Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

Protect

Hi, could you please delete Renmar Arnejo: for A4, and also protect this title, as it has been repeatedly created under similar titles (ex. 'Renmar Arnejo', Renmar Arnejo., Renmar Arnejo"). ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 15:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrator note: Handled by blacklisting (Special:Diff/9910207). MathXplore (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

RevDel Request

This edit was a copyright violation from here, could an admin RevDel it? Thanks Nobody (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also this edit which is a copyright violation from here. Nobody (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the articles created by a sock be deleted?

Hi, Should the articles created by AERCTANGE (talk · contribs · count) be deleted?, Head screams QD them all, Heart screams "they'll never be recreated so deleting them will damage our project in the long run than help it". I'm 50/50 so wanted to ask here,

Don't care if they go but I'm just undecided on the best course of action here,

Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 I'm pretty sure they are elligible for G5. MathXplore deleted Radar Chronicle as the mass deletion of their pages, so I think you can go ahead with the deletion process. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd leave the ones with the ongoing RfD just because that'll make sure the case is stronger in the future. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee Thanks Asteralee I wasn't aware of that so I'd qd'd them except the one with the RFD present :)

@Fehufanga Thanks Fehufangą I've untagged that one as agree RFD would solidify any future creations,

Thank you both for your helpful replies it's greatly appreciated, It may seem dumb coming here but over at Commons they're all "We keep sock images because x, y and z" and as the articles weren't terribly bad I didn't want to unintentionally cause a mess, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I usually tag sock created articles for G5, as long as there aren't any substantial contributions from good-faith editors. (I don't count edits that delete unsourced material, POV material or bad sources). In part, I don't like the idea of rewarding a bad-faith editor. Mostly though, these are people who were blocked for a reason and often that doesn't change. I don't like the idea of good-faith editors having to do review and cleanup of bad editors. Take AERCTANGE - the PRXDUM and Cyber Crime Break Org where created under different names and deleted earlier this year and were extremely promotional in tone, full of bad sources but since I missed the deceptive name change, I did enough cleanup to decide on a RFD. The other articles they created were straight copy-paste from enwiki and you commented on their talk page about this where they denied what they did and just blew off the idea of attribution. So this is a bad-faith editor that wasted hours of time for good-faith editors. And they'll just create a new account and do it again. Nah, G5 their mess and don't waste time. Ravensfire (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

RFD for MCB

The page has been created MCB (attributed to enwiki) and suddenly it is marked article for Delation from a very new account which is created just to attack my page. Ksy 18:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kuskrey, Please read WP:OWN - You don't own the article so therefore it's not your page, Also people can nominate the articles you create at any given time,

Reply on the RFD stating why the article shouldn't be deleted- no need to create reports here, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that I own the article. I am just reporting that only someone has created the new account just to put the page in RFD as it is simplified from Eng wiki. Ksy 18:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Requesting protection for Bashar al-Assad

Recently, there's been edits of unsourced material regarding Bashar al-Assad's living status. There is no confirmation of his death and seeing how the article is the center of an ongoing political event, I suggest protecting the article to avoid further BLP violations. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

protected, for two weeks. I don't want to prevent people from adding useful info, yes there has been some vandalism. Eptalon (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request 2

Hi, Could someone revdel this please, Many Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Building a case for 'blocking new users and IPs from (specific) article

This article.
I have taken care 'about vandalism', 2 or 3 times over the past week. (I expect to supply a diff, next time 'stuff happens'.
However, i have no plan of becoming the 'janitor' for this article.)
*A one-week 'block thingy' is better than nothing (when the 'case actually will get made').
*Even better (for when the case gets made), then consider 'blocking' thru December 9 and until December 16. Thanks. 2001:2020:359:C5B6:BD40:F752:199A:7915 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

New diff,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahya_Sinwar&diff=9932644&oldid=9932383

. Could one of you do a revert et cetera, if deemed appropriate?--I do not want to break the 3RR rule.--"The article's talk page", you might suggest? Fine, I have pencilled in "January 01", on my calendar. 2001:2020:301:A1FD:49CF:F359:A86:92E0 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Update - Now my plan is to ask (some of this stuff), on the Talk-page.--First, i will wait for the Misbehavin' to start up, again. Thanks. 2001:2020:301:A1FD:903B:9DB9:CFDB:350C (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:359:C5B6:BD40:F752:199A:7915 /2001:2020:301:A1FD:49CF:F359:A86:92E0

Link to talk page,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yahya_Sinwar&oldid=9933156
.

There is a new diff (there).--If someone can look into the vandalizing (that i am alleging), then fine. (Due to the 3RR rule, i will have to leave the vandalized version, for now.) 2001:2020:301:A1FD:6478:964:C1E7:7A9 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:C5B6:BD40:F752:199A:7915

Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)

Looking at the history of Kamariya Ahir (Yadav), many of the edits to the article seem to be disruptive, including vandalism and edit warring. Additionally, I found that an RFD was started on the article last month, and the notice was removed by one of the article's primary authors. The main editors that I have seen engage in these kinds of edits are Nlkyair012 and an IP-hopping user, using IPs that start with 2409:40d0 and 2401:4900, with the most recent IP they have used being 2409:40D0:1027:8289:8D70:FA7:992F:D230 (clarification: Nlkyair012 has been engaging in constructive editing, as they are the one reverting disruptive editing on the page by the latter IP, although they have been involved in content disputes that would be better handled with discussions, while the IP has more of a history of disruptive editing, such as section/article blanking and redirecting without consensus).

If any action can be taken to stop the disruption on this article and determine whether it should be kept, as well as what should be done with it in order to restore it the way it was before disruption started, that would be appreciated. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) edited 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC).

Hello sir, after an RfD for issued against this page it was clearly mentioned that the administrators will close the RfD after a week but they didn’t. So I thought maybe I should simply remove it from there and I’m sorry for that🙏🏻. The thing is that i was so constantly trying to make that page as detailed and accurate as possible and not to mention I was the one who expanded the page at the first sight, but unfortunately some people(ones you mentioned above except 2401:4900) were trying to vandalise the page so I was naturally trying to protect my work and whatever they were doing on the page you can clearly see that they were doing it out of jealousy or something and whatever I’ve done to the page are cited with very strong evidence, news articles and books that make the article very detailed and accurate. I asked @BRPever to kindly look at the cites and sources I’ve used and to protect the lock the page (as I’m not the creator of the article i cant do that ) ,and to improve the page, verify the infos of the page that are good sources, to remove the RfD and block the ip of the potential vandalisers on the article page. Nlkyair012 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisWx - could you please put a link (in this thread), to the last article-version that you think is okay? 2001:2020:359:C5B6:10C3:7669:B5B0:9ADF (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been the last stable version of the article. However, a lot more content was added to the article following this version here, which has since been heavily disputed (example diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, also including attempts to redirect the article at 5, 6). I will note that @Nlkyair012: you have made constructive edits to the article by reverting the disruptive editing that these IPs have tried to make to this article, including their attempts to redirect the page without consensus, and that the IPs have used vandalistic edit summaries, such as this one when attempting to blank portions of the article or redirect it, but there seem to be so many disputes regarding the article's content that the article has remained unstable since the large content addition.

I originally added this entry to AN following my reversion of what looked to be vandalism on the page, and I was attempting to restore it to a pre-vandalized version (seeing the formatting errors that were still present on the page) when I came across this complicated editing history, and went here in the hopes that an administrator could perhaps figure out and deal with what was going on and restore it to a stable version. One thing I strongly suggest that Nlkyair and the IP editor(s) do is to use the talk page to come to a consensus of what should be done on this article. This would prevent further reverts and disruptive actions from being taken, and would result in changes that more people would agree with. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok sir i totally understood all your point, thank you once again for concerning about this article Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to put light on this matter too, one of the IP editors, @2405:201:600f:f17b:a1d4:92d4:6d3a:738b used a deteriorating word when he/she vandalised the article by saying “Jhaat kuch nahi hain hampe”(here) that’s an abusive term in Hindi language. I expanded the article vert hardly and these kind of Ip editors on a rage bait try to destroy the whole page. I would kindly request any administrator to kindly lock protect the page, block such ip users and kindly help in improving the article further. Thankyou 🙏🏻 Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Reply - Please see,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamariya_Ahir_(Yadav)&oldid=9933208
.--If that talk-page edit was okay, then fine. 2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:A1FD:D927:C5AE:B7B:7862 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Semi protection request for Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)
  
  Hello there, Could someone please protect Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) please as several of IPs keeps on vandalising this article, all of them consist of personal attacks either towards the subjects of articles or other users. And kindly add me as I was the one who was preventing the article from vandalism by revdel and expanded the whole article on the first sight so I might further add/update more in that page.

Thankyou— Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest: 1) Put the article to the following stable version, This version. 2) After one week, we take a look at semi-protection, if we want to start with that, then. 2001:2020:315:A1B8:8E:4F08:E72:8C72 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sir many admins has noted that I’ve done a pretty good work in handling the article even as a new man. And id also say that the stable version you are talking about is pretty much nothing.This is the best possible, most accurate and stable version according to me and more detailed and backed with detailed sources is more good ig? Except the vandalisers come and try to ruin this page its pretty much stable and I’ll be putting the protection notice down back for extra attention by other working and online admin thankyou for concerning. Nlkyair012 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend moving this conversation back to the talk page of the article, rather than discussing this matter here. @Nlkyair012: I do support protection of the article if consensus is to keep it, as disruptive behavior from IPs has persisted for some time, though also be careful not to refer to people who just disagree with your viewpoints as "vandals". People constructively discussing their different viewpoints on a certain topic, or how they think an article should look, is allowed, and is often how people come to a consensus on Wikipedia. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 21:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion to open a discussion on the Kamariya Ahir Yadav article’s talk page. I’ve now started the discussion as you advised, and I’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to review it. Your input would be valuable in helping guide the discussion and ensure a constructive outcome.

Here’s the link to the discussion: Talk:Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) page.

Looking forward to your feedback and guidance.

Best regards,

— Nlkyair012 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think the page is a mess and needs a lot of work. There are more than 70 references where most of them are just bare mentions in the list. Clearly lacks significant and reliable sources. It will be better as a redirect with some mentions in the Yadav or Ahir.--BRP ^ever 10:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Haha man why are you so concerned about this page? I feel personal attack from you at this point many admins have gone through the page and its sources they verified and improved the page a lot and eliminated the “mess” you are talking about. Please don’t do this it’s a request the page is good as it is and I’ve seen you coping by saying not reliable source and etc but you never actually went through many of em. Not every source can be detailed and stuff some are detailed and some or brief mentions. And i also saw you not replying to the RfD page anymore? Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Im sorry for rude behaviour sir but you know it’s frustrating as hell when you did something very carefully, accurately and putting all efforts someone tried to say oh this is not right or like vandalising the page even when it’s all right and with NPOV. I have mentioned you in my topic on discussion over Talk:Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) kindly put your thoughts over there thankyou and sorry again for not being professional Nlkyair012 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Because you pinged me above. I have no intention or time to be involved in every case, as I have much of other things to do as the year comes to close. I am at this point very annoyed because someone moved the page while the RFD was ongoing, and many other users just keep on removing the template from the page without even reading what's in the template. And someone comes and tells me I am personally attacking them. I am requesting another admin to review the discussions about this going further and stepping back.-- BRP ^ever 11:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, may you have a nice day

  — Nlkyair012 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, Could someone protect Patrick Stewart please as an IP keeps making-unmaking-making the same edit again and again, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks MX for actioning both my requests above, it's much appreciated, Thanks Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Pages for deletion

Please delete all the pages created by 186.173.145.140, which are related to fair use images, because none of them have relevance here. Depextual (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Depextual (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Bump/doc

I'm questioning the bot's behavior here. Twice per week it adds and removes a message. Depextual (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) The only edits to the page since the 22nd April are from cewbot in this loop.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) I solved the problem itself, but I don't know why the bot acted that way. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page/styles.css#Edit_request_for_dark_mode_compatibility

Hi, can an admin look through this request? Cheers, Matrix (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Undeletion reqest

Hi, Could an admin ever so kindly undelete the following pages please;

• User:Davey2010/sandbox
• User:Davey2010/sandbox4
• User:Davey2010/sandbox5
• User:Davey2010/sandbox6
• User:Davey2010/sandbox7
• User:Davey2010/sandbox8
• User:Davey2010/sandbox9
• User:Davey2010/sandbox10

Irrespective of what happens here these won't be QD'd again scouts honour, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Done, and deletion request templates removed. Some of the pages are now blank as a result. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Auntof6, Brilliant thanks so much that's very kind of you, I appreciate that a lot, Take care, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi protection request for Kamariya Ahir (Yadav)

Hello there, Could someone please protect Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) please as several of IPs keeps on vandalising this article, all of them consist of personal attacks either towards the subjects of articles or other users. And kindly add me as I was the one who was preventing the article from vandalism by revdel and expanded the whole article on the first sight so I might further add/update more in that page Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would appreciate if this thing would’ve gotten done as the vandalism on this page is getting out of hands, I’d really request @MathXplore for a favour to kindly do this for me, and I’ll also add to the discussion page of Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) the proofs to support , and will make sure that I tag you there. cheers and have a nice day

— Nlkyair012 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nlkyair012: Semi-protected for a month. I also removed the RFD notice, because no corresponding RFD exists. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Auntof6. I am incredibly grateful for your action in semi-protecting the page, as it has truly relieved a lot of my stress. Knowing that the page is safeguarded for the next month allows me to focus on improving it further without worrying about potential disruptions.

Once the current protection period expires, and after I’ve spent the next month working to make the article as perfect, stable, and comprehensive as possible, I may kindly request your assistance again to consider permanent protection for the page.

Thank you once again for your support, and I hope you have a wonderful day!

Best regards,

- Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nlkyair012: We don't permanently protect articles. After the current protection expires, if there is repeated persistent vandalism again, then you can ask for the article to be protected again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok sir Nlkyair012 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I’d also like to inform that an RfD did exist already for that page but due to the moving of page from Kamaria to Kamariya Ahir (Yadav) has made a confusion on RfD page. The current RfD page exists in here. I don't really know why the RfD didn’t close at 16 November 2024 on which the date it was due to be closed on. 3 people are leaning towards keeping the page and 2 on deleting. If possible I request you to kindly look at the matter, either delete the RfD or delete the page.

Thank You, — Nlkyair012 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

49.37.116.117

Special:Contribs/49.37.116.117 – This IP seems to be making advertisement articles (G11) with AI-generated edit summaries and is probably undisclosed paid editing. Should they be blocked? Depextual (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Depextual: I would issue more warnings before blocking. So far, they've gotten only one warning, a level 1. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Depextual (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu

Semiprotection and cron cleanup needed (vandalism and C() vio by HoY LTA --M7 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this as well. Please add some protection to this article. It was deleted earlier today, but I fear it was deleted because of some unhelpful edits done by unregistered IPs/newly registered users that harmed the article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,I deleted it earlier because of some unrelated repeating sections. In my opinion: notability doubtful, we could envisagé SM rfd of the current article. Eptalon (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, but I think protection is needed though. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Njen16

Njen16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Njen16 made Brite Benson as a copy from en:Draft:Brite Benson. The enwiki draft was made by Yenze28, who is globally locked for LTA, and blocked on Wikidata as a sock of Iamart28. Iamart28 is blocked here for spam, and I think Njen16 is their sock. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

More evidence: all three accounts were created at Wikidata. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

My intention in creating or contributing to 'Brite Benson' was to provide accurate and verifiable information (Coz I took my take time to research) about this individual. Even though some of the information I got (I admit) was from the draft created by a blocked user. Njen16 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Protect 2

Hi, I'd like to request semi-protection on VeggieTales. This page has been going through a lot of vandalism from many unregistered editors. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Semi-protected for a month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Thanks :) ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 13:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Request Semi-protection for Dodgeball

Dodgeball: Vandalism (1 Nov, 12 Nov & 10 Dec) by Cross-wiki abuse (ja:LTA:DODGEBALL). --Y-route (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Again. Please protect this page immediately! --Y-route (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There have been only 3 bad edits today. Before today, there hadn't been any in a week. We semi-protect when the amount of vandalism is hard to keep up with, and that's not the case here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP keeps creating promotional, spam articles after being warned

Special:Contributions/2401:D800:2C0F:8A4:580:52E0:D2E7:8E8 ☆ Adelaideslement8723 ☆ 03:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

And along with that, I put them all up for deletion. ☆ Adelaideslement8723 ☆ 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ☆ Adelaideslement8723 ☆ 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection request 3

Hi, Could someone protect Jimmy Wales please as there's been excessive vandalism from one person, The person is on a different IP each day or so so I don't think rangeblocking would be of any use?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, protecting the page for 6 hours was not enough. Depextual (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, Wonder why it was only protected for 6 hours given it's been vandalised every day as well as having various edits revdelled..... interesting. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Stale request. Page hasn't been edited in 2 days. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for flood flag

Hello. I’d like to request the temporary flood flag to remove the shortdesc template from several dozen articles. One hour should be more than enough to complete it. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: I can give it to you for an hour if you're still around. Please confirm that you're around. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: Also, how many articles are you talking about? If it's not more than about 100, you can go ahead without the flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6, of course there are less than 100. My request resulted from the fact that in the meantime, Violesse was massively editing without a flag, and I didn't want to additionaly clutter up the RC. Thank you for your reply. And in such a case, access to AWB would be useful (I wrote about it on the appropriate page, so I can connect this task to it). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: OK, it sounds like you don't need the flag, then. Let us know if you need it in the future. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for flood flag -- Violesse

@Auntof6 Hi can you please give me a flood flag for 1 hour? I am correcting French commune articles which are incorrect/out of date. Please see my edits: Special:Contributions/Violesse. Violesse (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: Please specify exactly what changes you want to do with the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 For all articles in Category:Communes in Aisne which contain "in the region Picardie", I want to change "in the region Picardie" to "in the region Hauts-de-France". That was the task which I was currently working on (in alphabetical order) Violesse (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: OK. I don't know if you've been given the flood flag before, but here are the parameters of using it:

• While you have the flag, you can only make the changes it was given to you for, no other changes.
• If you finish before the flag expires, you must wait to do other changes until either 1) the flag expires or 2) the flag is removed.

If you agree to that, I can give you the flag. Based on your comment below, it sounds like you might need it for more than one hour. Please confirm how long you would like it. I can't guarantee that I will be here to remove it if you finish early, so you might have to wait. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I have not been given the flood flag before. I now understand the conditions, so thank you for explaining. I would like the flood flag for two hours and I will only make these changes. If I finish early (unlikely) I will make no other changes. Violesse (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: You have the flood flag for 2 hours. Happy editing, and thanks for doing these updates! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Unfortunately the flood flag appears to have failed because the edits are still appearing in Special:RecentChanges. It may be better to remove the flood flag and I can try again a different time. I will not make any more edits now. Violesse (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: Would you try a couple more? I'm wondering if it's related to the fact that I used a custom expiration time instead of one of the standard ones. I just gave you the flag for 3 hours (one of the standard times). If you wouldn't mind just doing 2 or 3 to see if they also show up. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Yes, I'll try. Violesse (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I think they are still in Special:RecentChanges. Violesse (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: Yes, they are. I have removed the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Ok, I'll try again a few days later, but I won't make any more edits like this until then. Violesse (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: If you only do about 100 at a time, you could do them without the flood flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Violesse: Also, the number of pages you expect to edit, and how long you think you would need the flag. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 There are approximately 600-650 pages remaining which need that edit, but I could do them at a rate of 2 per minute for 1 or 2 hours and then stop after the flood flag is removed. Violesse (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If any admins are available to give me the flood flag, I would like to have it for one hour to make this exact same set of changes. Violesse (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP attacking other editors, seems like that they switched IPs, they used the edit summary thing to attack other editors, and talk bad about admins

Special:Contributions/41.251.6.232

Special:Contributions/62.122.114.147 🎄 Adelaideslement8723 🎄 20:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation): please remember to use WP:VIP to report vandals in the future. Thank you! BZPN (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 Chances are this is the "raging lunatic" (see [1]), either way WP:DENY, WP:VIP and repeat pretty much, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your comment, I will remember that next time. 🎄 Adelaideslement8723 🎄 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Can someone please unprotect my userpage User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archives/2023. --IWI (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection

Semi protect Talk:Pope John Paul II, LTA target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Not enough activity to need protection -- only 2 bad edits today, and the last edits before today were almost a week ago. We usually protect only when there is so much vandalism that it's hard to keep up with. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel 2

Hello, could any oversighter revdel this as it's disturbing? Thanks. 2601:402:4400:3A90:36CB:D3:AC7E:DBDF (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I should say that I'm not an oversighter, so I could only change the visibility. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel on Melanie Martinez

Sorry, I don't know how to find the version number on the app, but can you please revdel the IP vandalism on 12 December 2024? It's an invented, but gross, disgusting story about an imaginary child and a real person. Thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Diff 9881823 96.27.136.118 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That one, thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo:  Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Thank you so much 😊 ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Disable or delete filter 71?

We have global filter 110 which tags article changes that add emojis on most wikis, including here. Filter 71 is outdated but does not allow emojis in articles. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki was draftified until 2025 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_in_Konfrontacja_Sztuk_Walki, but was re-created as an article again shortly after. The page probably needs to be protected from being created again until 2025. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles: It looks like that was on English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia, a separate site. You need to address this on the other site. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I must have gotten here by Google. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection request for Barack Obama

Hello. Please permanently protect the Barack Obama article to a level only for registered users. This article is constantly vandalized (racist, vulgar and offensive texts are added) by various IP editors. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN:  Not done We don't permanently protect articles. We would semi-protect if the amount of vandalism was hard to keep up with, but I don't think that's the case here. In the page history, I see only a few edits on any given day during this month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: don't you think that protecting this page would help reduce vandalism on it and free editors' time for other tasks? These edits are very vulgar (apart from the fact that they should all be hidden along with the edit summaries) and we should not allow such content to regularly appear on this page (and any reader can see it). However, as an administrator, your opinion on this matter is most important - I am not pushing for this article to be protected. Thank you for your reply and best regards, BZPN (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: Yes, I agree that it would be more convenient. However, en:Wikipedia:PREEMPTIVE says this, in part:

Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible.

I do see how this is frustrating. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)