it showed that the deletion template didn't exist, now it exists). Belwine • 💬 • 📜 20:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes this is a way to fix the templates. --IWI (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So couldn't this just be done for all the articles that are being requested for deletion at the end of every year? Would that fix the problem addressed by Auntof6? Belwine • 💬 • 📜 20:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the main issue being talked about. What is being talked about is the reason field when deleting a page has options which you can choose from a dropdown or you can manually enter a reason yourself. It will always use the current year if you select from the dropdown that it was an Rfd delete. But as I say my only real point was there isn't much need to rehash this this topic every year as even if someone accidentally didn't change it manually (which yes is the easiest and best way) they can easily create the redirect and then no more broken link. It just seems like a lot of hand wringing and attempting to circumvent proper closes (ie the suggestion to close rfds early, or even worse to get users to not put in rfds until the new year) when all we are talking about is a broken link in a delete reason which can be easily remedied if it were to happen. -Djsasso (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this makes sense now. Thanks. :) Belwine • 💬 • 📜 16:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Page history issue at Albuquerque

At some point in 2017, with this and this diff, a user copy-paste moved and altered Albuquerque, New Mexico to Albuquerque. This is a problem, as the page histories are split and the page should be located at Albuquerque, New Mexico per guidelines. It seems this can be solved by either a round-robin move, or a history merge between the two pages. This shouldn't be too hard as there haven't been any more diffs since 2017 at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --IWI (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Is there a diff missing? This diff does not seem likely. When the person copy/pasted the page over, he also made some changes. --IWI (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it should be showing correctly now. -Djsasso (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool thanks. --IWI (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad information being given

You have misinformation on your page. I don't care who says it when it's wrong. You can have some what is being called STD without having sex at all. It is true that some of them can be transmitted that way but that is not the only way they can be gotten. That can harm marital relationships my mom and dad almost broke up because of it that's how I know. My mom wasn't cheating on my dad. Breaking up marriages or steady loving relationships how can that be good I'm against it and very glad my mom and dad stayed together. Stop giving out bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.86.46 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a site anyone can edit. Every user, even you can change almost any page (there are exceptions: certain pages need special rights to be changed). With this also comes the problem that information that you find may be wrong. The best thing to do when you see a piece of information that is wrong, is to fix it. If you are unsure: Every article has a talk page. The talk page of the article is for discussing about the article. This includes pointing out that some information may be inaccurate. As to the problem you point out: Yes, many diseases pass from the mother to the child; this is also the case for Syphilis, for example. So, without you being more specific, we cannot check or fix any article.--Eptalon (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please revdel edits made by Wonderfulindia at Kayastha, they are copied from other places per this copyvio tool. --Minorax (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump

We've been getting a lot of vandalism on the article Donald Trump since the previous protection expired last month. Might be worth protecting again, especially given recent events. --IWI (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I for sure understand the intent as recent events have made this particular article much more likely to be vandalized than others. However, the history doesn't support protection right now in my opinion, at least for now. Operator873^talkconnect 21:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly worth keeping an eye on, in any case. --IWI (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are 31 users with the page on their watchlist, so I think we're covered. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editors account for about a quarter of the edits. There have been 12 edits to the page this year, four of them by unnamed editors. Even given the current events (transition of power, perhaps storming the capitol), I don't see a reason to pretect the page. --Eptalon (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Article should be protected to protected mode, because some IP addresses were writing about him to be racist president, US ever had. I saw that two times. This may happen due to 2021 storming of Capitol hill in DC and winning this election of 2020 jealousy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTP1233 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't thik the page needs to be protected rn. This appeared to be one IP address who later signed up for an account. Both have been blocked. However, I think there will be a need for protection of the page for the near future, so we'll keep an eye on it. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP address in question got a free block, and I have removed the respective revisions from the public logs. --Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eptalon: there are still very similar revisions that are still in public logs that are likely from the same person (behaviour is exactly the same). See here and here.
--Belwine • 💬 • 📜 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thnx.KP (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0 (Confirmed)

I am requesting confirmed, so I can use Twinkle to revert vandalism. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you need this, to be honest, as you're already included within the autoconfirmed implicit user group. As such, you have all of the user rights included within confirmed. Dmehus (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Already autoconfirmed... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know, thanks. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, your account was probably attached awhile ago when you first visited Simple English Wikipedia, so when you started being active on this wiki, you merely had to meet the edit requirement. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Oeqtte"

• I see the unregistered user:Oeqtte has been creating pages from titles to redirects. I assume this is not allowed. Example: Page Continental philosophers moved to Category:Continental philosophers with its former content unchanged. My thoughts are to revert all changes and block user, but this is so unusual a kind of activity that I give notice here. I will take no action till you all have had time to read and respond. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I also noticed this thing and I was going to do actions but I stopped because if you all thing it is wrong to do it. That's why I don't took any actions. I think without any concern of us, user is doing this work.KP (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

They are currently creating redirects between the main and category namespaces, which in my view isn't something that should generally happen. --IWI (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, am I doing something wrong? I'm pretty sure I didn't move any pages, I just made the new category for Philosophical movements and positions and have been doing recategorising and making redirects (I haven't worked with wiki categories much before and I'm just trying to be helpful). Oeqtte (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Ah, by the way I didn't move anything from mainspace to the Continental philosophers category. I wrote all that stuff myself. Do you really want to block me for that though? Oeqtte (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see is redirecting mainspace pages to categories. I don't think (as Macdonald-ross suggested) we should be considering a block without even attempting to communicate with you beforehand. That action would seem unnecessarily quick and harsh to me. I'm sure you are acting in good faith and trying to help, and now appear to be willing to collaborate. Best, --IWI (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, I may have been too quick to assume redirecting to category namespace was valid, given the {{R to category namespace}} template exists. I may have to check the policies on that but I'm not sure I'll find much. If it's best to delete them I'm happy with that too. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be explicit: when a user types a name on the search box he will normally get any page we have. But these redirected pages will not show up. About 12 pages are involved. There is no way to find them except by moving to category namespace, which most users never use. There's no plus side to this. What one might do is annotate category pages manually with very brief helpful stuff. But even that is not really necessary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand you. Which twelve pages are you talking about? I checked the relevant pages on enwiki and they don't seem to support what you're saying (i.e. disputes "concern mainly redirects from the article namespace to organisational namespaces, like Wikipedia or Template; they may not be as applicable to redirects to other content namespaces, like Category" and XNRs to categories seem to be generally considered useful for shortcuts and bluelinking, although somewhat uncommon). You can make the rules if you want but I don't think you should try to block me over policies that don't exist yet. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I can only try to be understood: Articles should be in main article space. No articles in main article space should be redirected to any other space without good reason. You did not have a good reason, and did not discuss beforehand. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What makes you say they were without good reason? And could you tell me which twelve pages you are speaking about please? Whether something needs your permission beforehand is up to WP:BOLD, and is otherwise a fairly uncooperative approach to administration. But like I already said, I never moved any articles out of mainspace. Cheers, Oeqtte (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oeqtte: I believe the changes Macdonald-ross is referring to are these which redirect from article space to Category space. This isn't a good idea. I understand your desire to be constructive, but the other half of being BOLD is accepting that your changes might not be kept. Operator873^talkconnect 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Operator873: See my previous comments above. Oeqtte (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
We'll leave the issue for an uninvolved admin to decide and take action on. I also feel the articles created with redirects to Category namespace should be deleted and Oeqtte advised to not recreate the same or similar pages. Operator873^talkconnect 06:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed...

... for IP 172.97.... repeated "Chicka. Chicka, 1, 2, 3" bad pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In that particular case the range block would end up too big. Can however salt the page or create the page with good content. I have salted Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3 as it seems to be the one getting recreated over and over. I will salt any others that get recreated. -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That being said the best result would be to create a good version of the article as it does meet WP:NBOOK and probably shouldn't have been deleted originally. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Mis Universe 2020 candaidates at RfD..

Hello, many RfDs we currently have are of Miss Universe 2020 candidates. Most of them won the natiional selection in their country. To my knowledge, the final contest of Miss Universe 2020 will take place in February or March 2021. So, except possibly for the winner, these articles likely have the same fate. Just wanted to point that out for anyone coming across an RfD which involves a Miss Universe contestant.--Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I had some more comments here. If anyone is interested. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oeqtte again

I am sorry to say that this editor did not understand or did not accept the purpose of this wiki. He has been making our philosophy pages far too complex, by the tactic of pulling over huge chunks of En wiki without simplifying any of it. I think all his edits need to be reverted, followed by adding anything useful afterwards. The huge quantity is staggering. I may write some more when I have time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Sorry but you have continued to provide false information to me and about me, and I will have to ask you to stop. This tactic of pulling over huge chunks of En wiki without simplifying any of it is verifiably untrue. Besides this, I'd be interested to know if this assessment of my changes is reflective of other administrators before I respond further. Please mind how you treat fellow editors. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Masum Ibn Musa

The user has engaged in an edit war with User:TTP1233 over adding tags to a page, and has used rollback three times to do so here, here and here (which is an abuse of the tool; it is for vandalism only). The tags seem to be a legitimate concern as the page is complex and marginally biased. Asking an uninvolved admin to mediate between them. --IWI (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment Requests for deletion here and then User:TTP1233 delete vote here. since then both user are tagging and destruct my article just like here. I think so, might be Sockpuppet user here to help each other always. Can CheckUser check it? — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:: I can say with certainty that TTP1233 is not a sock of ImprovedWikiImprovment and vice versa. If a CheckUser did decide to check whether these accounts were related, then they would find that the accounts would not be related. The article does need improvement and so it has tags on it, this is not necessarily ruining your article. Best, --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 11:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a way to predict CU results I mean without doing CU itself, but I will say the best now is for all parties to stop adding tags / removing tags, or might as well leave the article alone till RFD is ended. I would hope that the promotional tone can be fixed, but given the warring happening, I would recommend wait till RFD is closed before doing any edits. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I really doubt that TTP1233 and ImprovedWikiImprovment are related accounts... --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 11:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Behaviourally sure, but it cannot be said that "If a CheckUser did decide to check ... they would find that the accounts would not be related." Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Masum Ibn Musa: I don't understand the reasons for your revert, can you please clarify? Usually, rollback is only for obvious vandalism.-BRP ^ever 11:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BRPever: RFD still continuing but both user destruct my article with tagging and removing data. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Masum Ibn Musa: I am sure you must be aware that we resolve these issues with discussions. Have you tried leaving them talkpage messages?-BRP ^ever 11:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BRPever: Of course. Yes i tried. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 11:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You gave them a template warning and later exclaimed "are you mad?", not exactly an attempt to resolve the dispute. --IWI (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment but removing data and reference was not good. it was surely vandalism See here — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 12:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The change had added promotional links to facebook and youtube, which is probably why it was removed. --IWI (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

42 reference was removed and also data as well. is was surely vandalism see the history. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 12:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:- for future, if some parts were constructive and others weren't, you can just remove some of it by using visualeditor or source editor. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 12:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright lets have everyone just step back and take a breath. Full on removals of sources while an Rfd is ongoing is disruptive. Yes some of the sources did need to be removed like youtube. Reverting without discussion is also disruptive. As an uninvolved admin all sides come out looking bad in this. How about everyone steps back and lets the Rfd run its course. -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree yes, that seems appropriate. --IWI (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

^ Agree Belwine • 💬 • 📜 12:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

agree with @Djsasso: — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 12:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The tags I made on that article, is what I observed on it. If you all think I had done wrong then I apologise. Then you all decide, what action will you all take against me.KP (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@TTP1233: Nothing bad will be happening to you There will just be no edits of the article until the RfD is over. Best, --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Patroller

Can I request patroller, to mark others' edits, and to take a load off of admins? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is the correct venue. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlackWidowMovie0: also, for patroller rights, I believe you will need to have experience in creating articles. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 19:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you're not likely to be granted patroller unless you create a number of good, simple pages. Our "patroller" also includes "autopatrol". --IWI (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm, I would decline the request. We generally only give it out to people who have a long-term experience with creating Simple English articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot it was for creating articles, not for reverting vandalism (rollbacker). Thank you for responding so quickly! BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlackWidowMovie0: FYI, having more patrollers (or rollbackers, for that matter) doesn't take any load off of admins because that's not an admin responsibility. At most, it would take a load off the others with those rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Protect

Would like to protect this archive the same as I've already protected the others, admin edit and move. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, semi protect is also fine. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also this as well, which I guess I missed.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

False information vandalism

Please watch out for a number of IPs deliberately changing dates and date of births to be incorrect. I have identified a few IPs where this vandalism has come from:

• 94.59.41.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.164.18.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.50.125.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The more eyes on this the better. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

+ 217.164.174.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Some wrong information, some correct. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 11:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Onehits

They just copied articles from en wiki to here and when I told them they deleted their talk page so I undid it. They asked why on my userpage and I deleted it and told them to try again on my talk page. They are also deleting the QD tag and not willing to comply.--(Hellothere4 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Also they might be using more then one account seeing how there was an increase in complex articles from the en wiki all the sudden and some have been for the same article.--(Hellothere4 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

@Hellothere4: Just a note that users can remove warnings and notices from their own talk page; it shows they have been read. There is no obligation for them to display them. --IWI (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) They seems spammy (I mean the page), this account was indef in en as spam only. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Interesting I thought that talk pages needed to be seen to the public for like security reasons or something around that.--(Hellothere4 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

@Hellothere4: The only thing they are required to keep on their talk page is a declined unblock request while they are blocked; other than that, they can remove anything they want. Warnings are there to warn them, not "badges of shame" so to speak. Removing them is taken as an acknowledgment of the warning. --IWI (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)