Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 63

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard


Cross-wiki harassement

93.143.105.184 keeps harassing me. He's the same as 93.143.73.189. Can an IP range block please be made? This has been going on constantly cross-wiki... Nehme1499 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've semi-protected your user talk page so IPs won't be able to edit. --Ferien (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehme1499: This is something Stewards can help with. You're welcome to reach out to me if you need assistance. If I'm not available, others will still see the message on my talk page. Operator873 connect 22:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username report

User:SUSSY BAALLS Violation of Username policy as a offensive username Bobherry (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Uunona

Could an admin please semi-protect Adolf Hitler Uunona due to persistent vandalism? Thanks! Morneo06 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Eptalon. Vermont (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: it is getting vandalized again. Just got unprotected. Bobherry (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request

Requesting page move from Namibe to the redirect Moçâmedes, following English wiki. Deppiyy (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deppiyy: I agree.   Done There's definitely some updating needed on the page as well. Operator873 connect 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Please revert recent edits and protect the Mahatma Gandhi page as there is a spurt of vandalism by users and IPs. Thank you. Nsn2635 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsn2635: It looks like the changes have been reverted. There haven't been enough changes to protect or semi-protect the page. We usually do that only if the vandalism is so frequent that it's hard to keep up with. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username report

User:RAJWADE SAMAJ Violation of username policy as a promotional username that implies shared use. Promotional Username Promotional edits. See RAJWADE SOCIETY CHHATTISGARH. See also filter log for user. Bobherry (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rev del

Can someone please delete the difs on my talkpage done by the 93.143 IP? They contain foul language and sensitive information. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Ferien. Vermont (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad username

User:I pjss in adnnins faces is insulting towards admins like you. I don't know if it fits in VIP so I put it here. kolva | chat? 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolva: That user doesn't seem to be registered here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolva and Auntof6: I think I saw it being created, it may have been hidden by a steward. --Ferien (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request on Education

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Bobherry (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 edit in February, 50 edits back dated in Nov 2019. Not a high level of vandalism there.--Creol(talk) 14:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppetry and wikihounding

User:89.8.108.98 have been joining my discussions since the start of February using sockpuppet IPs to inhibit my work, User:89.8.174.194, User:89.8.181.97, User:89.8.173.218, User:89.8.82.69, User:89.8.67.53, User:89.8.81.15, User:89.8.120.34 and User:89.8.146.127. - Deppiyy (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 89.8.120.34 (see the signature at the end of this post), was not in any discussions about your work, on February 5, or before that.--I have "voted" against some of what you seem to stand for, in regard to redirects.--You and I do seem to have differing views - if not even a conflict of interest, in regard to redirects.--Wikihounding? I believe you are barking up the wrong tree. 89.8.120.34 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that you are following me across four discussions to repeatedly confront my work. Deppiyy (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith - while the redirect-discussion churns out a "verdict".--Not sure that I will further entertain your accusation.--Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia! 89.8.120.34 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.120.34 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) @Deppiyy: thanks for your concern. As an established user and former administrator, these are just my thoughts. This is a small community and active members may find themselves commenting on the same discussions, especially when similar issues are brought up. Reviewing all changes made by the IP you have included, it appears to me that this user is an active member in the RFD area, and as such, it is reasonable that this user would comment on RFDs (and ST discussions) for which they have an opinion on. I also noted that there were a couple of comments specifically directed at you (through ST and at the user talk page). While I do not see any bad faith in these comments, I believe, at least while the redirect discussion continues on ST, that each of you should focus on discussing the broad issues on these community pages, and not the individual actions or behavior of each other. Both of you do good work in your fields, and we can all work together to build a better Wikipedia, even if differences in opinion exist. Be kind, be bold, and have fun! Griff (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit intimidating for there to be 9 separate IPs of the same person. — Deppiyy (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're the same guy going back and forth from school and home. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

could someone review the situation with the articles in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected user and user talk pages. There are 3 pages in there semi-protected by owners request but that owner is a blocked user. Do we realy need them protected? If so, that cat may need to be created. --Creol(talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why it's only those pages popping up because there are many more pages semi-protected in reality (PotsdamLamb's subpages and many other userpages). If another admin feels it's appropriate to unprotect them, then feel free to reverse this action, you don't need to ask. --Ferien (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Protection of User talk:RadiX

I would like to request semi-protection of User talk:RadiX because of excessive vandalism by cross-wiki long-term abuse Sidowpknbihihj (ja:LTA:HEATHROW) socks. This vandal user usually appears to this wiki and requests global lock of himself at the talk pages of Wikimedia stewards after being blocked on jawp or reported to m:SRG. --郊外生活 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done for a week considering RadiX isn't that active here currently and the vandalism is likely to continue. I'll review the talk page again once the protection is over and see if vandalism continues. --Ferien (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin link page Isfahan to Wikidata Q42053. This is caused by a page move from Esfahān to Isfahan. - Deppiyy (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deppiyy: Done, but be aware:
  • You could have done that yourself.
  • Articles here do not have to have the same names as those on enwiki, so the move was not necessary.
Thanks, -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: No we dont have to follow their naming. That being said, by looking at the 107 other languages that have the page on wikidata, Isfahan is the clear winner for most common name. The infobox on the original 2009 article also exclusively uses that name and not the page name. While not necessary and though he could have done it himself, the move was the correct thing to do. --Creol(talk) 16:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Notices for Rescue Articles/Members Project

hello i am working on a new project, for such; i need to put an Edit notice to its members list, however it's restricted to administrators; so Please help me to active this edit notice   Thank you. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sakura emad, should I just move that to Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Sakura emad/project/Rescue Articles/Members? --Ferien (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Yes Please, for the sake of helping of those who want to join the project, i need this edit Notice. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --Ferien (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  thanks. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of deletion of language

Can you please close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Ελληνικό αλφάβητο as keep? I changed my mind in the initial statement and the page should most likely be kept for now. No opinions have yet been made to delete the article so there should be no argument. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No because there is a delete vote there; it will have to run its course. --IWI (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request create user on simple

Can you create the user account https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot with https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CreateLocalAccount as discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot#Simplewiki AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, but pinging project bot adminstrator Djsasso to review and approve. Griff (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one already exists locally for it. Hasn't been flagged though. Are you the operator? -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the official operator, but do all the maintenance now. Smith609 is the official operator, but he is often not around (growing family, etc.). I am "thing 2" (Dr Suess joke) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existing edits fooled me too. Those edits are from imported history from en.wikipedia.org. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AManWithNoPlan: Would you mind putting a request on WT:BOTS and have a few edits kicked off so we can verify it is working here. Then I can officially make it an approved bot. -Djsasso (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The account now works. Interesting. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But often having issues with Captcha blocking edits. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. Discussion continues on Bots request area. WT:BOTS AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religions protection

Can someone please protect Template:Religions? There is a lot of vandalism and an IP making random changes and deleting it constantly. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I count 2 reverts in the last 4 years and 10 IP changes in the last 4 months. That really isn't enough in my mind to justify protection. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Griff (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page move: Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)

Requesting an admin to move page Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) to the redirect Kingdom of Italy, following English wiki. Deppiyy (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

  Resolved. Category is being created. Future content disputes will be addressed through ST. Future 3RR violations/edit warring will be reported to AN. Griff (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:89.8.67.151 has reverted a few of my reverts of his without discussing in his talk page, where I have sent multiple messages to discuss it. I am not entirely sure whether or not this is the right place to put this notice, but I would like to avoid another revert war. Apologies if it is not the appropriate place, can you direct me to find a solution to something like this because it is not entirely clear. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMeAndMrMe: It depends, is this regarding a content dispute or directed at you? Could you provide diffs for the problematic changes? Thanks, Griff (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2]
It was not really an attack directed at me, more of a content dispute. They reverted without discussing it in their talk page even after multiple messages of asking them to discuss.
In general, I would like to know what to what happens when I attempt to discuss a dispute but continue to make these reversions because I could not come with a clear conclusion in 3RR. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a content dispute, you honestly probably shouldn't go past 1RR. If the other party is not communicative, I'd post to the article talk page and ask for a second/third opinion on ST. Most users watch ST and will follow up on the talk page. You can build a consensus on how to proceed that way. Remember 3RR is a hard rule, but edit warring at any level can result in a block. If you observe a 3RR violation in another user (or for example if you, myself, and another user form consensus to do X, but one specific user keeps reverting us more than 3 times), report that here to AN and wait for an administrator to get involved. Continuing to revert doesn't really help anything.
Now as for this specific content dispute, I believe that for those two diffs, creating a Ukrainian Americans category and then placing the articles in that category would be a better option. There are 3 articles that are not linked here that were linked by the IP to the Ukrainian Americans article and none of those actually appear to be Ukrainian Americans. However, I'll let this discussion play out a little bit longer and see what others think. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Best, Griff (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought as well. Strangely, there were multiple other edits that I reverted that they did not revert. Thanks, however. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @19.25 - Category:Ukrainian-American, or something like that? Maybe that's a good idea however I wish we had a category that said "Descendant from Ukrainian people", or something like that.--Another thing: Steven Tyler, at English-wiki, seems not to be in any Ukranian category. (However he is on at least one "Ukrainian American" list at English-wiki.)--I am guessing that there is some logic, to why Tyler is not in category:Ukrainian Americans - but I have not given this too much thought (except that I have slowed down putting "Related pages" links in articles of people who are not born in Ukraine.)--Please excuse me if I do not reply, to upcoming posts in this thread. Regards! 89.8.123.162 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have some agreement here. MrMeAndMrMe, it looks like you have already started populating a category. If you need help finding articles for it, let me know. Thanks for your help both of you! Griff (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: if I were to remove a "Related page" link, to "Russian-Zambians" - from an article - and "replace it" with only a Category: many (or some) Wikipedians might feel that "the removing person", is doing a quite bad thing. (The rationale is: "Wikipedian X has used sooo much time improving, or starting, the article about Russian-Zambians", and now incoming links to that article are being removed!)--Some edits of user:MrMeAndMrMe might have a feel of appearing in that way.--(In addition both of us are arguably "adversaries" when it comes to floating lakes; One hopes that both of us are seeing past our disagreements in other discussions.) 89.8.123.162 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone abusing RfD vote

These IPs recently casted multiple votes on a RfD Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Breetish Empire . -Deppiyy (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, as you all know, we currently have the war between Russia and Ukraine, with a large media coverage. As such wars are also fought in the media, I have semi-protected a few pages (related to the conflict) for two weeks. Yesterday, I also saw the first vandalism/graffitti which I could attribute to the conflict. I think we should use as little protection as possible. Personally, I think that protecting the pages about people (politicians, generrals, other military leaders) is probably more important than protecting those about teritories or events.--Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think protection of those pages was necessary for now (unless there's active mass vandalism going on). IP editors have been constructively helping out in expanding those pages and now it seems they are barred from doing so. Many editors including me have those pages on our watchlist and unless there is an ongoing mass disruption they should not be protected. Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Death

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/The Game of Death: This request is due to close on 13:11, 23 February, seven days after it was filed. Thank in advance 185.167.52.108 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We crrently have about 55 RfDs, about half are overdue. I closed about 12-15 in the last day or so. Eptalon (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was deleted from it. I'll give my review on the article within 12 hours. We probably do need some more comments to determine consensus. Griff (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

page move/delete/ whatever else

Could an admin take a look at these two pages and take the needed steps to deal with the situation? They need to be in the Wikipedia namespace but a simple move failed (didnt look, probable exists already) Something will need deleted so I bring it here. Also its permissions stuff so in your wheelhouse. --Creol(talk) 20:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing. Vermont (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for reporting this, Creol. Best, Vermont (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Creol(talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit needed

Unless someone can find a reason for this tag (I can't and the En.wiki version does not have it), could someone edit the page MediaWiki:Linkshere and remove the line:

<span id="specialDeleteLink" />

All it seems to do is create a span, label it, then close it.. that and create an error listing (Lint errors: Self-closed tags). Actually, the page is 10 years old {last edit was Dec 2011), an updaged version probably wouldnt hurt. --Creol(talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated to the en.wiki version modified to work here. -Djsasso (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially blocked user and addition of previously deleted pages at EN

Hello. There recently has been a lot of article creations by an IP. The articles that are being made were previously mass-deleted articles that were created by an individual user who was blocked for this reason. They also had multiple other sock puppets.[3][4]. I am suggesting that the articles that the IP has made be mass-deleted. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the articles, it does appear that some of the articles may meet our notability standards so I'm not really comfortable just nuking them all. Feel free to QD/RFD any articles you have issues with! As for the IP, I agree that the behavior does match blocked sockpuppets, however the IP is registered to a local government IP in the U.S. so unless they continue, I'm not going to block them just yet. Thanks for the report, Griff (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Hello, this user is removing large amounts of text from articles, and it seems that there is no consensus whether to keep it or not. The user has been blocked once for edit warring. I don't know how to go from here or if I should revert them. They have made a statement on this talk page. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hockeycatcat, I appreciate the report. Having reviewed the edits, it appears that there may have been good reason for the removal, however, if there is something I missed, please let us know. That user is subject to the ONESTRIKE policy and because of their history, the correct action was to bring to AN for further review, so thank you. If you observe any further issues with that user, please notify an administrator directly or through here and it will be addressed. Best, Griff (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit needed

Page: Main Page/Introduction, Line 4, close that center tag. => add </center> to the end of the line. (the center in line 2 should be closed by the /center in line 6. They should be fine) --Creol(talk) 02:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - I couldn't see any visible change, but I'm sure it cleared out a technical category you're working on :) Griff (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

I think protecting Fortnite Battle Royale would be helpful for constant vandalism. The majority of the edits there was or has been reverted. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that much of the history has been vandalism, there have only been 4 bad edits this year and nothing that hasn't been quickly caught by our counter vandalism team (thanks everyone!). I just don't think it rises to the point of "serious and repeated" vandalism as outlined in the protection policy. Thanks for bringing it to our attention however, it may be an article to be added to your watchlist. Best, Griff (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protection

Requesting extended confirmed protection on Fascism, a lot of new and unnamed users are adding wrong information and making disruptive changes. -Deppiyy (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 reverts (probably same user on different accounts) this year, quickly caught by the CVN team. We don’t use extended confirmed protection here, and semi-protection still seems like too much, with no evidence of "serious and repeated" vandalism. If you continue to see new users vandalising this page, a RFCU may be useful. Feel free to request again if the vandalism issue becomes more serious. Thanks for the report, Griff (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protection for Sada Baby

There's some sort of edit-war on this page between a vandal, and multiple people, and I'd like to ask for that page to be protected for some time, if that's okay. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - Edit warring does not apply to obvious vandalism, and protection is not used when there is only one vandal, as that can be solved with a block. That user has been blocked, and the vandalism has stopped. If it resumes, please report through VIP. Thanks for the report, Griff (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by cross wiki locked user

In all likelihood, a globally locked user is currently creating articles on the Simple English wikipedia. New page patrolling is useless if these pages are being constantly created as too much time is wasted dealing with pages in dire need of edits. The only way to patrol them is to swarm them with tags first. I say in all likelihood as a CU will not be done so they have no idea if this abuse is occurring. As it can not be proven, it also can not be disproven so there is nothing to stop claims that globally banned user Slowking4 is currently evading his ban and editting here. As who? Cant tie a IP to a User even if it is so obvious its silly. Just look at the new pages in a the feild and its glaring which IP range he is currently editting on. Creol (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While IPs cannot be publicly linked to users, IPs and relevant ranges can be blocked for block evasion, based on technical or behavioral evidence. However, if the range can be blocked for other policy violations, that is helpful. That being said, G5 is not a policy here, so are these new articles so poor to qualify for deletion or are evidence of blockable behaviour? Griff (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user was locally blocked before his global lock and is still doing the same thing under an IP instead of a name. rose = rose by any other name. Creol (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What user is this? Vermont (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yepsdaily --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chain yank" alert (now "resolved")

  • On March 18, my "Chain yank" alert was set off. (That was the first day that I had bothered checking edits from one particular user; There seemed to have been some (slight) noise that found its way to "Recent Changes", from [5].)--I will make a short "Chain yank" alert, in the future. (My only "documentation", will be to point to a Revision history. For many, that will not be regarded as helpful - however, it is arguably "enough" that one more person catches on at an early stage.)--For the record: I don't believe in making information public, about how one catches croooocks etc.--Not sure that I will reply to posts in this thread. 89.8.132.226 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.132.226 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you bringing this to our/my attention. For now, in light of recent statements made by the user on question, I do not believe any administrative action is necessary. However, this user does have a pattern of similar problematic editing at other projects, so this may require intervention later on. If you happen to notice any problematic content related edits in the future, please address them on the appropriate talk page (and feel free to tag me on the discussion). Thanks for all your work in improving the many articles here. Best, Griff (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Punchline (not mine) might be on its way [6].--Anyone should consider asking for help on the talk page of the English-wiki article; Justification: the en-wiki article seems to be saying little (if anything) about "hands in the pants".--Not sure how much I am going to participate in frying this fish; I am leaning towards my keeping a relative light hand on the matter, if any hand at all. 89.8.181.27 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        This appears to be a content dispute and is best addressed at the appropriate talk page, where it is being actively discussed. I don't see any need for administrative intervention at this point, except as a caution to you that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and the language we use when discussing other editors should be civil, even when discussing edits or editing behaviour that is problematic or wrong. I'll be adding my comments shortly to the article. Best, Griff (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7] This edit has a "hidden" clue as to why nothing from that account, should be taken at face value; The subtleties and the bigger picture ... . If one of the admins catches on, then fine.--I am still appreciating the many good edits. 89.8.181.27 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.181.27 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

89.8.167.177 & range

I have noticed that this editor (the one using this IP and IPs beginning in 89.8.XX.XX) has made many disruptive edits to the simple talk page.

  1. They created 2 sections in the redirect discussion which pretty much just repeat the opinion they've already said and try and spread their opinion across the whole discussion: Wikipedia:Simple talk#Doing one-self no favors?
  2. They attacked another user by opening a section called "Nonsense or gobbledygook or even "regrouping some of the consensus" (just calling it nonsense with no reason why, pretty much a personal attack) which I closed immediately due to it being completely useless and uncivil.
  3. They have also compared redirects to "train wrecks" and "troll factories" (Wikipedia:Simple talk#Other redirects) which has been unhelpful in the rather heated redirect discussion.

The request from Djsasso to ignore this disruptive editing has been ignored and 89.8... has continued to disrupt the ongoing redirect discussion on simple talk in many ways. I am rather involved in the situation, but several other people have agreed the comments they've added to the discussion have been disruptive, so I'm here to ask: what is the best action we can take to stop the disruptive editing from this editor? --Ferien (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we encourage discussion, this user has repeatedly been uncivil (and bordering on disruptive) with their comments at several community pages and in threads. While I welcome their opinions, and in fact, they are often well-thought out, the manner in which they have gone out of their way to passively attack users or their arguments goes against the principles of consensus and civility that we try to have here. I support a formal and final warning of them at the IP most recently used, and then an immediate (but short) block if they choose to be uncivil again (on any IP). If they use an alternate IP while an active block is in place, a targeted short-term range block should be used to restrict block evasion. While normally I wouldn't go this far, there seems to be no other effective way to communicate with this user directly. While any user is welcome to edit anonymously, the constantly changing IPs make it difficult for other users to communicate with this user, especially when they are frequently involved in community discussions. Griff (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to point out that 89.8 has been involved in numerous edit wars and refuses to review any civil discussion. There is an essay in enwiki that goes something along the lines of "helpful user but disruptive editor" in which it explains that even if the editor is helpful, a history of disruptive edits that shows that they are not here to make an encyclopedia, then they should be blocked, possibly even banned MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Support per MrMeAndMrMe. Deppiyy (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "regrouping of consensus" (my words): either there is a consensus or there is not yet consensus.--There was not consensus at the time (but we might be getting there).--"My" section is for "regrouping" stuff that does not belong in other sections - including misleading phrases, with a slogan-like feel, and with dubious (or unclear) meaning. --Regarding "troll factory": when edit pattern appears like black hat editing together with white-hat edits, then sometimes I give an indication of that.--I can not answer for all edits in the range; I have seen vandalism in the 89-range that I know nothing about (and which I have ignored).--Reviewing civil discussions: I do that often.--Instead of saying "troll factory", maybe I will try to match any dubious redirect with suggestions to that person (on their user page) about similar redirect; That would be a good-faith comparison of "apples with other apples".--Not sure that I will be following this discussion; Therefore, not sure that I will reply. 89.8.167.177 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to do a topic ban for now. Derpdart56 (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a temporary block would discontinue the harassment and disruption. Deppiyy (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes at this point, they only went on to proove my point. I feel their are either too invested in the topic and harassing or they are purposefully trying to troll at this point, either way they are being disruptive and its time to take care of the situation. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are continuing to use the phrase "troll factory" even though they are aware of this concern. I think it's either a topicban or tempblock MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As MrMe x2 points out, this editor is continuing to edit disruptively and they aren't committing to answering the concerns people have here "Not sure that I will be following this discussion;" (ignoring others advice) I think either a temporary block or even a full-on ban would be best at this stage considering their disruption is affecting a large amount of the encyclopedia. For some more examples of disruption:

  • unhelpful comments on Talk:Oil wrestling
  • continued uncivil comments on this noticeboard further down the page
  • and something I should have put in the original post, a tendency to edit war [8][9][10][11]

I'm now sure that a block is the best way to prevent damage at this point. --Ferien (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block to be enacted immediately on first reoccurrence of 1RR or problematic commentary. Further disruptive behavior should result in progressively longer blocks, as should block evasion. Civil discussion is an important part of our community and they have yet to get the hint that their approach to discussion is not helpful. That being said, I do not support a project ban at this point. Hopefully this editor sees that we are serious about their behavior, takes steps to correct it, and begins to work in a civil and constructive manner with the rest of the community. Griff (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Main reason I was suggesting a ban is because lots of non-administrators who suggested a ban and a ban is essentially a block by the community. I also agree that the tempblock would be the best solution first, and a ban can only be thought about after all other options have been exhausted. --Ferien (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌───┘
 Now Operator873 has blocked one of the IPs for being unkind. --Ferien (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting Op873's decision here, I feel that we should treat this just as discussed above. Act against block evasion if it occurs, and if this user returns, make clear that any similar behaviour will result in further sanctions. Griff (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reverting and linkspam in Backpack

Taking a look at the edit history of backpack, there has been multiple instances of anonymous editors inserting youtube links and then reverting it almost immediately. Here are some examples: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], first and last diff links being the latest and oldest instances respectively. This also extends to other backpack related articles: [17] [18]. If this were test editing, you'd think that they would have stopped by the first or second time. I thought I'd bring this up since this has been going on for over a year now. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the IPs I've checked trace back to Hong Kong, around the same location. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like everything traces back to this SPI investigation --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent detective work. I'm not sure it rises to the point where we need page protection, and there isn't any active vandalism. However, it appears that this has escalated to global blocks, so if you happen to notice this again, please report to SRG for appropriate action. Thanks for all your hard work on this, and elsewhere on New Changes Patrol. Griff (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a tangent, but can {{If then show}} be protected? I found this template while looking at one of the sockpuppet's contributions, apparently they have tried to edit this. This is a frequently used template. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 11:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable request. Semi protected till the end of the internet. Griff (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are back: [19], though I don't think protecting the page is necessary if they are self-reverting, though it is still disruptive. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T112147

Following T112147, the oversight user group was renamed to suppress. If we would like to go with the old names, then according to T112147 create MediaWiki:Group-suppress, MediaWiki:Group-suppress-member and MediaWiki:Grouppage-suppress as Oversighters, oversighter and Wikipedia:Oversight as their content, respectively. Please share your thoughts on this. --Tartafs (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppress.. "prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.)" no, that not a bad thing at all for a site dedicated to sharing knowledge. Why not just go with opressers? Oversighter doesnt sound quite as abusive of personal rights as suppressor does. "What do you do? I suppress things". Thank god Im just a lowly user. I would have to resign if my job was as a suppressor. Creol (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with keeping "oversight". Its the legacy term and I prefer it per Creol. Griff (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There were multiple comments on the phab page itself expressing concerns of this type of nonsense. It has a horribly negative connotation and I see nothing bad with "oversight" and fits it quite well — they are basically our own local lawyers and first line of legal defense by overseeing potential legal threats to our platform and removing it. From what I can find, the actual idea of making it be called "suppressor" was created in 2009(correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe it makes more sense in other languages, but the word "suppressor" in English and Simple English is a bad idea. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I also prefer to go with the old names. Tartafs (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. By this, do you mean to keep oversighter or go with suppressor? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Oversight. Tartafs (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stick with Oversight. -Djsasso (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to change, and I would prever 'oversight' Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection in userspace request

Requesting semi-protection for User:Fehufanga/QD_log and User Talk:Fehufanga/Archive_1. Should mostly be edited by me. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Thanks for all the QDs and the fast CVN response! Griff (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Flood Permission

Hello. I would like the flood user right tonight for a minute or two as I will be making articles like AD 1986 redirect to 1986 and will be doing this for an hour or so. Is it fine if I am granted this permission? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many changes do you expect to make? Griff (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere from 225 to 600, most likely. There isn't really an accurate way to gauge how many I'll need to make but that is my estimate. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done for 1 hour. Note that you should only edit specific to this task. If you decide to take a break or move onto something else, post here to get the flag removed. No silliness, I'll flood you with pings for the end of time if you do. Griff (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ight, I'm done for now. Will work on later, but I want to make a few articles. Got about 250 done. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flood automatically expired. Thanks! Griff (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request this for another hour. I will also be making redirects such as 1853 AD, AD 1853, 1853 (year) and Year 1853 for 1853 this time. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still want it? Griff (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Griffinofwales Yup. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Don't be silly with it. Griff (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am done for now. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed:) Griff (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

Protect Geometry_Dash for persistent original research and vandalism. Being that many young people will automatically go here to read it, it has lots of vandalism and whatnot. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - Four or five problematic edits over a year's time doesn't justify semi-protection, we get a quite a lot more on other pages. The fact that young people will go read it also gives them the opportunity to improve the article, something that users in older generations may not do out of lack of interest. Griff (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I just edited the page a few minutes ago, it may be useful to know there are plenty of sources at en:Geometry Dash, wherever they are available to use. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.....adding to my watchlist now.... Derpdart56 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the same. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been monitoring minecraft and fortnite for a couple months now. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smart. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Maharana spam

There have been recreation of the Laxmi Maharana article under different names by unnamed users. Many of which have been quickly deleted since the RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Laxmi Narayan Maharana. What could be done to prevent these recreations? -Deppty (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When we see some patterns, we can define an "edit filter", which can tag the edits for review. Edit filters automatically check each edit that is made, and each article that is created. Other than that: its finding and tagging the edit for deletion. If it is only a few users/ips creating, these can be blocked from editing for some time. Eptalon (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Stations in the Philippines

In the last two months or so, while monitoring New Changes, I have noticed a concerning pattern of edits. An anonymous editor has been copying English Wikipedia articles about television stations in The Philippines and pasting it here. Not only that, they have repeatedly added a "Careless Girl" section on these articles. Despite being told not to copy and paste articles from the English Wikipedia, they have not stopped. So I've come here to request an admin's opinion on this issue, and whether or not page protection is necessary, as this has been going on since at least 2020 here, and 2019 in the English Wikipedia.

Relevant links:

Simple English Wikipedia

English Wikipedia

-- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the blatant copy/pasting and lack of attribution, is there any other vandalism you have detected from this vandal? I believe this pattern is connected to Bertrand101 in which case, I may be persuaded in blocking any and all IPs or accounts this person uses here, and reverting or deleting edits if not shown to be constructive. I'm not sure page protection is the route to go, as we only use that in the most heavily targeted of pages, even from LTAs. Griff (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've only noticed the copy pastes and the addition of "Careless Girl" sections. I agree that page protection might not be effective here, since the frequency of disruption isn't that high. Maybe a range block instead, as the IPv4 IPs used seem to be in the same range (112.203.218.165/20, you will also find a surprising somebody there).
The IP ranges here appear to be different from Bertrand101's, and I can't find any information that Bertrand101 has added "Careless Girl" sections to articles. It seems that there are multiple vandals targeting articles related to broadcasting in the Philippines:
and perhaps many more I missed. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable blocking that range as there seems to be some collateral damage that would result (just from reviewing the enWP contributions). If you have a few minutes, could you perhaps jump on IRC so that we can share notes about this user without compromising the tools we use to manage LTA disruption? Griff (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a pattern of long-term cross-wiki abuse, however as mentioned, there are or could be multiple vandals involved, and any effective range block will have collateral damage across the Philippines. While I don't object to any other administrator applying such a range block, for now, I endorse treating any mention of "Careless girl" as an indicator of long-term abuse and BRI as necessary. Continued monitoring by our patrollers will also help with any copy/pasting, and egregious examples can be sent to QD A3. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. If you notice any further behaviours we should be aware of, please post them. Griff (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks @Griffinofwales: for letting me know of this discussion. I have encountered this "Careless Girl" vandal in en.wiki and here in simple.wiki several times. This is not Bertrand101 and ASIAPOPCHANNEL. Just to add to the discussion above, that vandal only uses IP addresses and have not created an account. If the IP is blocked in en.wiki, most probably, they will transfer here or other wikis just to continue their vandalism. Most of their edits are Philippine TV articles, specifically, Metro Manila TV stations. Whenever you revert their edits from 1 IP, another IP shows up after a few days and adds the "careless girl" sections again. I suggest to restrict the editing rights of the Metro Manila TV station articles to those who are registered accounts only. Not only does resolve the "careless girl" editor problem, it also restricts other vandals that only add hoax information here. -WayKurat (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a few moments ago -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Just to understand, this "careless girl" vandal only adds this specific section, they do not have any familiar editing practices that we should watch for? Do you know if they have a LTA page or specific block history at enWP? Griff (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought the editor whose diff I linked above was CGV, however upon reviewing their contributions they haven't added any "careless girl" sections. I wonder if this is yet another vandal. I was going to say that they add potentially false information to those articles, but now I'm not sure. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edits in ZOE Broadcasting Network and DWDB-TV yesterday had no mention of "careless girl". However. like the careless girl edits here, the edits in DWDB-TV are copy pastes from the English Wikipedia article. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 06:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hello, can an admin revdel these revisions in Tall Girl 2: [51] up to [52], and [53]? It falls under RD1, please see the copyvio tool results here. Thank you. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Nice catch, and thank you for the report. Griff (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite instagram

Template import is needed. --Creol(talk) 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Creol:   Done --Ferien (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic machine editing

I think this address 2A02:21B0:644C:7E57:158B:3D71:BC26:CFE4 is doing editing by machine (locations). If unauthorised, this is not allowed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think so? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speed, regularity of content, lack of variation. As I say, just a suspicion, but it's been a regular problem on this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See ceb:Special:Contribs/Lsjbot for real automated edits: Their content, categories, summaries etc. are literally the same. That being said, I don't think BC26:CFE4 is a bot. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on who it is obviously, but it is block evasion by someone who has used unauthorized bots in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

Could an admin protect Tim Byrne from recreation? Thanks. Deppty (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by Eptalon. Thank you! Griff (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ip banning

2A02:C7F:E9BD:F800:1D5A:494F:2541:AA29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was recently blocked for "vandalism after being warned)". This warning included it being warned that an edit it made to nominate an article for RFD was vandalism. Looking at the article and the given reasoning for that RfD, it seems a perfectly legit RfD. The refs are questionable and notability can certainly be given an honest challenge. But tagging it was vandalism, the tag was removed and the RfD was tagged QD-custom reason. These actions are not an exercise of admin powers which they are trusted to use at their best judgement but the actions if a user that started off a short edit war resulting in the IP being kicked. for replacing a tag which should have required the decision of an admin to remove? True, the user wasn't the best of editor, but the treatment of that user was very far from stellar. All told, I support the Rfd. I may or may not support deletion, but the actual existence of the request I can see as valid. --Creol(talk) 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right IP? That isn't the reason I put for the block. The block is a range block. They have been using many IPs doing lots of bad edits, this block is essentially matching the one they got on en.wiki for the same thing. It was actually their editing on another IP that caused the block (the edits on that IP have since been deleted as they were pure vandalism and copy pasting from en.wiki)-Djsasso (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im not arguing the block as it was probably warranted. (though a 1yr range block may be a tad much but could be needed) The problem is with the warning for valid actions. There was nothing wrong with the RfD so the warning and removal of the tag was unwarranted. I get the random comment that I can be more than a bit bitey at time (accepted. I got issues, I know), but even I would avoid acting this way. (and the actual block reason was "disruptive editing", my bad there.) --Creol(talk) 03:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Como edito mi pagina sin mi cuenta

Tengo el poblema de que comenze en youtube hace poco y en algunas otras redes sociales, por eso queria editar mi wiki se mi usuario alexis198 para colocqr mis datos pero el poblema es que cuando cree la cuenta el nombre de alexis198 ya estaba en uso pero yo quiero editarlo pero me dice que no es mi pagina es cierto pero es mi nombre el que estan usando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis198gamer (talk • contribs)

I have the problem that I started on youtube recently and on some other social networks, that's why I wanted to edit my wiki as my user alexis198 to put my data but the problem is that when I created the account the name of alexis198 was already in use but I I want to edit it but it tells me that it is not my page it is true but it is my name that they are using

Someone has already picked that name. You would have to use a different name such as the one you are currently using. --Creol(talk) 04:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alguien ya ha elegido ese nombre. Tendría que usar un nombre diferente como el que está usando actualmente

--Creol(talk) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yefri Zuñiga

Hi there! Two IPs have removed the deletion tag from this page over the last few days (191.156.13.5, 191.77.144.89). I think they are the same spammer who created the page (documentation on Meta-Wiki). I'm unsure if protecting the page would be appropriate; a rangeblock wouldn't work because the spammer is on such a wide range. Tol (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened a third time (190.130.97.182). Tol (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: Protected for 2 days. If this continues, please let us know. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Ferien! Tol (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Parisa

Could an admin protect DJ Parisa from recreation? Thanks. Deppty (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was protected by Macdonald-ross soon after your report. --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Recent changes, help please @Ferien: or anyone else Derpdart56 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All dealt with now. @Derpdart56: if you can't get an admin response on-wiki and there is lots and lots of vandalism going on, you can ping admins in the IRC #wikipedia-simple connect channel using !admin@simplewiki or in the Discord channel #simple-english-wikipedia using @SimpleEnglishAdmins. --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Would it be helpful to put that alternate contact info permanently at the top of this page? -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, maybe, although I think it'd be better on VIP as admin attention should only be requested on Discord/IRC for quick vandalism requests. --Ferien (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could put it in multiple places. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could put a note here and on VIP that for urgent response, go to IRC or discord. Not every VIP report or AN thread needs immediate action, but when it does, users should know where to go. Griff (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<-Was BOLD and updated AN with a hidden comment and VIP's header. Feel free to re-word if necessary. Griff (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's perfect. --Ferien (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

......can someone semiprotect my talk page for a month or two weeks again?

It's happened yet again, some vandal put some obscene garbage on my talk page Derpdart56 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but since you help with New Changes Patrol and interact with new users who might need help or have questions for you, please make a note on your talk page directing them to ST so they can get assistance there. Griff (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flood request

Can I request the flood tag ? I would like to make frog categories by each continent. MathXplore (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Please come back here once you have finished or if you're not planning to make any edits afterwards, you can just let the flood flag expire. --Ferien (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished what I wanted to do, thank you for the response. MathXplore (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Thanks for finding frogs a new home. Griff (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Griffinofwales: Oops, you beat me to it! @MathXplore: I accidentally removed your rollbacker right, but it's back now. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same for same reason, please. We've got 441 entries remaining in [[Category:Frogs]] and most of them will be moved out to their respective continental categories. Also, I've never used the flood tag before, so how does it work? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24, basically: if you're going to make a lot of changes in a relatively short amount of time (usually 100 or more), flood is given to you to prevent you from flooding recent changes. The editing interface is the same, you just need to make sure you're only doing the one thing you got flood for while you have it (so in this case, just changing categories) When you are done flooding, you can come back here to request it removed or if you're not going to edit again before the flood flag expires (it is given for an hour or so) then you can just let it expire. There's also a page about it: WP:FLOOD --Ferien (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. If it works when I'm using HotCat, then we're good. But if it only lasts an hour, best not start yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24, I almost always set the expiry for an hour (I find that covers most tasks) but if you know your task takes longer then it can be granted for longer if you want. --Ferien (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode gadget

Can we please import it? Derpdart56 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Import needed

No reply needed. --Creol(talk) 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: I just imported the doc pages for the templates. Can you go in and change the categories to ones that we use here? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: These appear to be done. I'm replying anyway so my fellow admins will know there's no action needed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: if its blue, its done. If its red, it need done. --Creol(talk) 22:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand why Auntof6 made the reply, sometimes an import is needed if the template is out of date or just completely broken and the link would be blue then. --Ferien (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I ask for an import, red means it doesn't exist, blue means it does.. If it already exists, I will ask for an update of the template, not an import. --Creol(talk) 23:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: I know what red and blue links mean. (One of these is actually green on my screen, meaning that it's a redirect.) I was just trying to be courteous to my fellow admins. Some days I can't win. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flood request

I'm rarin' to recategorize some articles in Cat:Frogs. There are about 120 left to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

about to be done. No frogging around. Griff (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfDs

There are currently 22 RfDs past their close by date. While some are still up in the air and such, many are just need a quick Yea/nay and closing. Could someone take a look at them? The page is getting a bit cumbersome with 62 open RfDs. --Creol(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly there are quite a few. I'll try to close the obvious ones in the next couple of days, I'm finishing a major project at work this weekend and should have time after. Encourage all admins to review RFDs, and particularly for the contentious ones, provide additional comments to make it easier on the poor admin who closes those. Griff (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Request

Could an admin release the page: List of Canadian Painters from protection. Thanks. It should be a list that is in constant creation. I tried to add bio's to the artists that were altready listed but did not have linked pages and was blocked and the page protected from further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.45.14 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the page has experienced long-term promotion and so I don't feel comfortable unprotecting the page at this time. Please make edit requests on the talk page using the {{Changesemiprotected}} template. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Ferien (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That request was made to do exactly what vandalism the page was protected to prevent, get someone to add the same (rfd/qd/salted) artist (and cross wiki spam target) on to that list since they can't keep vandalizing it themself. --Creol(talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salt request

Can an admin create-protect Md Sunnat Ali Mollik? It seems that Macdonald-ross protected the page before deleting it, but only protected it from editing ([54])— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Nice catch, thanks for the report. Griff (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More protection requests

thank you in advance. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done authority control. With Joe Swanson, I don't think the page should be protected again just yet. That one IP vandal was blocked. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

89.8.x.x being disruptive, again

Their comments on Talk:Joia Perry, especially this one: [55] indicate that they have failed to assume good faith and making baseless statements. I don't see how Haoreima may be too close to the subject. Their disruptiveness in the RfD discussions ([56], [57] was it really necessary to bring up the floating lake discussion again?, [58]) and evasion during the previous block (Special:Contributions/89.8.104.80) doesn't help either. I'm bringing up the question that was asked a month ago: What is the best action to take here? — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 08:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They are clearly not getting the point. Advocate community restrictions, up to and including a complete ban from the project. Griff (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that IP was banned from editing on the English Wikivoyage. I don't know whether WP:ONESTRIKE can be applied as usually one-month is the maximum length of a block given to IPv6 addresses, though policy allows for three. Had they had an account though, they may have been indef banned for trolling, POV pushing, personal attacks, edit warring and English language variety violations (trying to use their preferred version of BrE in an article about Mexico while the same vice versa for the India article with AmE). If I were to be honest, I'm actually quite appalled that the Simple community has let this IP hopping user continue with their behaviour for such a prolonged period of time. SHB2000 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit does seem to be a violation of WP:CANVAS. As to the rest of its actions, I have little to say as I ignore its rants almost all of the time as the rants rarely are on topic and almost never provide useful info for the matter at hand. --Creol(talk) 19:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, user:Creol. The diff shows that one opinion is that the article does not show notability.--Anyone is free to show examples of SIGCOV (which a google search did not give me any good indication of). 89.8.93.171 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
"The subject of the article does not look notable. Anyone has my support, in starting the process to have the article deleted.
Please, anyone, go to WP:AfD (if the subject of the article does not look notable to you)"
While not directly posting a notification of discussion, it is asking other to support your POV on the existence of the article. The proper way to do so would be to tag the article with your reasoning, put the discussion up for RfD and let the group decide (with or without your additional opinions in that discussion, POV pushing there is to be expected. RfD is all about each persons POV coming together to form a general consensus in accordance with stated policy ) --Creol(talk) 22:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Creol said above. This is not the first time you have asked another editor to tag an article for RfD either. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is not a good thing when user:89.8.x.x uses the same "non good-faith phrase" that has been used earlier in the same discussion (but by another user): "Ignoring the troll in the room".--We should maybe not accept that user:89.8.x.x answers back to another user in another discussion, and explains that s/he was not trying to say that Argentina is a small country (even though his/her first edits quite might be interpreted that way.)--Wikivoyage accusations have been discussed a few months ago (and there has been no substance yet behind the Wikivoyage accusations).--In regard to questioning if someone is too close (or has too much interest in regard) to a subject - that gets done on wikipedia from time to time, and does not have to be an assumption of bad faith. (However, the article in question does mention three children by name, and one of the children gets his nickname mentioned also. One of those names is not in the source given. There might be a good explanation for that.--By the way, that article does have the feel of being little more than a CV. If we can turn this discussion into "user:89.8.x.x is being wrongful to the article about an activist with questionable notability", then that might be a good thing.)--It might also be worth noting that an underlying disagreement with the i.p. user and two established users (that received the two replies that are in question), seems to be various "List of Scientists" from various countries.--When one has 3 humans who disagree about something - sometimes none of the 3 will be showing their best behavior when they meet. In fact sometimes 3 people can become petty when they meet (and it is starting to look like at least two ducks have quacked in a questionable way - one of those being the i.p.). 89.8.154.30 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.154.30 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"at least two" wikipedia users "have quacked in a questionable way"; Of course there are no ducks that have been writing on Wikipedia. Sorry for having used the word "ducks" - the point was simply that at least two wikipedia users have communicated (quacked) in a way which in my view is questionable. 89.8.85.114 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utilizing the CheckUser tool, I've been able to investigate this range and the IP editor concerned. I've been able to confirm that it is very, very likely there is a single user behind the multitude of IP edits. I've blocked the range they use and will continue to monitor. Operator873 connect 21:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edits needed

There are multiple lint errors on the page User talk:Hafspajen/2014. The edits needed would affect many of the images on that page by removing || from the image tags. That piping adds a blank parameter to the image which is setting off linter errors under "Bogus file options". Best to have the listing open in another tab to ensure all the file tags have been corrected but once a change to the page has been made, remember the page date is refreshed so it will be the last page on the list after it is changed. The errors do not display on the page, the only way to verify if they are all gone or not is to save the page then recheck the list. Using the Edit link on the list will highlight the part of the code that needs address for that specific error There could be multiple errors on a page -such as on this page- or one error can hide others so it can take multiple trips through the page to get them all. --Creol(talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it's highly unlikely anyone cares what the 2014 archive looks like, is there a way to make the adjustment without affecting the way images are displayed on that page? Griff (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the changes only affect what is not shown. It is a case where there is extra information there that is being ignored. Wouldn't be an issue at all if it were not triggering errors. These fixes have no outward affect, they just clean up errors the system is finding not things a user would even see. Technognomish work.. keeping the engine clean even though no one sees under the hood. Both save CPU cycles identifying errors and makes it harder for catastrophic errors to hide as this work can make their effects easier to spot. --Creol(talk) 22:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - thanks for noticing. Griff (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple other pages, same issue. Pretty much all the pages on this list with the bogus error of left. They are all the same problem, from the same source, with the same fix. Unfortunately, the all have the same page protection.

[[Image:Featured article star.svg|150px|none|left]]

Needs to be:

[[Image:Featured article star.svg|left|150px]]

The left isn't actually needed at all (no visual effect), but if its in the correct format at least it won't cause an error. There is also a Millions error on one of Razorflames archives: [[Image:Kupony_Lotto.jpg|50px|Millions|left|Millions!]] to [[Image:Kupony_Lotto.jpg|left|50px|Millions!]] should clean it up as well. --Creol(talk) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Let me know if any other ones need fixing. I'm assuming you took care of the root issue that came from the substituted template? Thanks again. Griff (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The root was an award handed out by User:Fairfield back in the early 2010s. It hasn't been seen in years but as it was subst'd, its effects lingered on. --Creol(talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covid updates and imports

As Covid is still an active topic, {{COVID-19 pandemic data}} should be updated regularly. The current En version uses modules, .css pages and such to keep the date as up to date as possible. While we are not likely to stay up to the minute on the data, I would suggest at least monthly updates from their data. As such, it would be best to be using the save set up. This means updating our copy of the template to what they use then importing the needed pages to make it work as needed. From that point, we would just need someone to check at the start of the month to see if an updated data set module needs brought over. Ideally, this entire thing would be a wikidata deal (the data stored there and any wiki pulls from it), but we don't seem to have that option and thats a totally separate discuassion (wikistats - All the numbers a person could ever need!, IMDb, soccerbase, sports-reference, etc, all rolled into one and shared crosswiki to keep articles up to date automatically) --Creol(talk) 23:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be updated for now. I'll try to remember for June. Griff (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Tushayev

Could there be some protection or roll-back of the systematic source blanking and pro-Russian lobbying at Magomed Tushayev? The version as of the end of march here had 5 sources substantiating content. Since then mention of their role in the mass murder of gay men in Chechnya has been blanked, along with several sources that substantiated the international reporting that Tushayev was killed in action. At one point all references were removed, possibly gaming the system to get the article deleted.

There is no reliable evidence recognized outside of obvious pro-Russian state propaganda that Tushayev is alive, and yet this would be incredibly easy to supply if the the Russian services wanted to prove that international journalists were all wrong.

A roll back to the longer and better sourced previous version, and protection so that flyby blanking of references and content by IP addresses rather than accounts that might engage with discussion on the talk page would be helpful. --Anstil (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to a previous version, added in a line for Russian denial of Tushayev's death, and autoconfirmed-protected the page. If this continues please let us know. Best, Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_63&oldid=9617625"