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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Archival bots?

I have the impression that our archival bots aren't running. IIRC, messages older than 14 days on this board should be archived. Same thing for Simple Talk, only there the age is different? Eptalon (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Bot873 is running fine but just not on AN for whatever reason. On ST it is working as intended – all threads there have had comments within the last 14 days. Courtesy ping to @Operator873: --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 13:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had the same issue on my talk page. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 16:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If I take what the configuration says: (older than) 14 days for this board, 10 days for Simple Talk Eptalon (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Make the archival bots work again?

Hello, I manually archived several sections of this page, older than the alloted 14 days. This meant I moved over 80k of discussion (a month worzth is about 130k). it would be great if whoever runs these bots could re-add this page, so that we donz' have to worry about archival.. Eptalon (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Eptalon, I hope you don't mind that I moved this further up the page so we don't have the discussion scattered across two sections. Bot873 is operated by Operator873 who has not edited since January. I think it is best if we wait for a response from him. All other pages are archiving as normal at this time. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It ran out his morning, for this page it seems. Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

does seem like it was just a bug. Hopefully it'll continue to work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm still around... ish. I'm looking through the logs and, for whatever reason, pywikibot has suddenly become confused about simplewiki and wikidata. I'm trying to trace down the code issue now to relay to the devs. In the mean time, I'll experiment with forcing an older version of pywikibot until the issue is resolved. Operator873 ^connect 20:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Found a bug preventing the archiving action on Talk:Main_Page and have resolved it. The other archiving actions should be working as expected. Will continue to monitor. Operator873 ^connect 17:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

JK. Still borked and I don't have time to sort out the issue. I've recommended @Barras' bot request be approved and assume workload for archiving. Operator873 ^connect 18:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Twospoon

Twospoon (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Twospoon appears to be a sock of User:Yilangderen who is blocked for creating bad pages. They then socked with User:Malairen, User:Malaixiyaren, User:Yongdrag, and User:Yooshii. Unfortunately, checkuser did not show a match between Twospoon and Yilangderen. However, I think there is more than enough evidence to block on WP:DUCK grounds.

Some overlaps/connections:

• Overlap with Yilangderen
• Overlap with Malairen
• World of Warcraft/Blizzard: Twospoon; Yil.
• Using Youtube as references inappropriately: Twospoon; Yil
• Matthew O'Neill: Twospoon; Yil. sock
• Cory Booker being inserted in random articles: Twospoon; Yil. sock
• Legal terms: Twospoon created this; Yil. created this (since deleted) (and also legal term articles at Simple Wiktionary)
• Apple products: Twospoon; Yil. sock

Then there's just the general concept of censorship in China and China-related topics that was Yilgarderen's big focus.

Twospoon has only made 43 edits here so far, and their overlap is so obvious that a DUCK block should apply.

Tagging @Fr33kman who looked into the connection at RFCU and @BRPever who confirmed the connection to Malairen and Malaixiyaren in mid-August. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Just bumping this as it's been a week and I don't want this to get overlooked or sent to the archives eventually without action. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding more evidence: creating Band in China which Yilangderen was adding to Movies banned in China. Would love it if an admin could examine this and issue a DUCK block. Again, we're looking at a user with 62 changes and there are so many overlaps in just that short span. CountryANDWestern (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for using multiple accounts to avoid a block. No connection to User:Yilangderen. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks... Who are they connected to? I have a feeling that User:Fourchild is another sock... They were created 3 hours after the block of Twospoon and immediately added a Taiwanese individual, a topic of interest for these accounts. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

New article/page request:-

Translate en:List of lakes by area to List of lakes by area. Fourchild (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fourchild

Adding this section to make it clearer: I have concerns that Fourchild (talk · contribs) is another related user. They were created 3 hours after the block of Twospoon and immediately added a Taiwanese individual, a topic of interest for these accounts. They're also editing related to Jeffrey Epstein which is another account favorite. CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added another request for checkuser. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Little Princess (British TV series)

A temporary account editor continues to add episodes for this show that don't exist. They aren't sourced, there's nothing on the en wiki article that matches and I didn't get hits on a search. Would someone please semi-protect the article to stop this nonsense? Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Still happening and needs some attention. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: this was resolved through some IP blocks. I saw it actually happening before I saw this request hence no response here up until now. Thanks, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 17:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien many thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien, the nonsense has started up again. Would you mind taking a look? Ravensfire (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I've made some more blocks, they're all the same person again. I might see if I can work out a range block at some point too. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 07:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Import req

Can someone import Template:Taxonomy/Gonocephalus from the English Wikipedia? Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. The page probably needs some fixes. -Barras talk 11:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you also import all of the relevant templates Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 23:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Bot flag

Effectively immediately, @Bot873 is retired from service. Please remove the bot flag. Operator873 ^connect 18:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 18:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please revdel some edits

Please revdel the edits by special:contribs/The RationalWiki massacre begins under criteria WP:RD2 (Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material against a person, group or organisation that has little/no encyclopedic or project value) or WP:RD3 (grossly inappropriate threats or attacks). I am referring to both the edits themselves and the edit summaries because both contain the same text. ~2025-31090-35 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Airlines number SCAM/SPAM countermeasure

Hi, I've added some lines at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Please check in case of other additions, and also for false positives. Thanks, --M7 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Protection

Is it intentional that MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is semi-protected? Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks to be a hold out from the ~30 mins that the page was in userspace.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be removed? Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Plutus I have removed the protection from the page. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Page protection request for the second time

A while back in August, Teen Titans Go! had been protected due to excessive vandalism. Even after the protection expired, the same behavior persists. Can this article be protected for longer, for like 1 month or so? Thanks. MisterDude2000 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please protect my talk page

w:en:WP:LTA/DTHD is harassing me across multiple wikis. Please semi-protect my talk page here on Simple. Thank you! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Please advise if there are any further issues. Peterdownunder (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Permissions request: TPE

Hello. For some reason, the WP:Requests for permissions page does not have a section, or even a link, for requesting template editor permissions; shouldn't there be one? Long-time template editor at en-wiki here, with many templates to my credit. I don't edit all that often at Simple, but if I find an issue with a template here, or something fixed at en-wiki that needs propagation here, I'd be happy to help out now and again. Thanks! (subscribed) Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Simple does not have a template editor right, see all rights available at Special:ListGroupRights, so such a section is not helpful. Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest leaving an edit request at the template(s) talk page(s) so that an admin will look through and process them. Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hm, well, I suppose I will have to take that approach, then. FYI, I had just stripped the {{Welcome/doc}} page of a lot of documented params which don't actually exist in the code which I might have volunteered to add to the code, but I can't really see asking an admin to code half a dozen or ten new params to a welcome template, they must have better things to do. I suppose I could code the sandbox and just request installation of it; perhaps I'll go that route. Thanks for the quick responses. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Good luck, you can ping any active admins from Wikipedia:Administrators#Active when done. Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Plutus: Better still, you can simply drop any template editing or import requests here if you don't get a response on the talk page through {{editprotected}} – although I monitor that category regularly as do other admins. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 11:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Unprotect

I will at some point make a list of all my user pages that are fully protected. There was a time where I was getting vandalised in my userspace every other day with semi-protect. I can't access this page, so could an admin please unprotect. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 11:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment, if you like, I'm happy to go through Special:PrefixIndex/User:ImprovedWikiImprovment/ and unprotect all the fully unprotected ones. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 11:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien: Yes please, thanks mate. --IWI (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done again :) --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien: Thank you :) --IWI (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sock puppet

The 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page has been altered significantly and no longer follows the WP:NPOV rule (thanks to some POV pushing by Zubarkokar). You can compare our Simple English Wikipedia page with the original English Wikipedia article at en:2025 India–Pakistan conflict. I believe he is indulging in logged out editing also; see this and compare it with his later edits to the same page which are similar, then see this and compare it with his previous edits to that page. I also believe that his English is too poor to contribute to the English Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia. He has been blocked on the English Wikipedia as a sock puppet, see this.-Baangla (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all these are my major edits on indo-pak 2025 conflict:

All i did is just remove content that was backed by Hindi News Chennals and self published articles. And replace it by the content that was backed by international News Chennals like BBC and neutral sources. Because the previous version of this article was very biased and one-sided, which was also discussed on TP.

Secondly, I only used the this account to edit the page but maybe once or twice I forgot whether my account was logged in or not so i just edited unlogged, but I didn't created any account for my support in TP and any other thing like to revert etc.

User:Baangla constantly lying:

1. Like here he told me that he reversed my edit because that edit didn't have the sources. Meanwhile, there were dozens of sources in that edit.this edit

2. Here he pinged 2 senior editors at TP of 2025 Conflict and he told them that I edit content without sources.

3. In this edit summary he lied again by saying "Restored edits as per earlier consensus" meanwhile there was no such consensuses there.

User:Baangla not just got banned from English Wikipedia but also got ONESTRIKE warning just yesterday in Simple Wikipedia . Zubarkokar (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The message about the ONESTRIKE is friendly advice not exactly a warning - I have not violated any rule here on simple wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that this and this edit are by the same editor when logged out (he has removed sourced content with it).-Baangla (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

And now he is lying for the fourth time, it is not me. He built this whole case on lies. Even after this, the sock puppetry is not proven. But these 2 edits are not made by me.

Some serious kind of action should taken against this person. Zubarkokar (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=10618109 shows his self admission of logged out editing.-Baangla (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering why no action has been taken yet. We should not allow disruptions like this on Simple wikipedia. I don't wish to edit war with a person who does not understand the rules.-Baangla (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I said that I may have made some edits in the past in which i was logged out. But the recent 2 logged out edits u alleged on me is not me.

And secondly, you have to read Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry that a edit made while logged out will not be considered sock puppetry unless the editor uses another account or a logged out account to disrupt discussion, distort consensus, evade restrictions or avoid blocks. while in the alleged edits no where such behaviour can be seen in first edit the user editing in 1965 war in which he changed the name from war to conflict in paragraph and in the second alleged edit a user did a minor edit on the 2025 conflict page. With a huge time gap as well. How it is a sock puppetry?Zubarkokar (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:OD The user I have complained about has abused multiple accounts on Simple wikipedia as well. Please check out the contributions for these:- https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zubarkokar (Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Battle of Fazilka, First Kashmir War) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/9Ahmed9 (Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Battle of Fazilka, First Kashmir War) from May-August https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123Librarian (Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pakoland (Tank Ambush at Kushtia) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Muhammad_Ahsan2233 (Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Battle of Fazilka, First Kashmir War, Battle of Chawinda, Tank Ambush at Kushtia) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Foxmaster0987 -Baangla (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If you believe these are connected accounts, you can present the evidence at WP:RFCU. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: You have defended this user's use of multiple accounts here but if you see those edits, it is POV pushing which is not as per WP:NPOV. What is the guarantee that he will not use more than one account? On the English Wikipedia, using multiple accounts leads to a complete ban.-Baangla (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The policy clearly says multiple accounts are not forbidden as long as they are not in violation of policy. It will be simple to see if they continue to use multiple accounts in the future. They have said they will stick to one account. Let's wait and see. fr33kman 16:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read this.-Baangla (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you linking to the English Wikipedia’s blocking policy? CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern: Please provide the link to the blocking policy of Simple wikipedia then.-Baangla (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Baangla: Please see Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Import request

Please import en:Template:AnimeCons name. Saroj (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 17:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass rollback request

Can someone with a flood tag rollback the changes of Special:Contributions/~2025-31534-87? I'd rather not flood recent changes. They added "LGBT rights in XXXX" as main topics to dozens of Human rights in XXXX articles, but those articles don't exist. Thanks, CountryANDWestern (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Ternera (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Weak memory, forgot password on account with no email

Hello. I am known as User:Midtvu and I have ADHD. When I first signed up, I had no access to an email. I have now registered my new account to an email. I would like to have my old userpage redirect to my current userpage. I am currently at school, but once I get home I will sign in to this account. Thanks in advance, and sorry. Midtv2 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Done, AGF fr33kman 05:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for admin review: pattern of quick-deletion tagging & conduct by User:CountryANDWestern

Summary: Requesting administrator attention to review a pattern of quick-deletion (QD) nominations—often under A3 (“complex article from another Wikipedia”)—and related conduct by User:CountryANDWestern, which has attracted multiple complaints on their talk page. I’m asking for an independent look at whether this usage of QD aligns with WP:QD expectations (and when RfD would be more appropriate), and whether any conduct reminders or restrictions are warranted.

Examples / diffs and on-wiki discussion

• QD A3 tag placed on a corporate article: Thomas Built Buses – oldid 10620760 (9 Nov 2025) – page was tagged “QD A3: Complex article from another Wikipedia.”
• Same minute, multiple QD notifications to the same creator for similar established-company topics:

 * Winnebaggo talk – Otis Worldwide notice (9 Nov 2025)  
 * Winnebaggo talk – Thomas Built Buses notice (9 Nov 2025)  
 * Winnebaggo talk – Blue Bird Corporation notice (9 Nov 2025)

• Multiple complaints already raised on the user’s talk page regarding QD usage:

 * Section: “Suspected abuse of the ‘quick deletion’ system”  
 * Section: “misusing section A3 of QD”

• Related context about heated content disputes and 3RR concerns appearing on-wiki:

 * Section: “Violation of the 3RR”  
 * Prior admin involvement around topic disputes at AN: “Edit war at Karauli Princely State” thread

Policies/background for admins’ convenience

• Quick Deletion vs. RfD process: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy (see QD “Articles” criteria including A3 and the “Not quick deletion criteria” section which points to RfD where discussion is needed).

Requested outcome

• An administrator review of the above diffs/pattern to determine whether reminders or guidance are needed regarding when A3 applies, and whether future deletions of this type should go to WP:RfD instead of QD; and
• Any conduct warnings/reminders deemed appropriate (e.g., to avoid mass speedy-tagging of borderline cases where improvement/merging/cleanup may be reasonable).

Notes

• This is not a content decision on any one page; it’s a request for review of pattern and process use. I will notify the editor of this thread. ~2025-32683-16 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: I received similar attention from temporary accounts at English Wikipedia yesterday as well. Someone's on a retaliatory campaign against me it appears. I also enjoy that this is clearly AI generated so AI doesn't understand that the 3RR discussions are other users bringing concerns about other users to my talk page and me bringing the concerns to AN but AI thinks it's showing something about me. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-32683-16 It seems that whatever LLM you're using doesn't fully understand understand what A3 is. The articles you linked are copy-pasted leads from the English Wikipedia with no signs of simplification and attribution. The discussions you linked are also already resolved and do not indicate any violation of A3 to me. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment: conduct of User:CountryANDWestern

Summary

Multiple editors have observed a recurring pattern in which User:CountryANDWestern (C&W) nominates pages for deletion (quick deletion and RfD) without first attempting improvement, without prior discussion or reasonable time for authors to address concerns, and then resists feedback when challenged. This RfC seeks community input on whether this pattern is disruptive and what remedies, if any, are appropriate.

Concerns (with examples)

1. **Tagging for deletion before any attempt to improve** – frequent placement of QD/RfD tags on new or short articles without copyediting, sourcing, merging, or other improvement first.
2. **Acting without prior discussion or reasonable waiting period** – nominations placed immediately or within minutes/hours of page creation; authors ask for time while C&W proceeds with deletion processes.
3. **Not accepting contrary feedback / process issues** – reverting or contesting process outcomes and dismissing concerns rather than acknowledging mistakes or changing approach.

Evidence

A) Deletion tagging without prior improvement

• **Thomas Built Buses** – tagged for quick deletion A3 immediately, no intervening improvement by nominator: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Built_Buses&oldid=10621768 (11 Nov 2025).
• **Noam M. Elcott** – RfD tag placed with “notability” rationale, no attempt to improve/article clean-up shown: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noam_M._Elcott&oldid=10621760 (10 Nov 2025).
• **J. Eric Robinson** – RfD tag (“does not seem to meet notability standards”) added to the article: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=10621736&title=J._Eric_Robinson (10 Nov 2025) ; subpage: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/J. Eric Robinson.
• **Lost Art of Heaping Coal** – article created 9 Nov 2025 05:54; nominated for deletion at 11:51 with “No notability shown,” no improvement attempt: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=10619725&title=Lost_Art_of_Heaping_Coal (9 Nov 2025); RfD subpage Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Lost Art of Heaping Coal.
• **Socialists and Democrats** – created 8 Nov 2025 11:59; nominated for deletion on 9 Nov 2025 11:23 with no attempt to improve first (see history line “Nominated for deletion”): https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=history&title=Socialists_and_Democrats ; RfD subpage Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Socialists and Democrats.
• **Unennunium** – nominated with “Hypothetical element” rationale; again, tagging rather than improvement/redirect/merge: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unennunium&oldid=10616345 (7 Nov 2025); RfD subpage Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Unennunium.
• Additional recent spate of QD/RfD actions in short bursts (e.g., 7–10 Nov 2025) visible at C&W’s contributions: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountryANDWestern — numerous “Requesting quick deletion” and “Nominated for deletion” entries across many topics within minutes of page creation.

B) Nominations without prior discussion / denying reasonable time to improve

• On C&W’s own talk, a page creator explicitly asks for time: _“Hi you just asked for a page I’m currently making to be deleted… Please give me 10 minutes to add the references”_ (2 Jun 2025). C&W replies that sources still don’t establish notability and continues the deletion track rather than pausing to allow improvements: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CountryANDWestern (section around 12:20–13:06, 2 Jun 2025).
• Multiple user-talk notifications show a pattern of immediately moving pages into deletion processes rather than opening content discussions first (examples 7–9 Nov 2025 in contributions list: mass “Notification: quick deletion nomination…” posts tied to fresh page creations): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountryANDWestern (see 7–9 Nov timestamps).

C) Resisting feedback / process issues (IDHT-like pattern)

• **Reverting an RfD closure**: C&W restores an open state with the edit summary “Can’t just close a discussion like that.” Regardless of who closed, this is process-heavy behavior that bypasses de-escalation and invites dispute: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Mahroos_Siddiquee_Nadim&oldid=10620748 (20:00, 9 Nov 2025).
• **Talk-page defense of mass deletions** rather than addressing concerns about pace/process: _“I’m not abusing the system… Nearly every article I’m tagging for deletion is getting deleted…”_ (1 Jun 2025): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CountryANDWestern (17:57, 1 Jun 2025).
• **Needing reminders on QD criteria** (e.g., G5 timing) from experienced users/admins, with acknowledgements but little visible change in overall approach (8 Jun 2025 “Understood.”): same talk page thread.

Pattern summary

Across many topics, C&W repeatedly chooses deletion workflows as a first resort. The specific diffs above (and many similar entries in their contributions) show: (1) tagging before trying to improve or discuss; (2) little patience for article development when authors request time; (3) a tendency to double down when questioned about process or criteria.

Requested community input / proposed remedies

• A community **admonishment** to prioritize improvement (copyedit, sourcing, merge/redirect) and discussion before deletion tagging, especially for good-faith new pages.
• If issues continue, a **temporary, narrowly tailored topic restriction** (e.g., 1–3 months) on initiating QD nominations and/or RfD nominations of brand-new pages, except for clear-cut cases (e.g., vandalism/attack pages/COPYVIO).
• Alternatively or additionally, a **requirement to start a talk-page thread** (or propose merge/redirect) and allow a reasonable time window (e.g., 24–48 hours) before nominating good-faith new articles for deletion, unless urgent criteria apply.
• **Mentorship/check-ins** with an experienced admin for a limited period focusing on deletion policy application and BEFORE-style improvement practices.

Signatures

Beast4U (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: I received similar attention from temporary accounts at English Wikipedia yesterday as well. Someone's on a retaliatory campaign against me it appears. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Beast4U Don't use an LLM to make a report to the administrators, please. Use your own words. Your LLM is linking to the wrong things and misinterpreting how deletion works around here.

• Thomas Built Buses and tagging articles for QD soon after page creation -> Admittedly, I would rather wait a few minutes before tagging an article for quick deletion unless it's obviously vandalism, G4/G5able, or an attack page. You should check your LLM's output on Thomas Built Buses, the diff ID in your link isn't correct.
• Noam M. Elcott, J. Eric Robinson and all the articles that are RfD with the notability rationale -> This is normal. If you have done enough research and determined that the subject is not notable then there is no way to improve it further. It just isn't notable.
• Unennunium -> Nothing wrong here, if the nominator thinks that a redirect is not viable for the article and/or if it's not worth reworking, then deletion is viable. Also, this is an RfD. The page won't be deleted immediately. If you think that you can improve it, you can voice your opinions in the discussion page.
• Multiple user-talk notifications show a pattern of immediately moving pages into deletion processes rather than opening content discussions first -> The page creator has a chance to dispute the QD in the talk page. If an article obviously meets a QD criteria, a discussion isn't mandatory before tagging it. More contentious deletions are discussed in WP:RfD.
• Reverting an RfD closure -> You're completely wrong on this one. Admins are the only one that can close an RfD. Now tell me, is User:Robikalita62 an admin? No. Then C&W's revert of Robikalita62's closure is appropriate. Not to mention the fact that Robikalita62 is the creator of the article, which also excludes them from closing the RfD were they an admin.
• Talk-page defense of mass deletions -> I believe you're talking about this thread. C&W is correct here, perhaps you should read the thread yourself instead of having an LLM skim it and not picking up what the actual conclusion of that thread is.
• Needing reminders on QD criteria -> I believe you're talking about this thread. I see improvement on C&W's part and they have followed fr33kman's advice when tagging with G1 and G5.

The only action I will take towards C&W is to remind them that one should wait a while before tagging an article for quick deletion, unless it's obviously vandalism, G4/G5able, or an attack page, in order to give the creator some time to improve it.

On the other hand, your account was registered seven hours ago as of writing this post and your only contribution here is to create this ANI report attacking another user using AI, around an hour after another similar AI-generated report was filed against the same user. If you are caught as a sockpuppet, then you will be blocked. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and the detailed reply to the post above. I don't know which of the accounts I've "wronged" is behind it, but based on what happened at En. yesterday, they're hiding behind proxies so are a bit of a moving target. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern You should give users more time to make pages. Again (Special:Diff/10625363), you have nominated a page for quick deletion for having no content one minute after it was created. ~2025-32843-25 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn't a complicated issue, he just deletes at random. Beast4U (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Beast4U: What do you mean when you say he just deletes at random? C&W doesn't have the ability to delete pages, so you may have meant to say something else. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested to know how you're so aware of my editing pattern as someone with no edits prior to this thread. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@

Fehufanga

Just to clarify where I’m coming from: like a lot of people, I usually edit casually without an account. However, like a lot of other people, this person’s behaviour has been annoying enough for me to make an account and report it.

I understand my critique wasn't perfect but I shouldn't have to make a critique in the first place. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing platform. As someone else chimed in two days ago "Again (

Special:Diff/10625363

), you have nominated a page for quick deletion for having no content one minute after it was created"

CountryANDWestern needs to apply for a job with Encyclopaedia Briticana or another Encyclopedia with subjective editors. This is Wikipedia, we're supposed to have collaboration, not just a guy referring every article he can for deletion. Look at his recent deletion requests - were any of them necessary? Not one SINGLE edit to improve.

I’d still like the underlying concern to be considered: that this pattern of quick tagging can be discouraging to good-faith editors, especially newer ones. --~~~~

Beast4U (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Beast4U The Wiki relies on editors to patrol new pages and recent changes on the wiki. C&W is just one of a handful of editors who contribute in Wikipedia this way, by tagging pages for deletion if they meet the quick deletion criteria and reverting vandalism. I do think that in most cases, an editor should wait before tagging a page for deletion. However, the burden of improving a page shouldn't be placed on the tagger. Think about it this way, if an editor makes an article about somebody who is clearly not notable, say, something like this:

Henry is a student in XYZ high. His favorite subject is physics and he always orders hamburgers at the cafeteria.

or if it clearly has little to no meaning after giving the original creator enough time to reasonably work on it:

a very tall skyscraper

another editor is able to mark these pages for deletion under the appropriate QD criteria. It is called quick deletion after all, as deletions under QD criteria should be uncontroversial and require no discussion. If an editor wants to, they can also improve the page instead of tagging it, but they are never required to. They are free to do so on their own, as Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

en-wiki block appeal

En-wiki admin here. I'd appreciate it if an admin from this project could vouch for BlackJack at en:User talk:BlackJack#Appeal (November 2025). They've got several thousand edits over here and a clean block log, so I assume no one here thinks they're a terrible nuisance, but confirmation would be nice. :) -- asilvering (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, done, thanks for the reminder! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 10:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Ferien. Very much appreciated. Jack (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, Asilvering. Hope you're okay. I try very hard not to be a terrible nuisance because I think being a proper pest is quite enough! Thanks for making this request. Jack (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I am also trying to get myself unblocked on the English Wikipedia. I have made more than 500 edits here (and I had made 1245 edits on the English Wikipedia). I have not indulged in any edit war here or on the English Wikipedia. I also believe that my English is good although 331dot thinks it isn't (she declined my request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia, stating that my English is poor - at least, she implied that it is).-Baangla (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am sure that the Admins here (on Simple wikipedia) have a good opinion about me (I don't want to ping anyone or else someone may accuse me of canvassing).-Baangla (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, this isn't an appropriate place to be discussing your block. The focus is on another user. Additionally, you've been well advised on the English Wikipedia to focus on productive editing at another project and, several months from now, consider requesting an unblock again. Saying "I am also trying to get myself unblocked" when it's 9 days since that advice was given to you does not show that you're getting it. Please stop focusing on your editing status at the English Wikipedia and focus instead on productive edits here. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I believe I have been productive here till now and will continue to be so.-Baangla (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

hello world

The Sunlight foundation involves Jimmy Wales, whose wife is Kate Garvey. Kate Garvey was in the Tony Blair administration during the Iraq War. Kate Garvey, Jimmy Wales wife, is a war cr*minal in the Iraq war with Tony Blair User:Ponyo user:2A00:1370:8186:3825:0:0:0:0/64 {unblock|reason=Ponyo is a fascist. ~2025-34149-75 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)}} USER:IKIP OKIP