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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Update request to filter 12

• Special:AbuseFilter/12

I am requesting an update to filter 12 with some changes:

• I placed page_id as the first check. Also, because of the title, it will be limited to articles using page_namespace == 0.
• I merged the current two regex lines into one, and used (?s) in the beginning of the regex.
• Instead of new_text (which can be very large), I used added_lines, which is much faster in filter performance.
• There is no reason to use lcase(added_lines) rlike. added_lines irlike works just as good. I also modified the exclusion regex as well.

page_id == 0 &
page_namespace == 0 &
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
added_lines rlike "(?s)^[\p{Ll}\p{P}\s]+$|^[\p{Lu}\p{P}\s]+$" &
!(added_lines irlike "^\s*#\s*REDIRECT\s*\[\[|{{(?:db|wi|rfd|qd)")

Codename Noreste (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste  Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Disruption & Caste POV continue

@MathXplore recently blocked two IP ranges for disruption on Indian caste/History related contentious topics and pushing Rajput caste POV. After this complaint. But unfortunately after the block of two IP ranges disruption continued though this logged-In ACCOUNT and restoration of caste POV same as previously done by blocked IPS. Isn't it Gaming the system? (posted here per admin advise)

1. Removed word "Yaduvanshi Ahir".[1][2][3]
2. Removed word "Kshatriya".[4][5]
3. Removed word "Ahir" caste name.[6][7][8]
4. Removed "Yadava/Yadav/Ahir caste name & word "Kshatriya".[9][10] replaced Ahir caste name with Rajput caste name.[11][12]
5. Removed word "Chandravanshi" — replaced with Hindu (Hinduism).[13][14] Edit with misleading edit summary.[15] Replaced word with Bakarwal (means nomads).
6. Removed word "Jat" caste name replaced with word "yaduvanshi rajput clans".[16][17]
7. Removed word Jat caste/Jat monarch.[18][19] after my revert against IP hoppers/caste warriors of Jat/Yadav/Rajput castes all claim Porus king belong to their caste. Again restored page back to Rajput POV where blocked IPs added caste claim using non-scholarly/non-reliable sources.[20][21]
8. Removed/replaced gurjar caste name with rajput caste.[22][23]
9. Hijacked and converted gujar caste clan article into rajput caste clan removing sources.[24][25][26][27]
10. Restored "Katoch page" back to where King Porus was claimed being from Rajput caste using non-scholarly/non-reliable sources.[28][29]
11. Removed "Ahirs" & Yadava/Yadav caste synonyms (words).[30][31]
12. Added word "Banafar Rajput" Rajput-caste POV.[32][33] Bensebgli ^(Talk) 02:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) While it could be true that it could have been "Gaming the system" I just don't see why HistorianAlferedo would do this kind of things... I don't think the IPs are related to the user in any way imho. Thanks, ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 20:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 Behavioral evidences showed what I said above, but I don't know about technical evidences (CU based). You have checked all the diffs? I think you have not closely checked all edits of these IPS and HistorianAlferedo. Also, Historianalferedo personally attacked @Durjan Singh Jadon: 3 or 4 times also me. He is repeatedly trying to remove some content from non-Rajput caste-related pages; on the other hand, same content he is trying to add on Rajput caste related-pages using incorrect edit-summaries. This is clearly a Caste POV. After the block of these three disruptive IPS, HistorianAlferedo tried to restore their disruptions, but not for the first time. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 10:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I personally agree with you, Singh Jadon has been personally attacked before by Alferedo, and also you, so Alferedo is breaking NPOV, No Personal attacks, and another rule that I don't know the name of, I will check the user history sometime. And I have reverted some of their edits, but not all, other editors helped too. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 13:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes big brother! I was harassed and personally attacked by this user he is clearly not here to build an enclypedia. He accused me of being a Koli POV pusher which, I am clearly not as I have mostly reverted edits of blocked ips that were blocked by admin:Mathxplore. This user targeted me for no actual reason and this user was involved in protecting and restoring edits of these blocked Ips. While my edits were only to save pages of Jat, Ahir, Gujar, Koli and Yadav caste pages and also Indian history related pages where this user and ips were pushing Rajput caste POV. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Protection request

Anyone can protect this page? against IPs disruption, blanking content and wrong redirect. For few weeks or a month. Thank you Bensebgli ^(Talk) 20:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bensebgli:  Done for a month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 23:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Raphi-2Code removing RfD tag

This user removing RfD tag in Ursina Engine, can somebody deal with them. — Raayaan9911 16:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

They're also edit warring and insisting the en:WP:NOTHOWTO guide stays, I gave them 15 minutes to update the article but they reckon they don't have 15 minutes right now (yet in those 15 minutes they've edit warred!) –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User is now glocked, but I have returned it to the AfD version. Quick reminder that W:WP:3RR still applies even if you think the edits aren't helpful. It only doesn't apply when the edits are obvious vandalism. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, That's fair enough, I was under the impression that as NOTGUIDE is policy it therefore trumped 3RR but maybe that's incorrect, That being said Simple doesn't get half the readership Enwiki gets nor does it show in Google results (not for me anyway) so did this really require me to remove the installation crap so urgently.... no, Anyway duly noted, Not the first time I've misunderstood 3RR so my apologies, Thanks , –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries. 3RR isn't about policy, it's specifically only trumped by blatent vandalism. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay I'll try to remember that going forward, I've never really got EW/3RR and I doubt in this lifetime I'll ever get it but I've survived for over 10 years without being EW-blocked (although I've come very close plenty of times) so I guess I must be doing something somewhat right :), But yeah I'll try to remember that going forward and unless it's blatant vandalism then I'll allow the edits to stand until the appropriate action is actioned (block or article protection), Thank you for replying and for helping me it's much appreciated, Have a great day Lee, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If the link turns blue again ...

Repeatedly re-created spam (?).--If y'all wonder, no mention at En-wiki, and not even previous linked discussions there. 2001:2020:C335:8778:39F6:C945:EC3A:939D (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's pure low-quality meme junk. This version tagged for quick deletion already by Codename Noreste. Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I've WP:SALTed it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank ya kindly! Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite full feels a bit harsh.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a really large burden to do if we have to lift protection someday. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Article-title (with minor change of title).--Should probably be deleted and salted.--From a 'promotional angle', it is valuable to keep the title, (even as a redirect), because of 'hits on Google'. 2001:2020:8355:B9EA:55A0:950D:92EA:8F74 (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)/ original poster

"Sibling spam"? If interesting for admins, then fine. 2001:2020:8341:83A0:64C7:11D7:E12D:5F1D (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion. Ternera (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It was Deleted; However, re-created at "18:08, 17 April 2025".--How about adding some salt if-and-when Delete, the second time. (Salt for six months or indefinitely.) 2001:2020:8341:83A0:1D98:EF94:E0DB:7457 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

AI Brainrot animals - needs salt (if the "reincarnation" also gets deleted)? 2001:2020:8355:B9EA:104A:2ACC:2531:73CB (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Salt

Please salt List of Brawlers in Brawl Stars. The creation was started and requested to be delete by me. Now, sinnce many Ips have been recreating it with the same content and it keeps getting deleted please delete. --Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 12:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: When I salt something like this, I usually salt it for a month. However, this one has been getting created only about once a month, so that wouldn't do much good. Because of that, I won't be salting this, but I have no objection to another admin doing it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I see. WIll leave a comment if it is created again. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please revoke 207.236.13.218's talk page access?

207.236.13.218 has been spamming thier talk page with random things still, they are blocked but they are still spamming, I just reverted their spam edit today. So can someone revoke their talk page access? Thanks, ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 16:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723:  Done For future reference, please do not remove unblock requests, even if they are in bad faith. It makes it harder for the admins to see what the user has been doing. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I won't do that next time, Thanks @Auntof6 ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 12:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion using IP

Can somebody block this, user evading their block using IP. — Raayaan9911 08:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Me ? Why 2A01:E0A:EC3:7830:F5F8:2E1:CC46:6E8D (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Because you used IP to evade your block. Raayaan9911 08:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Unlock me pls

Can you unlock my following accounts please: Dunyar77,Bokak99,Rapta999 2A01:E0A:EC3:7830:F5F8:2E1:CC46:6E8D (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Unblock requests must be made by the blocked user. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked the /64 as this post seems to link the (blocked) accounts to the IP by their own admission.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Raayaan9911 09:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've not seen such admission of socking in some time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

IP created 2 articles. Can they be deleted? I can't provide a diff because I'm on the mobile. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, Could someone move Third sex to Third gender to match the Enwiki article (en:Third gender) please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd have thought in this context that "sex" and "gender" are at least slightly related (and the enwiki article starts saying both are valid terms), so we should probably go for the more simple word. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski, Thanks for your comment - Unfortunately I didn't think that far ahead, I only got as far as "they don't match". I'm glad someone's on the ball today because I sure as pie am not :), Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No drama at all. I'm not a fan of changing titles simply to match other sites. It makes much more sense in this case not to. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Another requested page move

Per consistency of renaming all instances of "media" to "mass media" in categories, Category:Media in the United States must be renamed to Category:Mass media in the United States but I cannot move the page by myself. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

• Average tetrachloroethylene enjoyer (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• 176.88.36.205 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

So yesterday Average added complex content to Tetrachloroethylene[34], I reverted twice after

After their 3rd revert, I explicitly told them here and here that they had until the end of that day to simplify the content (9 hours),

An IP has appeared today undoing all of my edits [35][36][37] and they're now still further adding complex content to the article[38][39][40]

I'm assuming the IP is Average and I'm assuming they're on an IP to avoid being blocked for edit warring, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also noting for the record that the IP reverting them here isn't me, I have no interest in further edit warring and (whilst I appreciate the IPs help) there's nothing to be gained from reverting them as they'll just revert back in the next couple of hours anyway, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 11:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with the article? 46.221.80.68 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with making the article harder for our readers to read and understand? –Davey2010^Talk 11:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the trimmed-down version for now. Further edits from either of you should be discussed in the article's talk page. Any subsequent edit warring will result in a block.

@Average tetrachloroethylene enjoyer It is the responsibility of the editor who introduces new content to an article to simplify the text. Content that is left unsimplified for a long time may be removed by other users. I do not see any attempt to simplify the article in due time. If you need time to simplify it, then use a user sandbox page to simplify the content before publishing it to the article.

@Davey2010 Please avoid edit wars like this in the future. I saw no attempt to discuss the reverts in the article's talk page. Please use it next time before using the 3RR warning or reporting to AN. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fehufanga, I've started a discussion on the articles talkpage, Thank you for your help it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fehufanga, Just a heads up an IP has reinstated the content you removed[41], FWIW I did notify all 3 participants of the new discussion on their talkpages (Average_tetrachloroethylene_enjoyer, 176, 46 (old IP)), I won't revert, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The ip has been blocked and the page has been protected from edits by unregistered users. BRP ^ever 16:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks BRP your help is much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at Caucasian race

Caucasian race has been repeatedly vandalized by different IPs since at least 11 February. Please protect the page. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Spam

Hi, Quick question; Would admins here consider the links here spam?,

I've told the user they can link to WP pages but they seem insistent this isn't spam and their links should stay so wanted to get clarification before I issue them with warnings etc, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Fusion has reverted here so that answers that :), May seem dumb me coming here but after yesterdays 3rr report (#Edit warring) which nearly got me blocked, I figured it would very much be in my best interest if there wasn't a repeat of yesterday)

Anyway thanks Fusion your help is always much appreciated, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tamara mello

Can anyone please move page Tamara mello to Tamara Mello. I think there is a mistake with "mello" it should be capital in letter as "Mello". Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 12:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Shortcuts for WP:Change filter/Mistakes ?

Can any admin create shortcuts for Wikipedia:Change filter/Mistakes as WP:CM,WP:CFM or WP:C/FM ? because we also have some shortcuts for Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, and [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 15:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a task you would need an admin for. You should probably get a consensus that they are beneficial though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree we need consensus if we need shortcuts for Wikipedia:Change filter/Mistakes. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be interested in having a quick shortcut for that. Ternera (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ternera You are agree for all WP:CM,WP:CFM or WP:C/FM? Or any particular one. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular one I prefer more than the others, but a having a quicker way to access that page would be helpful. Ternera (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:CFM would make sense and be at least somewhat helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire I'm okay with all, but WP:CM or WP:CFM seems more specific. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CFM and WP:CF/M make the most sense to me and I can see these 2 being used the most, I've created WP:CF so that CF/M would make better sense too. Just to note I don't support the proposed "WP:C/FM" as that to me says "Change/Filter Mistakes" which doesn't make any sense whereas my proposal matches the title of the page, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this a vandalism any admin can check?

@FusionSub, @Fehufanga, @Lee Vilenski, @Auntof6 Any admin can check one of my this edit for fixing of CS1 error[42] is a vandalism? Or this vandalism warning is a mis use of warning templates?[43] on the other hand same user send me 9-10+ thanks for my talk page or other edits? Without any sense. I can send screenshots of his senseless thanks those I received through notifications recently. Through email I can send. Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 18:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You should probably ping Davey2010 as you are talking about him. I think the issue here is that you changed where the reference was too - it being to a website, which was dead, being changed to a reference made by an archival website.

That said, I don't think using rollback to revert a good faith change to a reference was great. Nor was warning you for vandalism when this wasn't really vandalism, more a misunderstanding of what CS1 errors are. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski et al, Thanks for the ping, I looked at the diff and immediately thought they were vandalising the article as they just said "fixed" whilst randomly removing the authors of a cite and adding what I thought at the time was general gibberish to it[44],

Agree with the vandalism bit - that should've been an AGF edit or a test edit, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski Before my edit there was a CS1 error as " {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): (empty string)= (help)". That I fixed through the automatic URL generate cite option in G-faith. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In this edit you changed the publisher/website from MTV to being as if the information was published by archive.org. We should cite the website that made the content, not the one that archived it. Basically what was wrong with the citation was that it had a completely empty parameter. That's I think where the issue is here.

That being said, I think it's very clear that this wasn't done with malice, it was an attempt to fix the citation in good faith and certainly didn't need a rollback and certainly didn't need a warning template. What's more, when you said you were just trying to fix a reference, a friendly response apologising for the template and how to fix the CS1 error in futire would have been much more beneficial.

A quick reminder to all that rollback should only be used for vandalism and we should think twice before templating people who are acting in good faith. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There's things I realise now that I didn't before so will be much more careful going forward, I've wrote like 5 different replies here but each one read more confrontational than the other or that "I believe my edit was right because x, y and z" which wasn't the conveyed message here, There's things I could've done differently and will do differently going forward as of today, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've since asked for rollback removal and had it removed given I didn't actually realise rollback was being used for everything (for some reason I thought it was just for vandalism only but seemingly not), Given Lee's interpretation/comments above (which may also be everyone else's interpretation) I no longer felt comfortable using the tool any further, I don't believe I have misused rollback (with OP or as a general thing) but I am aware this is open to interpretation given rollback was still being used.

I still believe my reverts with the OP at that time were correct and still stand by them but I do also agree there's things here I could've/should've done differently which I will do going forward, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski

Some edits for what Davey thanked me which doesn't make any sense to me.[45][46][47][48][49] This is really irritating for a person who is on mobile and he received {red notices like} 13+ thanks for minor edits. By a user (Davey) who before these thanks edited war at (talk:Adelaideslement [7]) then he accused me that I have some issues with him then instead of sorting out misunderstanding if he had. He tried to irritate me through thanks buttons, then edit warring for twice, then issued me wrong warning template and assumed G-Faith edit as bad faith/vandalism & mis use of rollback (he might have some issues with myself but I don't have I've already clarified to him in recent discussions).

From 16:33, 20 April, 2025 to 16:52, 20 April he gave me 13 thanks those all I found senseless/appropriate or irritating.[50] Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010 Why you assume that I vandalized this page, even If you assumed it wasn't your mistake? Do you think a 2 year old account with 2390+ edits will try to vandalize a page where he edited for the first time? I'd like to request you please stop monitoring my recent edits, then issuing me thanks, issuing me wrong warnings, and mis use of the rollback feature against my G-faith edits. Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You said you thought I vandalized the article. I'm a new editor for you? And you unintentionally assumed that I vandalized article or this was intentionally? I don't know what was the intention. You don't remember before that you accused me that I have some issues with you? Or we had interactions then how you can be wrong in rollbacking G-faith edits as Vandalism? Issuing your fellow editor wrong warning template. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 06:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection for Funbag Animation Studios

Repeated vandalism over a period of about 2 months. I reverted the page back to a stable version from about a year ago. Multiple IP users have been vandalizing the page btw. Sheriff U3 19:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection for List of Peppa Pig episodes

Lots of vandalism by IP users over multiple years. Most of the edits that are not vandalism are people cleaning up after vandals. Sheriff U3 21:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done All vandalism performed on the page after January was done by one singular IP address, where a block would be more suitable than page protection.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Page move request

Please move Kōji Kondō to Koji Kondo. The latter title is a better choice because enwiki uses it and the accents aren't really necessary here, and they make the title less simple. I would move it myself, but the redirect is in the way. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Request rollback removal

Hi, Could I have my rollback rights removed please?, I only ever used it as part of RedWarn and not as a standalone feature,

I had the rollback feature set up as the main revert feature for RedWarn but I didn't actually realise rollback was being used for even AGF issues (example) (I just assumed it was vandalism only), Given Lee's interpretation/comments above I feel someone could make a case and argue that I've been misusing rollback since installing RedWarn and given this, truth be told I don't feel comfortable having it right now so would rather go back to Twinkle/the undo feature until a time where I feel ready which certainly wouldn't be any time this year. Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010  Done. Feel free to re-request it when you feel more comfortable having it.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Fusion much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Page move request

Hi, Could someone move Fence (wall) to Fence please per enwiki (and per PRIMARYTOPIC), I moved the disambiguation to Fence (disambiguation) but obviously can't move Fence (wall) to Fence, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Fusion much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Move of Chiron (mythology)

I think Chiron (mythology) is the primary topic for Chiron, so can the page be moved to Chiron please? This also reflects the page title at English Wikpiedia. An IP also appears to think this, so they have been reverting the redirect. TagUser (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hamed Abbasi

Would a few admins mind keeping an eye on Hamed Abbasi? It's a new article that in it's original state [51] is pretty promotional, but enough of a notability claim that I would have also sent it to RFD over quick delete if I'd seen it first. The RFD tag has been removed 3 times by the IP creator, once by a new account [52] and a fifth time today by another new account [53]. Many of the sources being pushed are blatantly tagged as sponsored - and the last couple of edits have an edit summary that's the COI warning template [54] which is just weird? It all feels like a low-price UPE push on the article. I think the two named accounts are the same (RFCU next stop) and probably the same as the IP. Not sure if semi-protection or other action is warranted right now, but some awareness in case the disruption continues would be helpful. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Help

Dear Admins, I am really having a very bad experience on simple.wikipedia now as User:Bensebgli is trying hard to stop me from doing constructive editing on simple.wiki. Please have a look at these: This user just reverted my edit on page Suheldev calling it a Rajput povpush and reverted it to an edit with some rubbish data (if we have a look at the last lines of first paragraph), all i did was reverted to the last fair edit by a fellow contributor, another is the page Rawal Gujjars, I just expanded the information based on the citation there but here too the user reverted my edit falsely accusing me of povpush and also if we have a look at my talk page, the user has nominated all the pages created my me for deletion, like is the user having some personal grudges with me? or doesn’t wants others to contribute fairly on simple.wikipedia pages. Moreover, the user falsely accusing me castecruft and povpush again and again with no proofs of such claim. Please intervene, looking forward for your help. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

For Suhaldev I've already left a note on your talk. Further explanation: you restored revision of a disruptive/blocked IP that was blocked for pushing Rajput caste POV, but restoring their edits, you also tried to push caste POV, but not for the first time. Everything I've mentioned in this report where you didn't answer. On Suhaldev blocked IP used fake sources, Mirror source, even non-scholarly/news articles for the caste claim. Before making a revert I've read all sources. Indian news articles sometimes considered unreliable especially for caste related claims about Indian history/monarchs/Varna, because paid news reporting is a common thing in India. For the Rawal clan page, your edit summary was misleading because Durjan was against your Rajput caste POV, not in the support. Where you again added caste POV, simulating from the source that was a Copyright violation. You need to read copyright guidelines. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 22:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I agree for the page named Suheldev,and i appreciate you removed castecruft from that page but what you did was removed the name of one caste group from the Indian subcontinent and added the name of other. Like What are you doing? Simple.wikipedia should be free of such bias editing. Moreover, if we have a look at that page’s first paragraph’s last lines, couldn’t you see what it was? that line was a mix of some links and unreadable texts, etc. You should have reverted it to a fair edit. Now, let’s tall about the other page named Rawal Gujjars, where you and another user Durjan singh jadon are kind of teaming up against a fellow contributor (me) for correcting the information there calling it rajput povpush. I want to make it clear all i add is information based on citations and books that i have read about the Indian history topics, how can i support so called Rajput povpush when i don’t even belong to that castegroup and i’m not even from any of the countries where this caste group is found. So, firstly stop this rajput povpush fake allegation against me as i add unbiased and citation based information on various Indian subcontinent based topics. Now, tell us why did you nominate all the pages created by me for deletion? those pages didn’t had any povpush or anything then why? Isn’t it a clear sign of personal grudge against a user. Please follow a fair behaviour towards other contributors of wikipedia. I’m an extended confirmed user on en.wikipedia too and also an experienced contributor on simple.wikipedia. Respect other contributors and support others in adding unbiased information on the pages. I’m reverting your wrong reversion on pages named Rawal gujjars and Suheldev. Hope you’ll understand that respecting other users will encourage them for happy editing on Wikipedia and creating a friendly environment. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you kindly take this "discussion" somewhere else like your talk page or the talk page of the article? AN does not exist to hold arguments. This is a polite warning. Thank you fr33kman 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could the following be revdelled please?,

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 22:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks fr33kman much appreciated :), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request overlapping with pre-existing request that hasn't closed

@MrMeAndMrMe has nominated SMG4 for deletion again without being aware of the fact another request is already open. I believe they're asking for second nomination to be deleted because it would not make sense for multiple request for the same page to be open at the same time. Also the creator of the page SMG4 has also created multiple bad pages related to Glitch Productions and is removing the deletion request template from their articles. I'm not gonna say anything else about their bad pages since Vandalism in progress is the correct place for thing. Please do not let them remove or modify this topic. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been closed early by FusionSub. Ternera (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection for few pages

Repeated vandalism on these pages by LTA from glkwiki: Gilan province, Rasht, Gilaki language, Baloch people, Iran, Balochistan (region), Mazandarani language, Persian people, Gulf of Oman, Caspian Sea, Iranic peoples, Luri language, Lurs. Please consider semi-protect all of them for at least 1 month. Aqurs1 (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Dr.Kamaljit Das

Dr.Kamaljit Das seems to be a hoax. Because the 16th president of India was not named Kamaljit Das. Also the user there has repeatedly recreated it. Should something be done about this? TagUser (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Concern about 2603:9000:E8F0:BB00:52B:839F:1AF8:F314

The IP Special:Contribs/2603:9000:E8F0:BB00:52B:839F:1AF8:F314 keeps copying articles from English Wikipedia with a few changes. I don't know whether it would be useful to warn them for "creating inappropriate articles", so I'm referring the issue here. TagUser (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The articles can probably be tagged for quick deletion under A3, which is for articles that have been "copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying". Ternera (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. But the person also needs to know that if they keep doing this, they will be blocked. TagUser (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You can send them warnings for the articles, and if they continue it, you can report them at WP:VIP so they admins can block them. Ternera (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know whether it would be useful to warn them for "creating inappropriate articles" so someone else could figure out how to warn them TagUser (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP is the "dinosaur troll", they spam various articles stating "x celeb voiced x dinosaur", I've given them a final warning and if they continue just report to VIP, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)