Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 69

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Can some administrator please explain to this user what they are doing wrong on Wikipedia

2600:4040:20EF:AB00:B045:9E41:2306:7957 (talk · contribs). I don't think they understand the policies here. Kk.urban (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Macdonald-ross. --Ferien (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2600:6C40:5400::/48

This is an LTA vandal from English Wikipedia. I posted some more details on the CheckUser mailing list if you have access to it. Please block for at least several months. Most of the edits on this IP range are him going back to 2021. Also, can someone pleased semi-protect my talk page? I'm getting pestered with petty harassment on multiple projects from this troll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, the IP range has been globally blocked, but I have protected your talk page again to prevent vandalism there. --Ferien (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have Template:Uw-joke in Twinkle?

I recently noticed that we have a warning template like this, and I learned that it is not included in our current Twinkle. I don't remember a situation to use a template like this one, but I also think it is not bad to have it in our Twinkle. What do our admins think about this template? MathXplore (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the template should exist in the first place, seeing as 1) we don't need to have all the user warn templates that en has and 2) I also have never found a situation where I would've used this template on this wiki, but we have had this template since 2011. I will wait for others' opinions on this one before thinking about adding it into Twinkle. --Ferien (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien@MathXplore It's in "single issue notices" already. Kk.urban (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban: Well, in that case, consider this (already)   done :P --Ferien (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-joke should be kept just in case it needs to be used. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Guy

Possible QD A4 case but an IP user is repeating QD tag removal. Please check this page. MathXplore (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by Macdonald-ross. --Ferien (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move over redirect

Could an admin move over redirect/ switch U.S. Army Nurse Corps and United States Army Nurse Corps so that the article in on the correct, non-shortened, name and the abbreviated name is the redirect ? Pure Evil (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Ferien (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a class project happening?

I see the following editors simultaneously editing pages related to Singapore:

If it's a class project, they could use some guidance, I suppose? Kk.urban (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz This is you? Kk.urban (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I am helping to run a Wikimania session named "Wikipedia basics". As part of this we encouraged users in our session to create articles. These are new users to editing Wikipedia and we have encouraged those editing to provide sources, but I notice that not many have done so.
If possible, could some leeway be given to these editors as they are editing in good faith to create articles relating to Singapore (where Wikimania is happening). Dreamy Jazz talk | contributons 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant session is listed at https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2023:Program#Room_310_2 Dreamy Jazz talk | contributons 03:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox semi-protection request

Can I have User:MathXplore/sandbox be semi-protected? MathXplore (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore: Indefinitely semi-protected. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names

I was looking at the page pseudonym, and noticed the following. We have various pages under this heading. They have an almost insane-sized box brought over from En wiki and set open. Can someone who knows how set this box as default to closed. The box is headed "Personal names" (etc etc). Boxes this size should almost always be set closed because they were not designed for this wiki, and are often longer than the actual pages, which does nothing for our reputation. Even the title is non-simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - |state = collapsed added to the template to force it to start in collapsed state. Pure Evil (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closing

There was a discussion recently about closing requests for deletion and moving them from the "Current deletion request discussions" to "Recently closed deletion discussions" (see User talk:Illusion Flame#RFDs). As we are also likely to allow unregistered users to !vote at RfD soon, I thought we might as well reconsider other parts of RfD. Something that is fairly common, that I have done when closing RfDs since becoming an admin, is moving the closed discussion(s) to the correct section, then cutting the number in the closed section to 5 or 10. I also have seen admins clear the closed section before going onto close many discussions, then move the discussions they've just closed into that section. There are other admins who do not bother adjusting it at all. There is no right or wrong way to doing this in my view, but does anyone else think it would be good to have consistency in the way we do this, or a bot that does this job for us? --Ferien (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do remove older closed ones unless they were closed very recently, but I don't trim just to limit the number. If I close 20 RFDs, I leave all 20 in recently-closed section, at least for a while. It makes more sense to me to leave closed ones there for a certain amount of time. That way, people interested in them find them without having to search. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these articles complex enough to be deleted, or should a complex tag be added?

Kk.urban (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware I have QDed many many many of this IP's articles before and @Ferien: ended up nuking them under A1. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing through current articles appear to meet the A1 again. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban: We don't currently delete articles automatically for being too complex, unless they were also directly copied from another Wikipedia. If an article is both too complex and directly copied, you can tag it with A3. In either case, you can always place a tag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 They seem to be almost the same as the articles on English Wikipedia, but I don't know if they've been simplified enough to stay here. Kk.urban (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is almost the same as a section of en:List of Olympic Games scandals and controversies. Kk.urban (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: articles all meet A1 or being copied from enwiki. There was also hoaxes before if I am correct. This IP has made 30+ bad pages over months. They have gotten a 4im warning about it. Requesting block. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobherry It would be A3, not A1, right? Kk.urban (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A1/A3. Many are copied from enwiki but many are also A1. All the previously nuked pages by Ferien were under A1. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobherry: A1 is "very short and provides little or no meaning". I don't think that applies to the two that you linked here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not A1. It is, however, a POV fork, copied from a section of an Enwiki article. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My mistake. They do not all meet A1. However the previously nuked articles did if I remember. Thank you Bobherry Talk My Changes 23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we want to avoid is articles that are useless to the project. If that means an article is too complex for our readership then that is an article that is not helpful and should not be a part of the project. We then need to decide to either fix it, or delete it. Either way the point is to remove it from being able to confuse our readers. I have no issues with deleting an article to achieve our aims, but in my experience tagging them as too complex does very little to actually get the article simplified. fr33kman 22:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UKRTELNET block evasions

Recently @Operator873: has taken care of two block evaders from UKRTELNET (Special:Contributions/46.200.83.77, Special:Contributions/95.134.111.155). I noticed that this IP comes from the same provider and has activity overlaps at WP:AN, Windows 8 and their related pages. I think admins or CU should take a look at this. MathXplore (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (Typo fixed, MathXplore (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know anything about those IP Addresses, because I never used them. My current IP Address, 178.94.181.131 is the first I'm using to change pages. 178.94.181.131 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Note) Today I reported Special:Contributions/178.94.115.200 to VIP (same Internet provider, admin template creations as well as the IPs above). MathXplore (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing of 88.110.38.249

I’d like an administrator to review the editing of this user, that can be found here. Notably their creation of bad pages that are supposed to be funny that no one asked for. Thanks! Illusion Flame (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note) Related suggestion was made at special:diff/8986371. MathXplore (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am meant to be constructive actually. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some users don't think so, and that is why we have threads like this. MathXplore (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add this user to the list of those who do not like these. We are a small community of editors. We do not have time or attention to monitor stuff like this. And, it is pointless. --Gotanda (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, the user is now on the list (special:diff/9012907). MathXplore (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

I hate to point it out but there is a serious backlog that needs admin help on RfD. Some are waiting to close from July. Thx :) fr33kman 16:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the two from July that I was not involved with. Still some help needed on the others. --Ferien (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally didn't mind too much in closing RfDs that I was involved in. The project elects you to be a sysop and gives you trust. If you can have a lack of bias then I've closed articles I've voted in lots of times. WP:BOLD fr33kman 22:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, I will close RfDs I have commented in, however the one that is remaining in July is one I nominated myself. Deleting or keeping that template isn't urgent, and we have other admins who can close it. --Ferien (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User page semi-protection request

I request indefinite semi-protection to User:MathXplore/QD log/2022. MathXplore (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP handlimg RFD venue again

An IP added discussions to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion#Discussions, I looked at the edit history and noticed an IP handle the RFD venue. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

User talk:212.129.86.211 needs TPA revoked and the most recent change needs revdel under RD2. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus in movie

Santa Claus in movie is not correct grammar. Kk.urban (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to "in movies" but still wonder if it is not QD bait as there is little there to work with. Pure Evil (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPs handling RFD venue

I understand that these are usually handled by our admins, but I found an IP user doing this. Did any admin allowed this action? MathXplore (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it on its own (they moved an RfD I forgot to move) but yeah, it is generally something admins do once they have done closing a few RfDs. --Ferien (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But i realised the RFDs were already closed, and I just wanged to put it into the right section. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think leaving that for the admins is safer for you. MathXplore (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had closed a few of them, and was just about to move them to the other section, but the IP editor was faster... Eptalon (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to help. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did it again, but I want to help here. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's probably best to let the people who close the RFDs do the moving. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sandeep Manikpuri

Talk page of a blocked user is possibly abused. Our admins may need to consider about removing talk page access. MathXplore (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were never told that they were blocked, or told how to make an unblock request. Is that required? Kk.urban (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were told they were blocked just not by a template. fr33kman 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives of the English-wiki (indefinite) block

From English-wiki, "16:51, 17 August 2023 Premeditated Chaos talk contribs blocked Sandeep Manikpuri talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes: slash NOTHERE)". 2001:2020:313:F598:4CB1:10F:731A:8A43 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was trying to advertising his opinions. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Singh (influencer)

Happy Singh was quick deleted many times, but I'm not sure what QD criterion Happy Singh (influencer) falls under. It can't be A4 because it says millions of people follow him on Instagram which is a claim of notability. Kk.urban (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments from En-wiki might point to arguments: "
11:54, 1 June 2019 MER-C talk contribs moved page Happy Singh to Draft:Happy Singh without leaving a redirect (Paid-for article must go through WP:AFC.)
03:37, 13 August 2010 NawlinWiki talk contribs deleted page Happy Singh (G3: Blatant hoax)".--My argument/question: Is the price for buying one million followers on Instagram, higher or lower than the price of buying youtube followers.--Youtube followers have been costing a few thousand U.S. dollars for one million followers. 2001:2020:313:F598:8C7B:F681:524A:1A6B (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I usually nominate this for G5. MathXplore (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be destructive, but if one can buy followers on a huge scale how is that an indication of notability in our sense? Only if followers pick him by themselves is it an indication of his notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonal-ross - I tried to answer your question at simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macdonald-ross&oldid=9018704. (That answer will likely have no effect on this thread - which has led to Delete of "Happy Singh (influencer)".) 2001:2020:313:F598:3DF5:B1C5:A8F9:9CCA (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah al-Hashimi

A new user (already reported to CU) is repeating RFD tag removal at this page, I already send warnings to them. Should we have the page protected or should we just continue to send warnings? MathXplore (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is only used as a last resort, so continue to warn the user for some time. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I count this comment as a non-admin observation, or does the user have the permission to speak behalf of our admins? MathXplore (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use page protection as you have already notified them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed

For 15 seconds, I had a weird IP adresss and i got indeffed at the same time, and when i went back to normal, i accidentaly did a test edit on my talk page. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed articles

Will somebody evaluate and close the discussions at Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion (Jupiter) and Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles (Neptune)? They have been open for 1.5 years and nearly 0.5 years respectively. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to, but I am not sure if IPs can close discussions. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason for the length of time is that the original text and adjustments were fundamentally ignorant of the relatively recent changes in understanding of the Solar System before its present status. Because the pages need to say what present astronomy says, the pages will still be open. A number of users who were formerly active on thee pages have perhaps not yet expressed themselves. Editors are understandably slow to say, in effect, "I was wrong". In fact one or two of these pages were given GA status despite being fundamentally wrong or incomplete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd better say the obvious: because I wrote this critique, so another admin would have to close the discussion. In any event, my prediction is that this area of astronomy may go on adjusting for some time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Salman Khan

Please semi-protect Salman Khan due to persistent vandalism stemming from - what appears to be - mobile IP addresses. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done for a month --Ferien (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gross nationalist POV-pushing

Kojak Savalas (talk · contribs) is pushing a narrative that the Aromanians, a Romance-speaking small ethnic group in the Balkans, are actually Greeks. There's currently several theories regarding their origin. One of them is they originate from Latinized Greeks. I'm pretty sure Kojak Savalas has created several articles on the Aromanians based on English Wikipedia and also that they're conciously avoiding anything that does not agree with their viewpoints. Because this user decided to only add this one theory and pass it as factual, and not attributed, and to add the category Category:Greek people to Aromanians. As proof that the Simple English Wikipedia page of the Aromanians, which this user created, was created based on the English Wikipedia one, see the initial source citing ethonyms in their own language. Same author, same article, same page [1] [2]. It's on the opening sentence of both.

Kojak Savalas also created two biographical articles, Evangelos Zappas and Konstantinos Zappas. Just by looking at their English Wikipedia equivalents it is clear they're based on them [3] [4]. Same sources, same structure... The English Wikipedia articles clearly state the ethnicity of these two men is disputed and might have been either Aromanian or Greek. Kojak Savalas not only ignored the Aromanian ethnicity claim altogether [5] [6], they also reverted ([7] [8]) my own sourced additions regarding these claims in the articles [9] [10].

This is not a content dispute. Kojak Savalas has clearly conciously avoided including info on the articles of their interest that did not match their viewpoints. They also reverted perfectly well and sourced additions for this reason. They're here to push an agenda. Why should any user be allowed to just straight-up claim that one people actually belongs to another? What if I randomly state that Spaniards are actually Italians? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind. The user is projecting onto me his own pro-Romanian nationalist agenda shown in the unkind message the user left on my talkpage and in the user's unkind edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4).
And because the user is coming from English Wikipedia, administrators are also advised to read the long discussion about the ethnicity of Evangelos and Konstantinos Zappas. The verdict was that Evangelos Zappas and Konstantinos Zappas were both Greeks and not Aromanians. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kojak Savalas continues their nationalist POV-pushing [11] [12] [13]. This again showing the removal of sourced content. That discussion they mentioned is not respected and currently on English Wikipedia the consensus is to add their sourced claims. Because there is no justification to remove sourced content. But this user does not appear to understand. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also created Fustanella, a skirt used by several Balkan people of uncertain origin, and gave it an absolute Greek-centric POV. They also resorted to a source from 1842 to state that , actually, "The Albanian fustanella is based on the Greek fustanella." [14]. I've given it a broader approach [15], I do not believe anyone will say this was harmful to the article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also created Arvanites. They're Albanian-speakers in Greece, of ethnic Albanian origin. They took the following quote from a source: "From the very beginning, when the Arvanítes moved south in the peninsula into what is now Greece, their south Tosk culture must have differed little from that of their late Byzantine neighbours the Greeks; their belief system must already have been largely that of Orthodoxy." and altered it's meaning to write that, actually, "and their culture was Byzantine Greek." I am talking about reference 5 in this revision [16]. Isn't this manipulation of the sources? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind. The user is now supporting a pro-Albanian nationalist agenda under the cover of neutrality. In doing so, the user hopes to have his own pro-Romanian nationalist agenda recognized. Again, please ignore. Kojak Savalas (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong about any of this [17] [18]? I might have crossed the line with the aggressive tone before but this is literally impossible to argue against. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, @Kojak Savalas keeps reverting sources that go against a Greek nationalist POV. He doesn't elaborate in his edit notes, he just says we're Albanian/Romanian nationalists that are denying facts. Yung Doohickey (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind. The users Yung Doohickey and Super Dromaeosaurus are the same because their behaviors, especially on August 21st, are the same (1, 2). Again, please ignore. Kojak Savalas (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop making junk comments. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that you're not aware of Wikipedia's policies if you think this, for example [19], is a harmful edit in any way. In that case it could be argued your insight is not helpful. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides are not POV pushing. It is mostly @Kojak Savalas, as @Super Dromaeosaurus is not removing sourced content in favor of a nationalistic POV, as far as I'm aware. For example, on the Fustanella page, he completely deleted the mention of other culture names and possible origins that use the kilt in favor of the Greek POV, and instantly reverted when I tried restoring the sourced content. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a disclaimer I will admit I've removed sources at Aromanians [20]. I did this because Kojak Savalas, conciously and in bad faith as I've already said, only included one of the theories about their origin and passed it as the one and only truth, when not even the sources he quoted talk with this much certainty AND when some of those sources also mention the other existing theories about their origin. I'd be willing to leave that information on the article if Kojak Savalas compromises to include the other theories and to attribute all of them. I can help them. But they will not do that. After all I'm a Romanian nationalist with an Albanian sockpuppet (or an Albanian nationalist with a Romanian sockpuppet, who knows anymore?) [21] [22]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[27] [28] these are evident personal attacks. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kojak Savalas continues the POV-pushing. They just created Souliotes. Description given by English Wikipedia [29]: "The Souliotes were an Orthodox Christian Albanian tribal community...". Description given by this user in this Wikipedia [30]: "The Souliotes (Greek: Σουλιώτες) are the bilingual Greek people...". Again, X people are actually Greeks. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind. The user is manipulating the community to extirpate "enemies" of his pro-Romanian/pro-Albanian nationalist agenda. Again, please ignore. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AKA "They don't think the way I do so they are being mean to me.. don't listen to the meanies!!" Pure Evil (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. AKA "Don't take the bait!" Good effort though. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everybody will listen to your opinions, please stop POV pushing. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you stop making junk comments" Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kojak, you are breaking NPA more than they are. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR. Ever since Super Dromaeosaurus arrived here, I have gotten multiple personal attacks from him with others jumping on the "attack Kojak Savalas" bandwagon (see: [31], [32], [33]). Do you seriously expect me to not defend myself by calling out irrational behavior for what it is, irrational? Super Dromaeosaurus even admitted here that he attacked me (i.e., "I might have crossed the line with the aggressive tone") so do not tell me that I am making things up. Kojak Savalas (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that you have not received personal attacks. I simply mentioned that you have also been uncivil in a similar way. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is uncivil about advising rational people to ignore irrational behavior? What is uncivil about pointing out two new accounts attacking the same articles at the same time (see [34], [35])? And what is uncivil about pushing back against so-called "sourced content" that violates WP:V under the section "Dubious sources"? Kojak Savalas (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making junk comments. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only one "manipulating" things is you using a source saying something completely different from the info you're adding to articles [36]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained how this user is manipulating sources to attribute a "Byzantine Greek culture" to the Arvanite people. They added another [37]. Since I understandably doubt this user's intentions I reverted asking for a quote [38]. With a coarse edit summary they gave one [39]. This is the quote: "Arvanites and other Greeks: common customs, traditions, dances, etc. and Chapter V, Section 8: The Greekness through the songs of the Greek Arvanites". Literally nothing about Arvanites having a Byzantine Greek culture. I really don't understand why do admins keep ignoring this thread. Do they want a trash Wikipedia that badly? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kojak Savalas simply rejects the sources I use for zero reason ("the substandard sources you treat as Gospel Truth" [40]; diffs showing them reverting the sources on that article [41] [42] [43]) because they do not like what they say. Just for the record, he mentions a discussion in 2015 in English Wikipedia; there were more in 2021, through which this ethnicity claim, supported by seven sources, was reinstated in the article (Consensus can change).
May I note all I am doing is including the second ethnicity claim existing for this individual and not pushing for adding one and removing another, all with sources [44], for the sake of NPOV. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind. The user's "zero reason" claim is false and based on an irrational dismissal of a very rational discussion involving sources the user uncritically supports among other things such as the either-or misframing of historical figures ([45], [46]). And historical facts do not change just because an irrational pro-Romanian/pro-Albanian nationalist agenda decides to politically weaponize an online consensus policy/mechanism. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Administrators are advised to ignore the above comments because they are not kind" it's starting to get laughable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your tactics are what's really laughable. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please deny recognition. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kojak Savalas continues their unjustified removal of sourced content [47] [48]. They have been left to roam free for a week now. They call my sourced additions "junk" [49] because they do not agree with them. This user is dishonest and applies hypocritical logic. They decided to analyise all seven sources I added here [50] and it turns out all of them were unreliable according to them [51]. 6,643‎ bytes-long message, analysed each source individually. I asked them if they could do a similar analysis with the sources they support [52]. The result: 584‎ bytes-long message, "The other sources [...] are all mainstream", "The mainstream and specialist sources, in conclusion, meet WP:V." [53]. They criticised some of the sources I added for simply mentioning the individual's Aromanian ethnicity claim (not sure what do they expect) but when I pointed out some of the sources stating the Greek ethncity claim do the same without much detail either it turned out it was okay. The sources that I add are "junk", the sources they add are "mainstream" and "specialist".
Watch this user justify the use of a source from 1842 [54]. What is this source for? It's Rupert 1842 (diff) at Fustanella, it cites the following sentence "The Albanian fustanella is based on the Greek fustanella." X thing is actually Greek. POV-pushing. They then come to criticise a 2004 source I added (Gjergji 2004 on this diff [55]) for being published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania because it was established during the communist period [56]. ???. Making up stuff out of the air. Whatever so that anything they disagree with is removed and anything they agree with kept.
I would also like an admin to warn this user against editing my talk page. I specifically asked them not to after they meddled in another discussion I was having with another user [57] and they immediately replied [58]. This user has no respect for etiquette whatsoever. They tried to use the fact that I stopped calling them an ultranationalist (last instance: 18 August 2023, day I made this thread [59]) against me; they continued this language for far longer. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a topic ban for both users. fr33kman 02:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@fr33kman. Just Super Dromaeosaurus. As I said to QuicoleJR, I am not here to start change wars with anyone. But Super Dromaeosaurus has been attacking me ever since he got here and so he is in no position to talk about etiquette. He is using every tactic in the book because the user is on a mission to "Right Great Wrongs!" or something irrational. Anyone who gets in his way is a "threat" that must be removed. The claim of "unjustified removal of sources" is an obvious lie. On the Evangelos Zappas page, I spent a lot of time explaining things to him and upon gently testing his understanding of things, he gets upset only to come here, as expected, and scream bloody murder. And the stuff about the Academy in Albania is not made up. It is fact, which is something that Super Dromaeosaurus only respects if it aligns with his irrational dogma whatever that happens to be. So you cannot reason with someone who cannot understand or refuses to understand something as simple as WP:V. It would not be fair to topic ban anyone for putting up with this much abuse from one user who feigns being abused when things don't go his way. Kojak Savalas (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second, though I thought there was another one of them out there to add in. Also add in keeping a close eye on the articles to watch out for similar POV pushing the may come from IPs or sock like accounts. Oh. and mot technically Second as I suggested the idea a couple days ago.

It would not be fair to topic ban anyone for putting up with this much abuse from one user who feigns being abused when things don't go his way

— Kojak Savalas
So youre advising against a topic ban on the other side.. Pure Evil (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil. I'm advising that punishing a user (me, you, anyone) with a topic ban after putting up with Super Dromaeosaurus' constant attacks would be unfair. I don't know what's really going on but it looks like Super Dromaeosaurus is never going to stop. So a topic ban would be necessary at this point but only for Super Dromaeosaurus. And bear in mind that the user's aggressive behavior towards me extends even to the English Wikipedia, which I seldom edit ([60]). As for me, I'm done explaining and I'm done being someone's virtual punching bag. Kojak Savalas (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that you are not innocent in this matter. You keep blaming others and playing the victim card while your actions are central to the problems. You're calling for not t.banning could easily apply to them as it does you. Also, what you (as a group) do on En. wiki has little to do with what happens here. Your actions here dictate what happens here and those actions to this point do not paint you in a favorable light. The more you wave the victim card, the less likely some are to care. Pure Evil (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Self-defense is not "playing the victim card". Ask yourself. Who started this thread and for what reason really? Because the user who started this thread could have approached me respectfully to collaborate (which he didn't and you know it). Super Dromaeosaurus is politically biased as his personal page clearly shows making him unqualified to edit topics about the Balkans (not to mention he can't tell the difference between good and bad sources per WP:V). But biases aside, could the user who started this thread start a conversation on an entry's talkpage and request for outside input? Absolutely. Why didn't he though? And why would the user come here almost every time to complain whenever things didn't go his way? And why would a user smugly say to me "Take a seat" at a request for an apology in the hopes of de-escalating things? Is the user pining for my "execution"? So I may not be innocent to you, but at least I tried to make this place not mirror the labyrinthine sh*tshow that the English Wikipedia has devolved into. And don't tell me that I didn't try to reason things out. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable who know that if they cannot win with facts and rigor, they can win by pulling on your heartstrings. So victim card my foot. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't try to de-escalate anything. I offered removing a source I knew you disagreed with and I said "Very well that we're finally approaching a normal discussion" [61]. You then said I had fallen into a test of yours [62] and that I was attempting to "barter" [63]. You also told me "Now if you want the analysis of the other sources (I'd gladly do it), then apologize for everything you wrote. And I mean everything." [64]. Debate in Wikipedia is not conditional to your emotional state. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Asking for an apology is not about my "emotional state" but your willingness to take seriously any form of collaboration. If you don't apologize for all the crap you put me through, then how do you expect me to trust you or take whatever you have to say seriously? And what do you know about normal discussions when you flippantly dismissed the one I brought to your attention on the Evangelos Zappas talkpage? You want to clear the slate and collaborate, eat some humble pie and apologize for everything. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kojak Savalas has started victimising in the thread [65] [66]. I remind that this thread is all about their POV-pushing.
Fr33kman, this is what really happens. If you could be so kind I'd appreciate it if you could read this message completely and take a look at the diffs below this one. It is long, but I think it will convince you. Do you believe they're appropriate behaviour? I rewrite this user's biased articles, and then they revert anything they disagree on. I've stopped reverting long ago. I resorted to this thread like is normally advised in Wikipedia. Why should I get a topic ban? There's four people in this thread which are against Kojak Savalas's POV-pushing and who're helping me [67] [68] [69] [70]. Kojak Savalas is on the other hand not supported by anyone. One of these four users gave me a template warning but they struck it after understanding the situation a bit better [71]. Look at all the warnings they received [72]. Another of the four also previously suggested a topic ban for the both of us [73]. Pure Evil, would you still support a topic ban against me? I do not agree with being equated to Kojak Savalas. Worth noting is also this user's personal attacks against me [74] [75]. They immediately edited my talk page [76] after I asked them not to [77]. According to them I push a "pro-Romanian/pro-Albanian nationalist agenda" and I aim to extirpate my "enemies". [78]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep this as short as possible.
1. Take a look at the articles on English Wikipedia about the Aromanians [79], Arvanites [80] and Souliotes [81]. They are Balkan population groups. Now take a look at their articles in Simple English Wikipedia [82] [83] [84]. These three were created by Kojak Savalas. Compare the opening sentences of all six. Kojak Savalas pushes the narrative that all of these are Greeks.
Wrong. Simple English is not a mirror copy of English Wikipedia. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. This user engages in source manipulation: please confirm to me if these two quotes [85] [86] (translation) back the claim that they cite, that the Arvanites had a Byzantine Greek culture.
Wrong. I explained the meaning of the Alatis and Staczek source on QuicoleJR's talkpage. You obviously didn't read my explanation. And I fulfilled your request for a quote for the Karastathis source and I delivered. You just don't like Karastathis because he's an expert whose fact-based research doesn't fit well with Albanian nationalist propaganda and your irrational "neutrality" dogma. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. They routinely remove sourced content because it promotes viewpoints they disagree with. On this article they reverted three different users [87] [88] (notice the personal attack on the edit summary) [89]. Context: the fustanella is a costume claimed by both Greeks and Albanians, also used by others; Kojak Savalas framed it as only a Greek costume, I rewrote the article with sources to include all other cultures. Kojak Savalas also removes sources backing a possible non-Greek ethnic background from biographies they wrote (Evangelos Zappas: [90] [91] [92] [93]; Konstantinos Zappas. [94] [95] [96]).
Wrong. The other viewpoints are factually deficient per WP:V under "Dubious sources". Using neutrality as a cover to avoid scrutinizing your own sources tells me that you are POV-pushing all while accusing others of POV-pushing who call you out on your "contributions". Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kojak Savalas rejects any sources that I bring up [97] ("the substandard sources you treat as Gospel Truth") [98] ("you didn't stop uncritically stuffing entries with junk you call "sourced content""), but those that they bring up are "mainstream" and "specialist" [99].
Wrong. I dismiss bad sources not any sources per WP:V. Read the Evangelos Zappas talkpage again. You clearly have no experience distinguishing good from bad sources. And I'm still waiting for that apology. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. They use sources from two centuries ago to promote their viewpoints. Take a look at reference 10, Rupert 1842, on this diff at Fustanella [100], and look what it cites. As I explained, this is a costume claimed by two different peoples, this is a contentious statement.
Wrong. A French expert, outside of the Balkans, making factual observations that happen to not comport with Albanian nationalist propaganda (i.e., Illyrianism). Boohoo. Simple English Wikipedia is not a community-wide spokesperson for the Rilindja. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Kojak Savalas should receive a topic ban from the Balkan topic area. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that would be a good idea, as they have made good contributions to the area. Maybe an IBAN would be helpful? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. How would that, for example, help this diff be restored [101]? It's not an issue between them and me. I think you said this because you put higher emphasis on the personal attacks, though I'm just assuming so. While they've definitively done objectively good contributions, we should wonder if this user is a net positive or WP:COMPETENT enough for editing in this, I should note, VERY contentious topic area. I do not believe Kojak Savalas has shown enough care and caution in editing Balkan topics.
Yes really. I already explained the problem with your edits on QuicoleJR's talkpage. And you have never once justified including your sources on the entry's talkpage. Buzzwords like "neutrality" and "sourced content" mean nothing without WP:V. Read it. And you are in no position to wonder if I'm competent, when I've shown that I'm competent many times while you were busy attacking me and my work. And if you are so competent yourself, why didn't you scrutinize your own sources following the stringent and necessary criteria I explained to you in the Evangelos Zappas talkpage? Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a topic ban Kojak Savalas will still be allowed to edit Simple English Wikipedia. If they have no problems they will have all the right to appeal it in the future. But right now I don't see justification for many of their actions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you seem to have a point. At this point I'd suggest a topic ban for Kojak Savalas. The thing that we all must realize is that this is a small user community and one that does not have expertise in the topic area. We have to act to protect the project and in such a way as to minimise effort on the user community. Basically, the war has to end and it must end NOW! fr33kman 19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@fr33kman. Super Dromaeosaurus has never once apologized for constantly attacking me. His appeal for help is just another tactic. If you do ban me, then all you will prove is that online abusers can always win if they use projection and feign being abused when others push back. And you will also prove that users who constantly attack me (or anyone else including you) can always get what they want if they just rope in the right people into their web of lies. Bravo. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thank you a lot. And I agree. I am very tired of this. I am open to suggestions. I think in English Wikipedia one user can start a vote on whether an user should receive a topic or a full (not appropriate here) ban. Is this also the case here?
I'd also like to point out that since Simple English Wikipedia is small, harmful edits can easily go unnoticed. It was July 2022 when Kojak Savalas rewrote the article about the Aromanians to potray them as Greeks [102]. In my view, this incites harsher measures than on a bigger and more patrolled community. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can ask for a topic ban but admins are probably already reading this. Preferably Kojak would receive a topic ban with a warning that a complete block would be the result of them ignoring it. fr33kman 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly not sure admins are reading this. But sure. I will start a vote soon. And I agree with that proposal. Thanks a lot for your engagement in the thread. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are admins reading this. of that, you can be certain. I could, but won't, suggest reasons for their silence but make no mistake, they are watching. Pure Evil (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@fr33kman. Don't buy into the old "woe is me" act. Banning users who have extensive knowledge of European history and an eye for source quality in favor of online abusers feigning abuse like Super Dromaeosaurus is a recipe for disaster. What's more, you are signalling to other users that propaganda-pushing under the cover of neutrality is completely acceptable, which will lead to more change wars. Kojak Savalas (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to thank Kojak Savalas for writing in between several of my messages [103]. What's more is that much of that are just personal attacks against me. They've referred to me as an "online abuser", twice; they've said that I "rope in the right people into their web of lies"; and apparently I've been "busy attacking me [Kojak Savalas] and my work" and "constantly attacking me [Kojak Savalas]". Oh, they also stated that "The other viewpoints are factually deficient"; that is, anything they don't agree with. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong again. The other viewpoints are factually deficient if you bothered to scrutinize them per WP:V. And you still cannot distinguish personal attacks from your own irrational behavior. Not to mention that you haven't stopped attacking me and my work (look in the mirror). While having to deal with your crap here and elsewhere, I created Simone Stratigo, Taverna, Souvlaki, etc. What actually valuable contributions have you made to this encyclopedia since you got here? Answer: ZERO. Just because you trashed one encyclopedia with your edits doesn't justify you trashing another. Kojak Savalas (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children!

Stand up. Turn around. Walk away from the computer. Calm down and relax. Wait a couple days to come back. None of this is useful to any one. A couple dozen articles could have been written with all the effort put into this thread alone.. Pure Evil (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a couple of days, I'll be "executed" thanks in part to you swallowing Super Dromaeosaurus' boohoo bait hook, line and sinker. And so there won't be a "couple of dozen articles" if you ban competent editors like me who know how to write them. Kojak Savalas (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your inflated self image is hilarious. This wiki has worked fine for 2 decades. It worked fine before you. It will survive your execution. Frankly a topic ban is light. I would support an indef ban on the grounds of disruptive editing. You are not needed here. We will be fine without delusional narcissists crying victim. Second rate editor without a clue beyond causing problems are not needed. Pure Evil (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent refutation. That was what I was looking for. Thank you (and sorry). Kojak Savalas (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear here. My main started editing back in 2006. Eptalon is the only person here that is senior to me. I redid the entire Cat system which included 2-3000 articles that were uncategorized and needed fixed. I ranked up 35K edit in a bit over 2 years. At that time this was a ludicrous number. I was also an admin, b'crat and checkuser. Then is stepped away for a time. I went active again for 2012-2013 and pumped out 25K more edits. Then my 3rd and 4th stroke hit and I stepped back entirely for almost a decade. I popped back in and pushed out about 20K more to bring my total just over 80K. This account is petty at about 7500. And during all that time I was gone, this place did perfectly fine. It did not die while I was gone. You have 170 edits.. to me, that would have been a slow Tuesday. Ive done 89 in the last 24 hours and ,grand scheme, this is nothing. Had I taken the day off, nothing big.
So understand that when I say that you do not matter, I almost mean that 100%. Your only effect has been negative. Nothing you have done has provided a positive impact to this wiki. I have seen many get indef banned. If you were to be indef banned, this would be for the best of the wiki and I would not miss a moment of sleep over it. Pure Evil (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Superb follow-up (you're spoiling me). But there is one small correction I must make: I never mattered anywhere no matter the matter. Thank you again. Kojak Savalas (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an outright block also. fr33kman 01:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

As ban proposals happen on Simple talk, this discussion was moved to simple talk. See Wikipedia:Simple talk#Topic ban discussion. --Ferien (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over one week has passed, several editors have expressed worry for Kojak Savalas' edits and the personal attacks against me have increased a lot in the user's latest messages.

I want to propose a topic ban for a set of several reasons. I do not believe Kojak Savalas is capable of editing Balkan topics and I propose that they're banned from the Balkan topic area. Here is a set of edits of mine explaining in a compact, rather long message Kojak Savalas' inappropriate edits [104]. I apologize that it can't be read anymore, this user wrote in between this message afterwards.

Proof of this user's incapacity of remaining cool in this contentious topic area can be the numerous personal attacks that I've received from them. I've been acussed of sockpuppetry [105] [106] (this one also constitutes a personal attack against another user); I asked them not to edit my talk page anymore, [107] to which they replied precisely with a message on my talk page [108]; in this single diff I've been called an "online abuser" twice, I've been told that I "rope in the right people into their web of lies" and I've been acussed of attacking Kojak Savalas twice ("busy attacking me and my work", "constantly attacking me") [109]; in this diff I've been called "politically biased", my English Wikipedia userpage has been brought up for no reason and aspersions have been cast regarding my intentions [110]; and in this diff I'm acussed that I've "trashed" an encyclopedia already and that I shouldn't "trash" another [111]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd: I would support a topic ban of all parties involved. "2 to tango" and all that. Heck, I posted as part of this fiasco, topic ban me too! 1st: As this is now more of a community consensus thing, it should be taken to Simple Talk. The outcome is an admin issue but the consensus is needed from the entire group. Pure Evil (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. False framing, false narrative, false appeal to reason. Super Dromaeosaurus is calling this editing community to "execute" a long-time editor. Super Dromaeosaurus has still not apologized for the crap he put me through ever since he got here on August 11th. And because I don't play his irrational game that clearly violates WP:V, I must be removed for lack of "remaining cool". What absolute rubbish. And Super Dromaeosaurus did in fact trash the English Wikipedia encyclopedia, with the same junk sources he used here. And the behaviors of both Super Dromaeosaurus and Yung Doohickey are identical especially on August 21st. So aspersions my foot. Kojak Savalas (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "execute" a long-time editor. wow.. just wow. Topic ban = execute. and Long term editor? your account has edits going back just about a year. It was created in 2018 but you did not use this account until late 2022. For all of 170 edits on this wiki and 7 on two other wiki. Pure Evil (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is going to form a cabal soon. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Alexander Bickerton

The article seems to be a QD A4/G4 case but an IP user is repeating QD tag removal. Admins may need to take a look at this page. MathXplore (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Fehufanga --Ferien (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A House A Little Too Quiet

Quick deletion (A4) was requested at here but a new user is repeating QD tag removal. I request admins to take a look at this page. MathXplore (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Macdonald-ross --Ferien (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothée Vassas

Quick deletion (A4) was requested at here but a new user is repeating QD tag removal. I request admins to take a look at this page. MathXplore (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Eptalon, then deleted again by Macdonald-ross --Ferien (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username block

I think this user should be blocked User: Ha$ley and ferien the ugly bltches they should no longer be alive fr33kman 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the account was hidden --Ferien (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why?? Just because they misspelled "bitches"??   Pure Evil (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an insulting name that serves no purpose and is a threat. It's strictly a troll fr33kman 22:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Evil finally showing evil behaviour here ;P --Ferien (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :-)) 88.110.38.249 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pure Evil" is maybe also an insulting name, when it refers to geezers (see Gerontology) in "Puree-ville" (and sipping nourishment/puree thru a straw).--(Note to self: check if the blue links have okay articles.)--If this post was not helpful, then please revert it. 2001:2020:309:7C75:E13E:DC48:8559:5356 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:309:7C75:E13E:DC48:8559:5356 (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it is an insult. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)/14:22, 29 Aug 2023 (UTC+1:00/BST)[reply]

TvStar.info

I don't think there is a claim of notabiity at this page but an IP user is repeating QD tag removal at here. MathXplore (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Hatsune Miku

The above page is being vandalized by multiple IPs, who keep inserting copyvio lyrics. --Leonidlednev (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page only has two edits. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR The page was deleted and recreated. See [112] 2601:644:907E:A450:90E5:E891:5061:4E4B (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amruthlal777‎‎

This user has made a couple of pages about themselves as a professional IT engineer the first Amruthlal was QD'd, recreated, Qd'd and salted and now he's at it again creating Amruthlal parakkandy. fr33kman 02:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note) Sent AN notice. MathXplore (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted archival parameters...

Hello, like I did with Simple Talk, I have reduced the time an unedited thread stays on this board, by a third, from 21 days to 14 days. This means threads will get archived faster, and the "bulkiness" of this page will decrease. In the case of Simple Talk, I had reduced from 14 to 10 days. Eptalon (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domantas Mauz

Can somebody decide if the pages written by Domantas Mauz (talk · contribs) are notable? 2601:644:907E:A450:8DDC:3E2C:D3E7:896B (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekspla seems notable. Its en article has been around 15 or so year without an AfD try. Buhalterės.lt does not look notable. Avia Solutions Group looks notable as a company, but that article reads more as an advert. Pure Evil (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an administrator issue. If you believe the articles do not show notability, you can nominate for QD or RFD. If you want to discuss it, WP:ST is a better place for that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether they show notability. Administrators know more than me, they could, for example, decide to delete them as advertising, or whether to nominate them for deletion. 2601:644:907E:A450:F57F:4318:41E8:4394 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:N, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If QD is taken as the option, given it is the admins responsibility to decide if a claim of notability is present and act accordingly, this is an admin issue. IF these were tagged for QD, would an admin delete them or would it be a waste of time? If RfD were chosen then it would not have anything to do with admins. At least one of these would fall under QD so how an admin would treat the matter would be a valid question for the admins. As it is about QD, this is a task on Wikipedia that only administrators can do, per the first sentence on this very page, that is exactly what this page is for. Pure Evil (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly look at the Articles up for QD. It has happened that I decline QDs, and I told the nominator to go for RfD or that I nominated for RfD myself Eptalon (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, due to my lack of knowledge about the subjects that Domantas' articles are about, I can't really decide if these articles are notable or not, but I believe that this may be a case of undisclosed paid editing.... Domantas already created multiple company articles with perfect knowledge of wikimarkup as a new user, which definitely is a sign of UPE. #prodraxis connect 05:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

Can someone please protect the page? It's been seeing quite a bit of vandalism. #prodraxis connect 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodraxis The recent level of vandalism appears to be manageable currently. Protection does not seem necessary, but I'll keep an eye on the article. If any other admin objects to this, then feel free to protect it for whatever duration is fitting. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm not too fond of stubs, I want to work on a "Project" which works on expanding stubs and making them into full articles. Am I allowed to do something like that?

Thanks, Yodas henchman (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodas henchman: There are one or two WikiProjects that are related to stubs, but they seem to be inactive. You don't really need a project to work on expanding stubs, though. Just go ahead and work on them and we'll all be grateful! You might want to become familiar with Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project, in case you aren't already. If you need any other info, feel free to ask.
By the way, this isn't necessarily an admin question, so you can use WP:Simple talk to ask questions as well. Cheers! -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Rocky Marciano

Rocky Marciano is currently an LTA target and is being vandalized by multiple ranges. --Leonidlednev (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a week by Eptalon. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice Presidents of the United States

I moved this category to Category:Vice presidents of the United States per enwiki, other categories and the parent category. I also changed the related template to change the category auto-added by them (special:diff/9039761), and removed Category:Vice Presidents of the United States from each article, but I still see contents in the category redirect and cat-a-lot is not working. How can these be moved to Category:Vice presidents of the United States? I apologize for the trouble, but I'm looking forward to hear advices. MathXplore (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note) Due to special:diff/9039761, Category:Vice presidents of the United States appear on each article, but they are still displayed at the category redirect instead of Category:Vice presidents of the United States. Should we just wait, or is there something that I have to do? MathXplore (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MathXplore: It's a cache thing. I think they'll eventually show up correctly, but you can hurry the process by making null edits like I just did with Spiro Agnew. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MathXplore: By the way, this isn't really an admin question. There are other editors here who can help with this kind of thing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the information. MathXplore (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next time a similar (new) QD-candidate comes - then which QD number might be appropriate?

Недо Кучунг Ринпоче.--Do admins have experience/"instincts" that say "if someone is from Tibet, then this redirect should be (suggested) QD"-number-blah-blah?--(Redirects in dozens-or-hundred-languages, has been a contentious topic, previously. That is one reason why I brought this matter here, and not to a 'talk page, closer to home'. Sorry-of-sorts for being bold.) 2001:2020:309:7C75:E13E:DC48:8559:5356 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) I think QD G6 is the closest option. I moved the page and forgot to tag them for G6. Thank you for the notice and raising your voice. MathXplore (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done by Eptalon. MathXplore (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) doesn't Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion tell you everything about different QD-number's. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to QD, each admin has a feeling about what they can justify deleting without too much drama. For some this is extremely little while others take a lot more liberty with the wording and even the intent of the rules. Some can only delete if there is an exact statement that they are allowed to. Others are only limited by what they feel they can reasonably justify. Me personally, I loved the housekeeping option as much of what I would need to delete was simply taking out the trash. toss together an open opinion on the wording, a decent understanding of what the rules where meant to be for and Being Bold with keeping the best interests of the wiki at heart and there tends to be a lot of leeway in implementing the rules. It was always my opinion that it is better to say "oops my bad" and hit undelete than to leave the trash piling up for others to trip over. Pure Evil (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WoWheels.

Copycat or the real deal? https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&curid=27264&diff=9038789&oldid=8926904 fr33kman 20:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ferien and Hasley got it. In any chance it looks like some other vandal copying Willy on Wheels to me - Willy hasn't been active in a long time, and most people that seem like "Willy on Wheels" are copycats (like this one) anyway. #prodraxis connect 03:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and upon a closer look there appears to be User:Ruedas en Ruedas en Ruedas who appears to be a sockpuppet of this user. I've reported this at RFCU. #prodraxis connect 03:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thx fr33kman 18:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today they are back with Ferien en ruedas..... #prodraxis connect 13:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/move needed - Elliot Rodger

Can an admin please delete the redirect Elliot Rodger and move Elliot Rodger (mass murder) to that title? Kk.urban (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, btw we (admins) can do the move and delete in one step deleting the page that is already there. Just fyi :) fr33kman 17:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects

I cleared most of the double redirects but there are quite a few left that need admin access to edit. Pure Evil (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Luqman Hafizi

A new user has made a BLP and repeating QD tag removals. The content seems to be a QD A4 case, and the context suggests a possible QD G5 case, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Muhammad_Luqman_accounts. MathXplore (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible criminal fraud relying on information presented in a Simple Wikipedia article

I've recently become aware of an alleged con-artist swindling various people for large sums of money under a false identity. The existence of the false identity was corroborated with an entirely fake page on this site, created by an active user. On being questioned in the talk page, the author promptly deleted the entire article.

As the situation may develop into a criminal investigation, I wonder if the admins have the ability to restore or recover deleted articles for evidentiary purposes? 87.252.46.210 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant people have the ability to see the article that was deleted (with all revisions). This includes oversighted material (in the sense that an oversigter removed it from the logs, it means that people who do not have the oversight flag can no longer see it). If done soon enough, this may also include the link between username and IP address (which is called "Checkuser information" here). I do however also want to point out, that such things are likely handled by a specialized team at the Wikimedia Foundation, and not the admins here. The reason for this is also that there likely are procedures to follow, also for documenting, which this community of volunteers may not be aware of. Eptalon (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that: If a certain article needs deleting, the standard procedure can be followed, see Wikipedia:Oversight. Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anmolvir Singh Sidhu

I think this user page fits to QD G11, what do our admins think about this? MathXplore (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin but definately G11 and WP:NOTHERE. #prodraxis connect 13:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A User by the Name @ Suthasianhistorian8 is Vandalizing Sikh History pages

He has Edited Countless Sikh religion related pages and Have added negative Views with no Valid support.Please look into it. 117.242.32.37 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: Suthasianhistorian8 has 3 edits here in this calendar year. There was some editing from them during 2022. They do seem to be active on En.wiki though.
Pure Evil (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Hi, Pure Evil, why did you get rid of "bush" and "first building?" I think they are necessary for readers to understand the topic. By the way, using "first building" is much better than not using them since not using it means that Al buildings in Wahoo, Nebraska were built in 1870. 2600:1014:B11D:CC05:659F:2A62:8888:885A (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This question should have been posted at User talk:Pure Evil. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page

I am requesting semi-protection for User talk:QuicoleJR, as it has been vandalized many times recently. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Semi-protected for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And mine and delete User talk:Papper. A09 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A09: Semi-protected for a month. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Talk:Robert Baker (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Repeatedly vandalized. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. HushPuppie280 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. HushPuppie280 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:ONESTRIKE for Special:Contributions/Aryan_Jaini

Aryan Jaini is kicked out of enwiki with their original account Special:CentralAuth/Aryan_Jainikkumar, that was declared as "Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes: likely UDPE, spamming". By comparing Special:Log/Aryan_Jaini, en:Special:Log/Aryan_Jaini, Special:Log/Aryan_Jainikkumar and en:Special:Log/Aryan_Jainikkumar, it is clear that the same thing is happening at our project. Please let us know if there are any objections. MathXplore (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a complaint about a page I QD'd of their's on my talkpage. I'd be good with a ONESTRIKE rule being used here. fr33kman 13:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed him that he's under the one strike rule as of now. fr33kman 13:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6 month or 12 month?

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandeep_Manikpuri&curid=1038496&diff=9056068&oldid=9054132.
Page needs protection from I.P.s. 46.15.99.83 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_69&oldid=9090308"