Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Inappropriate name

You may want to block this name. First, it's a slap at this user, second he's using a work around for the word "wanker", third, as he ends his username with "haha", he's obviously here to taunt. So perhaps that user should be shown the door! Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 20:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already reported this nick to Stewards and the account has been g-locked. Operator873talkconnect 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wekeepwhatwekill: Thanks for your attention though... Nunquam dormio. :-) Operator873talkconnect 20:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Operator873: Nunquam dormio indeed! Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Please reduce the page protection time for Islam. It should not be blocked for 14 days simply because two users are edit warring. If necessary, disruptive editors should be blocked rather than preventing improvements by other users. Batreeq (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Aopks, Ullierlich, if you continue edit warring you will be blocked from editing. Vermont (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: Thank you for unprotecting the page. Batreeq (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting an import of my user-page, and my auto-block to be revoked.

Hello. I am writing to here to request 2 things: the first of these, is an import of my user page from the English Wikipedia. The other is to request that my auto-block be revoked. The first one is so that I will be recognizable on this encyclopedia, as I will be contributing here until March, as I am currently doing the Standard Offer. The second thing is to prevent my IP being blocked every time I log in, so this does not prevent anyone from editing from that IP. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Duke of Nonsense: If you want to bring your user page here, you can copy the source code from your English Wikipedia userpage. I'm not sure what you mean by the autoblock; is your IP hardblocked on the Simple English Wikipedia? I'll also request you read WP:ONESTRIKE, as it does apply to you. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: I mean by everytime I log in, my IP is autoblocked on the English Wikipedia. To prevent this affecting other users, I request that it be revoked. Thank you. (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you should request this in w:WP:ANI of ip's talk page in English Wikipedia. I don't think we can do anything in this case as this is different Wikipedia. Thanks-BRP ever 07:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Duke of Nonsense:, since you are blocked it is best not to edit anything on the English Wikipedia. Rather, you can request an unblock of the IP there through UTRS, but we do not handle issues on the English Wikipedia here. Vermont (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Duke of Nonsense: I was considering importing your user page from enwiki, but the only thing it contains is a notice that you are a confirmed sockpuppet. I therefore decline to import it. Please don't copy that here yourself, either. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure he meant this. Vermont (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad username?

Is this a bad username? Special:Contributions/Mega farts123 by tikeem. J991 15:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed unblock

I'd like to propose that be unblocked, as it doesn't look to me to warrant a 6 month block, or any at all. I'll be honest and say that I haven't seen a long school block like this in a while, and am opposed to them unless absolutely necessary (which this doesn't seem to be) based on what Djsasso wrote about on VIP a few days ago. (see [1]) Vermont (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are an admin now, you see a block you don't agree with unless it was a community block you are free to unblock. Just don't get into a back and forth wheel war of course. But what you say seems reasonable. Being a new school year I probably would have just started back over the escalation of blocks. Worst case if it continued generally the next step from the 1 week I did back in February probably should have been 2 weeks, jumping to 6 was too much too fast. -DJSasso (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I was hesitant to unblock as it was blocked by Mentifisto who, although he hasn't been active since 2010 here, is a steward. I've unblocked the IP. Vermont (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, on the projects where I am a sysop (Meta, Incubator, Ladino Wikipedia), I just about never block an IP longer than three months, unless there is evidence the address is static and the problems continue. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb on en and in the past on here has been 1 year for IPs. But generally you only ever get up that high if its ongoing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Maria Laroco

Can other users, particularly admins, take a look at Maria Laroco? I've engaged it, and am stepping away from, an edit war with User:PerfectParadise. Note that PerfectParadise has removed the RFD template on at least two occasions, including one with a false change summary. I have reported this user to stewards as a probable sock of a globally locked user. Any assistance and monitoring would be appreciated. Only (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed sock. Vermont (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; the account was globally locked at the same time as your local block. Only (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked because the ip geolocates to the same area where other ips used by this LTA geolocates. A CU can confirm and extend the block if needed. Thanks-BRP ever 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It was locked the same time as my block because I was in communication with stewards who preformed a CheckUser on it. Vermont (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


YouTubeUK was recently created and needs to be blocked as an inappropriate account name. Operator873talkconnect 16:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed as bad user name. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Auntof6. Operator873talkconnect 17:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
To be honest it looked like a vandalism-only account too. They were causing nothing other than disruption. J991 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw that, but even if they stopped vandalizing, it would still be a bad user name. Therefore I chose the option that would always be true. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Action against Golf-ben10?

Is it time for some action to be taken against User:Golf-ben10? They are not here to build an encyclopedia, and there hasn't been any response from the user since an admin asked them why they were editing in this way. I would like to point out that they are already indeffed on the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing, in case that influences the decision. J991 16:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was going to give him a few days to respond to Only before deleting his page. I have been watching him for awhile and quietly been looking to see if he was using us to get around a block on Technically he isn't breaking any rules as long as he eventually puts what he is doing on one of our pages. But I don't think he plans to do that so he is probably not here to be productive so could theoretically be blocked. First steps would be to just nuke the page and see if he continues. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It's been nominated for Rfd at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/User:Golf-ben10 since its not a valid speedy candidate. I expect the community will delete it as we have deleted a number of similar on the past. Assuming they do and if he recreates it after that he would be in a WP:ONESTRIKE situation and could be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


An admin may want to look at this user name as, while it doesn't specifically violate any Username policies, appears to have been created for the sole purpose of vandalism. Operator873talkconnect 20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism only account.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My mom's passing

I know very little about wiki. I just know that I can find answers here.

My mom on the other hand, loved editing here. Unfortunately my mom passed away on Monday. I remembered her talking about pages she had edited. I didn't know her username until I saw it in the list of edits on one of those pages.

This is my mom.

I tried to write something there, I must have done it wrong because it was removed.

I'm not trolling or vandalizing her user page.

How can I prove what I'm saying to be true?

Hi there, you might be interested in taking a look at this. If you have further questions, you can ask them here. Sorry for your loss! Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello there; I am very sad to hear this, Fylbecatuluos was a prolific editor. In accordance with the policy outlined above, I have protected the use page and user talk page. Don't hesitate to contact any admin or oversighter if you wanted some kind of notice to be put up.--Eptalon (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Did you do any verification? The guideline linked above says to verify and describes what can be done to help verify, even when a family member reports the passing. No disrespect intended toward Fylbe's family, but we should do due diligence because this kind of thing is easily faked. Once verified, we might want to start our own version of the memorial page that enwiki has. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6:: No, I haven't,yet. I simply edit protected the page. I was under the impression that an admin, crat or checkuser would get a mail with more information, and could then act accordingly. As you know, CheckUsers are bound by the privacy policy, while technically speaking admins and crats are not. The only other case I know where an SEWP editor died is that of Teenly, who died of Leukemia (blood cancer) about ten years ago. At that time, I received a mail by the person looking after her where she had lived, and published the message on her talk page that you can still read today. --Eptalon (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. My mom death was a result of Huntington's Disease. She battled with it for a long time before it finally took her from us. Writing here really helped my mom in so many ways. If possible could someone please add something to her page indicating that she was an Huntington's Disease Warrior that lost the battle on Oct 29 2018 and she is greatly missed by her entire family. ❤😢 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, if possible, leave her a couple new cats😢 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not want to put any other personal information here. If there is a proper place I can send this, I can verify her email address, fb account, etc. Thanks for your help. Kevin (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I created an account, maybe this will help. Maybe one day I can pick up where my mom left off. BusierThanYesterday (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I put up a respective notice, please tell me, or any other admin if you want any changes.--Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


User talk:Alexis Jazz#Please do not crop my photographs

Hearing aid

I had cropped a photo from DaneGeld (uploaded as a new file) and changed the full photo for the cropped one in the article. DaneGeld undid that edit: "Please use my original picture, don't crop it thanks."

..? That's not how this works, so I revert. DaneGeld abuses rollback and I revert once more. Now DaneGeld has replaced his photo altogether in the article. If DaneGeld wanted Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0, maybe Wikimedia/Wikipedia is not the place for them. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You're so right. It's not. That's why I'm nominating my own work on Commons for deletion. I decide what I do with my stuff, not other people, and certainly not without so much as a quick "may I do this please?". I hardly contribute here now. Maybe it's just better that I **** off and leave you all to your own devices. NO. DaneGeld (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's in the public domain. You do not hold copyright on it anymore. Regardless, I don't understand the hostility behind this. Vermont (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The hostility is from the fact that when I take a photo, I take a photo. Not a fucking jigsaw puzzle for people to cut bits out of. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. I've quit here, and won't be coming back. I have better things to do in life, and banging heads with a user who's performed 10 edits or so in 10 years, simply isn't one of them, @Vermont:. I'm gone. DaneGeld (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
We'll miss you, DaneGeld. Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia. You have my info if you ever want to chat. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Appreciated. I've just got weary recently. I beat cancer earlier this year, and since then, I've grown to realise that there are other things for me to do in life, besides sit and argue with someone I've never even met. I'll still be on the other projects, just not here. Don't do anything I wouldn't :) DaneGeld (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: "I decide what I do with my stuff, not other people, and certainly not without so much as a quick "may I do this please?"."
Sorry, you don't "own" anything here, at least no articles or images. In your user space you have some level of freedom and on Commons it is usually respected if the photographer requests their files to not be overwritten, but anyone is allowed to create derivatives as a new file. Back in March, PlanespotterA320 had overwritten File:Digital Behind-the-ear Hearing Aids.jpg. You reverted it (which is fine) and I uploaded a crop as a new file.
If you don't want others to crop or otherwise make different versions of your work, you can consider Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0. This license is not allowed on Wikimedia though.
"and banging heads with a user who's performed 10 edits or so in 10 years"
I have 85.277 edits on Commons (if we're having a pissing contest..). Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
He does technically own copyright (CC-BY-SA 3.0) to what he writes in articles, and owns copyright on the images that he hasn't released into public domain. Also, pinging Alexis Jazz, DaneGeld, and Davey2010: Cease edit warring, and please leave it how it is currently unless new consensus is developed on the talk page. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Please revert it back to the image I added as an alternative and I'm happy with that. Davey2010 is just causing a problem which I want fixing elsewhere by putting something back which is up for deletion. I've messaged him separately. DaneGeld (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Vermont, yes, that's true. What I meant is that you can't "own" an article, anyone else is allowed to work on "your" article (unless you're working on it in user space). And you can't prohibit the creation of derivatives of your photos, there's no need to ask permission either. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Replying to both Alexis Jazz and DaneGeld: The image is in the public domain. Although I would personally like to respect DaneGeld's wishes and remove it from the article, it is not an image owned by DaneGeld (since he released it as PD) and thus should be decided by community consensus. Vermont (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Vermont - CC Licences are irrevocable - Once they are uploaded to Commons you don't then get to change your mind and that's not Commons policies - That's Creative Commons policies, So it makes no difference whether he's uploaded the image directly to Commons or via Flickr - Either way he (and no one else) gets to change their mind over their images - That's just how CC works,
Inregards to edit warring - He should seek consensus before removing the image, He's under the impression that if it's not being used on projects then it can be deleted which as I've told him by email isn't the case and doesn't make a difference, If the DR is kept (which it 100% will be) then the image will be reinstated so either way it may aswell stay ...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(unrelated but I'm currently going to bed (it's 2:20am here) so I'll check back in the morning and obviously shant revert, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)t)
PD-SELF is not a creative commons licence. CC-O is, and the image is not licensed with that. If you carefully review commons policies, as I already have, you will see that PD-SELF is not actually a license anyway. DaneGeld (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  See my comment; I'm aware it's irrevocable (it also isn't CC, it's public domain). Vermont (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
My apologies I hadn't realised it was PD so my comment should be disregarded, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: one final note: I'm not Wikihounding you. The image in question is on my watchlist, so besides you literally mentioning you were going to nominate it for deletion I would have noticed anyway using the watchlist. If anyone, no matter who, nominates that image for deletion I'm highly likely to respond. I don't know you and I'm not interested in following you. From what I understand you are a respected contributor here, so I hope you'll reconsider your retirement. Try and use community consensus to decide which picture should be used on the article. I won't vote. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, after the other night, I need to straighten this out. I don't know if @Vermont: and @Alexis Jazz: have read my user talk page, where I've detailed what's gone on, but I have now clarified the situation with Jeff G at Commons (Jeff G's talk page), where I made the allegation of Wikihounding against Alexis Jazz. I've clarified that it's not Wikihounding, and what you got from me above was the result of me being both drunk' and off my face on my epilepsy medication. I'm not supposed to drink, but I considered one drink wouldn't hurt. Unfortunately it was a can of strong lager, which made me violently ill and sent me well off the rails. The results are as alarming to me, as they are unusual to anyone else here who has witnessed this. I've been clearly warned not to drink alcohol again, and will abide by this. I apologise to all involved in this massive pile of compost. It will NOT happen again. DaneGeld (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A pair of Oticon Spirit Zest digital BTE (Behind the Ear) hearing aids.
A pair of Oticon Spirit Zest digital BTE (Behind the Ear) hearing aids.
@DaneGeld:No problem, take care.
Though you were drunk and off your face, there probably was a grain of truth somewhere in there. I got involved in this because of a question you asked a week ago, when you were (I assume) sober. There is the option of using this code:
{{CSS image crop|Image = Digital Behind-the-ear Hearing Aids.jpg|bSize = 300|cWidth = 220|cHeight = 100|oTop = 73|oLeft = 35|Description = A pair of Oticon Spirit Zest digital BTE (Behind the Ear) hearing aids.}}
This provides a more detailed cropped thumbnail but shows the full photo when clicked. I won't insert it into the article myself, but it may be an acceptable compromise. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection

U.S. Presidential line of succession may need temporary auto-confirmed protection due to several edits resulting from the recent election. The succession of power has not yet changed until the new Speaker is seated. Operator873talkconnect 00:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Vermont (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Requesting semi-protection for the article Numberblocks. Having just gone back through the history, I've taken out a considerable amount of IP vandalism which has been missed between October and today (November 9th 2018). Any chance we could get this permanently semi-protected so we don't the IP vandalism on it please? Thank you! DaneGeld (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We never permanently protect articles, semi or full. I'm not even sure there has been enough activity on this page to temporarily protect, but I'll leave it in case another admin thinks there has been. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: - Although there has only been one revert (by Chenzwbot), the vandalism I removed there goes back to the 5th of October (this version), and removes the incorrect edits of 27 versions, 4 different IPs and a bot which didn't realize that what it was reverting to was already vandalized! Is there any chance we could at least hit it for a month please to deter IP editing for a bit? DaneGeld (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No need for protection; it's one edit. If you think it might happen again, you can add it to your watchlist. Vermont (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Reread that, and I understand what you're saying. This issue is ongoing, but doesn't look to me to require protection. I've added it to my watchlist and will look out for further disruptive editing. Vermont (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Page protection is really only used here when vandalism is happening so fast we can't keep up. Like think multiple edits every couple minutes. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing language template

For the page Umkhonto we Sizwe‎ currently being improved, this WP needs the language template Template:Lang-xh. It would have similar parent categories as the existing Template:Lang-zu. Another missing African language template is Template:Lang-ig, which is in a similar language group as the existing Template:Lang-yo. Thank you! -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've imported these two. Let me know if you see any issues with them. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Britain First/Glasgow City Council

The 3-month IP block on their IP addresses expire tomorrow. The range was reblocked on enwiki for 6 months about two weeks ago, so I expect them to resume editing here. IP's are listed here. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully they will have forgotten about us compared to But if not we can just out a 6 month on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


Note that administrators no longer have the ability to unblock themselves if blocked by another admin. This also applies to bureaucrats. Please see this and phab:T150826. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Vermont. Sounds like a good idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Ugh this is dangerous on a small wiki like ours where if an admin account is compromised they could block all admins quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There's talk of being able to block only the admin that blocked you. I'm not sure if it's in effect. It would alleviate the issue you mentioned, although I'm still not very happy they made these changes globally without local consensus. Vermont (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah they talk about doing that, but the actual code change comments don't mention that they actually put that in so I am not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Histmerg request

Please refer to details at Wikipedia:Simple talk#How to merge and maintain both page histories? -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Username against policy and vandalism

User:Boobzzzz's username is against the username policy as I understand it, and their only edit ( was vandalism to Cell differentiation. Diadophis (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Diadophis: I noticed the account before... but for now I'm watching it closely for further activity. The username itself is barely acceptable, so we'll wait for additional behavior. Please feel free to ping me if there is any additional questionable conduct. Operator873talkconnect 02:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Diadophis: It would help if you leave that user a warning for the edit you reverted. If they vandalize enough, or exclusively, they might get indeffed for that even if we can't block them for a bad user name. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

user:MUDAWATU LINGA NAIK and user:MUDAVATU LINGA NAIK sport "cock" in hindi, namely "lingasm". (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Vermont (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Boobzzzz still unblocked. block it please. (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a reason to block that one. Boobs is a slang term for breasts, but it's not rude or pejorative. It also has other meanings. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop Wikipedia asking for more money!

I’ve already donated just a short while ago (months) it was a fair amount now I am being bombardrd with requests for more! If I become a member and log-in each time, can I escape the persistent RED donation banners. - (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to stop the banner from showing if you have an account as when you aren't signed in you don't have any personal preferences set. The banners do only show during the funding drive I believe, so once the yearly drive is complete they go away as well if you would rather not register an account. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


I was searching on the site for Jeffrey Dahmer, I found him. Hitler, yep I can search and find him. The BTK killer is there and so is that woman who killed her five kids when she drown the in a lake. But when I search for Dr. Judy Wood....nothing. Zero. A PHD professor who is razor sharp...I wonder what she has to say that Wikipedia feels so strongly about or is being strong-armed and has nothing say,(I vote the latter). So let me get this straight, now you are choosing...CHOOSING, what information is important and selectively filtering that info based on a set agenda. Apparently what she has to say annoyed someone enough that they told you not to publish it. So let’s hear your brilliant explanation, cause whatever side of the street you choose to walk here, sets you up for failure. Youmlose either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I don't know the person you particularly are talking about. However, all articles are based on having to meet notability requirements. It is also dependent on someone actually writing about them. You are on Simple English wikipedia which writes about topics in simpler English. We don't have as many articles as English Wikipedia because we don't have as many editors. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

VG articles backlog

There are four proposals, and the comments are quite clear-cut. What we need is an uninvolved admin to take appropriate action. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have closed 3 clear-cut GA proposals. I think someone more experienced with good articles should close the one that is remaining. Thanks --BRP ever 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual reminder about deleting pages due to RFDs opened this year

This concerns pages at RFD being deleted under the following circumstances:

  • The RFD is created in 2018
  • The RFD consensus is to delete the page
  • The page is deleted in 2019

When this happens, the standard delete reason in the drop-down menu will show the wrong year. That is because the delete reason always shows the current year, regardless of when the RFD was created. Therefore, if the above circumstances exist, please do not use the standard delete reason. Instead, copy the page name of the RFD discussion page, and use that, enclosed in square brackets, as the delete reason.

Other things that can help this situation are:

  • Not creating RFDs during the last week of this year (if they can reasonably be avoided)
  • Promptly closing RFDs that are due to close this year
  • For RFDs opened this year but due to close next year, closing them early if that looks reasonable.

RFDs created and closed in the same calendar year are not affected. Neither are RFDs closed with a consensus of keep.

Thanks. Let me know if there are any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year to all, and another reminder to check the generated delete reason to be sure it matches the page name of the RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User rights

Is there a reason why administrators are unable to grant confirmed userrights? On most wikis they can. Vermont (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing certain user rights is linked to a certain role; you might need the bureaucrat (or steward) role to change them. It looks like I (as a bureaucrat) can grant the status. --Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed is a userright able to be given by admins on most wikis I'm familiar with; I was wondering if there was some sort of community consensus not to allow admins to grant it. Otherwise, I believe it should be changed. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe there was a discussion about it at some point and it was decided that waiting for auto-confirmed was not an onerous thing to have to do, especially with how different we are from other wikis. As such it was believed we shouldn't really give out the right ever so admins didn't need the ability to do it since they shouldn't do it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Dear Sirs, Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan Republic that occupied by Armenian military forces. All people from Azerbaijan (ethnicly Turkish) left their homes because the armenian invasion. They just cleaned territory from Turkish people who lived there. UN has 4 resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) that Armenia has to go back from Azerbaijani land - Karabakh. From 1992 Azerbaijan has more than millions refugees from their motherland. And this page on Wilipedia about Katabakh wrote by armenians who say this is their land. Please delete this page or make them tp write right things about history. It is inapropriate and unacceptable to see in Wikipedia such a lie. Thank you all for your time.

I've since reworded our local article on Nagorno-Karabakh to be a bit more neutral than before. I'll note however that Wikipedia is not a place to push a political agenda. Our goal is to be a neutral encyclopedia. We don't censor information at the request of individuals either. Please take this opinion elsewhere. Hiàn (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


It's been a copyright violation of a article since December 19, 2016. I've reverted to the edit immediately prior, although a lot of good faith edits in the meantime have been nullified by that. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nearly four months on; where should I start in order to better my chances of an accepted standard offer?

Hello there. I hope you've had a nice Christmas. I am writing here because I am wondering where should I start on here in order to have a better chance of an accepted standard offer. I have wrote nearly 30+ articles on the English Wikipedia, and have a degree of rights on that wiki. So, should I help here on the admin board? Should I "translate" articles into lesser English and upload them here? Where should I start, and what should I do on here? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks once again. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here. We have a lot of work to do in terms of articles - entire topics are missing and information is entirely outdated in places. We also have a fair amount of vandalism (a controllable level, of course); I'd suggest beginning work on articles. Hiàn (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hiàn: Thanks for the quick response. I'll think I'll do that. Where is vandalism most prevalent? Thank you. (Please ping me when you reply). The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly during the night hours from 2:00 UTC to 10:00 UTC; there's really no specific place. The RecentChanges page isn't overflowed constantly most of the time so it's not all that hard to patrol from there. Hiàn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
For some reason I seem to remember you having a blocked account, although don't see it in your block log. As you mention a standard offer, could you explain with what account and when you were blocked? Also, kindly don't refer to Simple English as "lesser English". Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Found it. You have one confirmed sock registered on simplewiki, although with no edits. If you want to write articles, I recommend reading WP:HOW and User:Auntof6/simplediffs. If you want to work in anti-vandalism, you can patrol Special:NewPages, Special:RecentChanges, or join the #cvn-simplewikis IRC channel on Freenode. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: Thanks for the quick response. I profoundly apologise for refer to Simple English as "lesser", what I meant was easier English. I did not mean to cause offence, as I meant easier. I used the wrong word. Thank you. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
No issues. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at WP:ST, here, on my talk page or that of any administrator. Happy editing! Vermont (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


I'd like to request uploader rights to upload files locally. I understand simple Image use policy. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: Unlike English Wikipedia, this Wikipedia doesn't host files. To use files here, they need to be on Wikimedia Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, we can, technically speaking, and do in some cases, but don't have the procedures and documentation necessary to facilitate uploading as is done on enwiki. At some point I think it may be useful to look into getting local uploading enabled for everyone. Vermont (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I meant that our policy is not to host files (except for a few administrative ones): see Wikipedia:Image use policy. It's one of the ways we keep things simple here. Enwiki allows fair use files that Commons doesn't accept. To do that, we'd need to be monitoring the files to make sure the fair use was legitimate, and have procedures for transferring to Commons where appropriate, all things I think we can do without. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep; I just wanted to clarify for those who were reading. A note to ZI Jony: You say you understand the image use policy, yet in the second sentence of said policy it states the Simple English Wikipedia does not allow images to be uploaded directly to this project. I will recommend that, in the future, you read applicable policies thoroughly prior to engaging in a new area of contributing or requesting permissions. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Noted, Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Import request

Hi there. If an admin can import en:Template:Infobox intangible heritage and any related templates it would be much appreciated. Hiàn (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hiàn: Done. It didn't appear to have any subpages other than the doc page. If you find any other specific related pages are needed, leave another request. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated Auntof6. Hiàn (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Got rights revoked on English Wikipedia: What should I do once I'm unblocked to get them back?

Hi there once again, I hope you are having a good New Year. I understand that I needn't worry right now about this, but I am curious about what I should do once I am unblocked. As on the English Wikipedia, I got my AFC and page-mover rights revoked, saying that I am a sock-puppet. So, out of curiosity, what I should do once I am unblocked, so that I get those back? Your help would be appreciated to the upmost degree. Thanks once again, and have a happy New Year! The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really an appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Simple English and English are two separate projects; we're not really here to help advise you on how to succeed on another project. Additionally, this noticeboard is for discussions about issues that require administrative intervention on this project; your editing on another project isn't something that needs administrative intervention on Simple English Wikipedia. Only (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Only: I understand that, it's just I can't ask on the English one. And, apologises for writing on the wrong noticeboard. May you tell me where to ask please? Thanks again! The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can answer you on the English Wikipedia IRC channels. But there's no where here on Simple English Wikipedia that would be an appropriate forum for that kind of discussion. We're here to worry about improving this project, not helping to reform you for another project. Only (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
And, also, you're putting the cart before the horse. You're talking about what you should do once you're unblocked. You can't even apply for unblock under the standard offer until March 2019. Based on your history, it's not a guarantee you're getting unblocked. So, focus on editing well at projects where you aren't blocked rather than worrying about what'll happen after an unblock that isn't guaranteed. Only (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Only: My apologises, I am not demanding to get unblocked. I should of wrote 'if' I was unblocked. And, another question. With the standard offer, does it need to be precisely on the day? Since you say March, without giving a specific day. I know I got blocked on the 10th March, does it have to be the ten of March? Only wondering. Apologises, and have a great New Year! The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Color articles

Many IPs (likely the same person) have been making changes to color articles, which are disruptive, including the insertion of "Donald Trump" into the Orange article. I'm not sure what to make of it, although I am assuming good faith for many of the other changes. IWI (chat) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP range making those edits. They were already blocked on the English Wikipedia. Only (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I should have noted the range for you, sorry Only. IWI (chat) 09:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


A new account called Hacker.fakeinfo was recently created and by just looking at the name, it is clear they will put only fake info. Can you please block them even though they have not made edits?74A (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a sock of Special:Contributions/ Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Likely so, but I don't think we should block until it is certain. Vermont (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about this page's name

Since this is "Simple English Wikipedia" rather than "Wikipedia", shouldn't this page be named Simple Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard ? Yes, I realize this is part of the Wikipedia network of sites, however, since this site describes itself as a simple wikipeda, why not reflect that in the naming conventions. Any takers on this idea ? Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 14:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:" is what is called a namespace; there are other pages in the Wikipedia namespace (for examplle Wikipedia:Simple talk, or :Wikipedia:Requests for deletion). There are also other namespaces, for example "User:" fore user pages or "Template:" for templates...--Eptalon (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is "Wikipedia", and so are the other 302 Wikipedia projects. Vermont (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
When it's part of a page name like that, it's because the page is in the "Wikipedia" namespace. It isn't meant to indicate which Wikipedia it's on. The Wikipedia namespace contains administrative pages, including policies, guidelines, and this page. All Wikipedias, whatever language they're in, use the equivalent word for their administrative namespace, without indicating the language. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Help needed deleting redirects

If anyone is able to help, I could use some other admins on Bossanoven's created pages. He created many implausible typo redirects, or redirects based on nicknames or quotes. There seems to be a few hundred of them, so other admins with tools would be helpful. I blocked him today per WP:ONESTRIKE since he is blocked on English Wikipedia for long-term abuse which included making these kind of redirects. Only (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Only, working on it now (as well as his socks). Vermont (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done a few. Most of them also exist on enwiki; those I haven't touched. I don't see much of a reason to continue spending time deleting these redirects unless they're blatantly incorrect. Vermont (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Only 3 of their confirmed enwiki accounts have edits/registered here. They are blocked. Vermont (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SALT request


I QD'd Pass the Dutchie yesterday. It's now been created and deleted five times in less than three months, each time by a different IP (so a range block would probably be ineffective). Maybe it's time to SALT the page? Pinging admins involved in prior deletions of the article for input: User:Vermont, User:Enfcer, User:BRPever, User:Only.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't really like doing that if its a valid subject, what I recommend doing, is actually make a stub article based on the one on That usually stops the problem in a more constructive way. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It’s also the Pikepass LTA. It’ll be creating dozens of vandalism pages whether we salt them or not. Vermont (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Djsasso, User:Vermont: I've created it as a stub and put it on my watchlist. I'll revert any vandalism and expand it when I've got the chance. Thanks for your input. Regards, SITH (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New page protected icons

This isn’t a major issue, but new padlock icons are being used across Wikipedia. These should be added here IMO, they do look better also. IWI (chat) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't automatically switch things like that here just because other languages do. We are very separate from them in that sort of thing. That being said, a bunch of them have been changed already, if not all of them. These happen slowly as updated templates come over. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I know but I think they do look better anyway. Page protection isn’t a massive "thing" here anyway. IWI (chat) 16:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Over at Chinese Wikipedia, my main wiki, we had an almost 3 month village pump discussion cum voting to decide. I hope not the case here. Anyway support changing. --Cohaf (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody oppose to this implementation, because if not, an admin should just update all of the templates. IWI (chat) 16:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: It doesn’t look like anyone directly opposes. You or somebody else could update the template. The images simply have to be updated. IWI (chat) 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned, they already had been. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: There is a list below of ones that haven't for the record; there may be others but they appear to be the only ones:

IWI (chat) 16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I will go through them, but be aware most of these we don't really use. Atleast one is a deprecated template. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know, but the top one is used on a page presently. IWI (chat) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

IP address


I was just trying to remove something I did not want there and I went about it the wrong way. I apologise. I wanted to contact Wikipedia but have failed to find a contact or email and I was redirected here. Hopefully this works!

I have made an account after accidentally editing without an account, which I thought would link my previous edit to my username but it didn’t. I am interested in writing articles on Wikipedia and editing the ones that misinform people. I just wanted for those edits to be under my name and not my IP, which is visible publicly. Is there any way that can be edited?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonblythe (talkcontribs)

Information.svg Question also asked on English Wikipedia, answers have been made here and here. This discussion was also reported on this project. --Eihel (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not possible to change that information, as the edit was already made. Vermont (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
However, we are able to hide the IP address from public view with revdel or oversight. Vermont (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Jasonblythe (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Hi!!!!! Thank you! Yes! That’s better than anything. Honestly, that’s what I was looking for. Thank you so much! Please, hide it if you can. It’s okay if it’s there, since the edit was made but I didn’t like the visibility of it in the first place. I now have an account and I can edit under my user, I like that much better. Thanks again!!
@Jasonblythe: Please contact oversight with information about what article you edited and what the IP was. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Will do. Thank you for your help!

U.S. State

Can an admin please move List of U.S. states to U.S. state. I've rewritten the article and it is no longer just a list. Ensure you leave a redirect to the "#list" section. IWI (chat) 15:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I decline to do this, but feel free to discuss. There is value in having a separate list article, as enwiki has. Maybe you'd like to put your additional text into a new article. (The improved table could stay.) I wouldn't like to see a trend of adding info to list articles and changing them to non-list articles.--Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That article is quite complex. Vermont (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Yes I know, you're right; I've reworded and linked much of it from the enwiki page's lead section. Combining these in my opinion is a good idea on this wiki because this article is not as long as enwiki's; i.e. they are only separate on the enwiki due to the long nature of en:U.S. state. Generally, I think we should only split long articles; this article is not long. IWI (chat) 18:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It also should be noted that U.S. state redirects to List of U.S. states. IWI (chat) 18:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I assumed that was why you made the request here. You could change that redirect to an article, and leave the list where it is. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I will do that then, thank you for your input. IWI (chat) 19:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Bad username

7710 East Manager Street was registered a short time ago, it appears to be an address; they should be blocked. This edit to AN should possibly be revdel-ed as well? IWI (chat) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should they be blocked? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Possible personal information in username. I'm not totally familiar with the username policy here, but surely this isn't allowed. IWI (chat) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The username policy is at WP:User name. There's nothing in it about personal information. Besides that, we don't know what city the address is in, whether it's the user's own address, or even if it's a real address at all.--Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment - I've found "Managers St, London, England" however I'm more inclined to believe this is a made up name and I have a sneaky suspicion the editor is American (due to the numbers and "East") but that's a wild guess, Given nothing on the address shows up anyway I would say the name is fine. –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Then that’s fine. Yes we don’t tend to have "7710" as a house number over here. Yank confirmed ;). IWI (chat) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
User:ImprovedWikiImprovment Ah right sorry, I meant postcodes (ZIP code) then :) (Not that I've just looked zipcodes up or anything Twemoji2 1f61d.svg. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: The result is the same; we don't have post codes or house numbers like that (I was being serious, not sarcastic). In other words, it's a made up name. IWI (chat) 00:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Marilynn Hughes

Hello sysops,
What is your position on this article? Would you describe it as spamming? Is it a notable person? Looking forward to reading you. Ping me --Eihel (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel: I have nominated it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I gave my opinion, Auntof6. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at the rest of the account’s edits. Only (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at the GUC ... --Eihel (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hp joker1

I think we should nuke the article creations. It's all undisclosed paid editing, a few of which are currently at RfD. Vermont (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Vermont:If we use enwiki, typically from what my look at their policies, usually is quarantine in draftspace. I don't think we have something like that. At enwiki, they are indef for spam and many articles A7,PRODed as well as AFD for lack of notability. I'll say a nuke can be done and I'm so against native advertising, undisclosed. However, all of the articles lacked notability from a simple glance so an AFD won't hurt IMHO. Amazingly or not, they are still neutral enough not to be G11ed. On a sidenote, I see they are doing the same at 2 other languages Wikipedia, maybe a trip to SRG is needed. Best, --Cohaf (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I looked through all the articles today, RFD more articles but some barely meet ANYBIO/Creative People/GNG, I left these alone. Someone else might wish to take another look. Thanks much.--Cohaf (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support use of nuke. Undisclosed paid editing has no place here. SITH (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Update:I think I had AFD almost all, left 2. Will try to assess them slightly later. --Cohaf (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vermont:I finally managed to RFD all the articles, a tiring task looking into notablity for all. I covered around 17 - 18 and some others did the rest 3-4. I think we are done here. Next to another paid editor. Sigh. --Cohaf (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

2405:204:E286:6449:0:0:230E:F8A1 - questionable edits to userpages


I have noticed that 2405:204:E286:6449:0:0:230E:F8A1 has made several edits to two different, recently created userpages. At first I thought it was just an IP editing someone's userpage but considering that both accounts are relatively new and both userpages were edited by the same IP, I'm starting to hear ducks quacking. Perhaps a CheckUser is in order?


SITH (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: pinging Cohaf for their input on my hunch as they have since edited one of the pages. SITH (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Checkuser cannot link accounts to IP, also we need more concrete evidence on how the accounts are involved in ILLEGIT. Is there vote stacking? Is there 3RR? In addition, are the accounts involved in any disruptive activities. Lastly, checkuser is not for fishing. Based on my experience of handling SPIs on Chinese Wikipedia and SRCU, the evidence here for a CU is weak. I declined the U1 is procedural, you can't use a IP address to U1 a registered userpage. I think behaviour needs more evaluation and will not recommend a CU.--Cohaf (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, simple case, both accounts are changing in their userspace exclusively, and the IP is changing in their userspace. Both accounts behaviourally are very similar. However I did not think anything is disruptive enough for a block, just ask them to declare their relationship if they are 1 person, otherwise very likely MEAT. For the IP, a final warning not to change other people userpage or block for disruptive editing may be needed. Regards,Cohaf (talk)--12:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. If the worst comes to the worst, a duck block could always be done if an administrator agrees with the behavioural assessment. SITH (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am quite new here so I may be wrong. Do correct me if I am wrong.@StraussInTheHouse:.--Cohaf (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Now IP is quite stale, accounts also. Recommend this to be close as no action. --Cohaf (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

New editors creating pages about people often found in the media.

Hello all, What's new this year: There are realtively many pages about media people (writers, singer/songwriiter,actors..). Usually these pages get created by (probably sinlge-purpose) named editors; there are also many links to social media sites, or to foreign language sites, which makewsverifying those claims very hard. Right now, we have 13-or so RfDs; most of these RfDs concern such articles. Many of the "celebrities" are only known in the respective part of the world. With all likelyhood we will not hear from an Indian actress in ther mid-twenties, or an Iraqi singer/songwriter. Can we do anything to lessen the influx of such articles? - No, bocking the editor is probably not an option, as with all likelyhood, most of the accounts are single-purpose accounts. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eptalon: We could IAR and just delete them on the spot whenever they are created, if the community would agree to such an approach. IWI (chat) 00:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
We should only be deleting such pages if the subjects are not notable. To delete them "on the spot", which I take to mean quick deletion, they must be lacking a claim of notability; otherwise, they must go to RFD. References in other languages, while frustrating to English-speakers trying to verify notability, are not a reason to delete. Then there is also the issue of how widespread notability must be (for example, how big a geographic area): I don't think there's any guideline on that, so if a person meets notability requirements for any area then they are considered notable for Wikipedia purposes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talkcontribs)
@Eptalon:. It's all created by Hp.Joker1, see the thread above. Vermont was considered using nuke. I don't think is a trend per say but just problematic articles created by one person. For the rest, it's created by a crosswiki abuser Adam Asrul socks. What common is that they cannot be speedy as they usually have a claim of significance and so had to either nuke (a lot of IAR) or RFD. I will propose if G5 can be restored it'll be a way to solve this. --Cohaf (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Question and request. What is IAR? And, I've noticed a lot more acronyms recently. Expanding them makes things easier to understand. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gotanda:en:WP:Ignore All Rules. Yes, I agree. --Cohaf (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support the reinstatement of G5 also. IWI (chat) 11:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm...G5 is tricky. (For the record, here's a link to what "G5" means.) In general, we've loosely held the belief that if a banned user comes back to write a legitimate article—rare, but it happens—we don't demand that it be deleted just because the user was banned. In my view, we ought to restore G5, but make it extremely discretionary. Admins should only use it where (a) the criteria on enwiki are met, (b) there's a pattern of abuse, not just a page or two, and (c) the claim of notability is not supported by RS. But it would be useful to have it back in the toolkit, so that massive numbers of parallel RfDs (like we have now) can be avoided. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Legitimate articles should not be deleted without discussion. Illegitimate articles created by LTA's and other blocked/banned users can be deleted under existing criteria; for example, I tend to use G3 for JRS (a sockpuppeteer) creations. Vermont (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The border zone we're really referring to in this discussion is a case where ordinarily we would have to forego QD and go to RfD because there is a claim of notability, but one that is not supported. I'm thinking that if there are a bunch of articles of that type that appear all at once that were created by a blocked/banned user, then we could use G5, or perhaps G3, to get rid of them, and not have to go through the tedium of RfDs on all. But I agree that articles with supported claims should never be deleted without discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, restore it with a "star" so to speak. IWI (chat) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with reinstating G5 is that a large number of our Admins already show themselves incapable of following QD criteria in a conservative way and over delete using them. Adding something like G5 into the mix while telling them to use strict discretion will almost certainly fail and cause far too much to be deleted. We get very few Rfds, don't forget that, even when we do get someone who comes along and creates a few articles that needs to be Rfd'd its never very many. A very busy day of Rfd's is like 3 or 4 on this wiki. Its not like we are over run. Not even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Notability doesn't require someone to be famous world wide. If they meet WP:GNG in say India for example then the article is legitimate and should not be deleted. And a claim is a claim, the whole purpose of making it go to Rfd is to avoid the exact sort of "opinion" judgement being talked about above. Quick deletion is not for judgement, it is for black and white. Rfd is where judgement is handled. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Roy Apps article

I've set article protection for the article Roy Apps due to persistent vandalism from a focused IP range which is probably a school. Since this is the first time I've felt a protect was needed, I'd ask other sysops to review the article's revision history and remove the protection if it's not needed. Thanks. Operator873talkconnect 05:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Operator873: I’m obviously not a sysop but I think this was necessary. IWI (chat) 14:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It may be better to block the /22. Vermont (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Only two IPs there. I would have blocked them and not protected. Generally we only protect when there are so many hits coming that they can't be handled by blocking. This very easily could have been handled by blocking. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Only 2 IPs and if it continued, I’d consider a range block since they were closely related IPs. Only (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Processing VIP reports

Dear fellow admins: when responding to reports at WP:VIP, please try not to have so many old, resolved reports remain on the page. If a report has been marked as resolved for a while, go ahead and remove it when you respond to new ones. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge, or not merge ?

Hello everyone,
As you are a specialists and sysops of Simple, I'm writing to you today. I am not familiar with the merger (and if it exists on this project). But Lobamba and Mbabane are they not the same article? "I leave you the hot potato", as we say in my country. Also, if you have to erase something, you will have the ability to do it. With all my gratitude. ping me for a result Face-smile.svg --Eihel (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:ST. This is for matters requiring administrative attention. No comment yet on the content.--Cohaf (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote, if you need administrator rights (delete an article for example), it's easier to talk about here than there. I am not familiar with the Simple way. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, can I know which of the 2 articles you need to delete? In addition, deletion should be either done via quick deletion or the article nominated for deletion. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

They are about different cities. Eswatini has two capitals, one executive and one legislative. I'm guessing that means that their government offices aren't all in one city as they are in many other countries. There are a few other countries with multiple capital cities, such as South Africa. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

They are different cities, and do not need to be merged. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems nothing to merge, as there are the administrative and legislative capitals, two separate cities. Cities and places usually have enough notability to have their own articles.--Cohaf (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Van-dal New Year

Should this user be blocked? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

it was globally locked over 24 hours ago. Only (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mohd Abusad

Is this user misusing their userpage?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Some users use their user page as a sandbox. I would say that it's OK as long as it leads to a simplified real article at some point. Any particular reason you didn't ask the user directly? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for history merge

Hi. Can the history of Time Warner be merged into WarnerMedia? The content was just copied and pasted when a user thought the company's name changed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Vermont (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting protection...

Hey, could some please protect my user talk page due to sockpuppetry? --IanDBeacon (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Vermont (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Protecting talk pages is actually a bit touchy because we should be leaving them open if at all possible. Since its their own page I suppose its not as big a deal, but probably should not be indefinite. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Since it's due to LTA's (long-term), I thought it beneficial to do it indefinitely. Should we change it to a month? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah its the LTA thing that has me unsure how to handle it. If the user being targeted was a regular I would just say don't protect at all. But they aren't around to watch their page much. Try a month for now, we can always slowly step up the length. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Request temporary semi-protection of Pakistan

Persistent vandalism over the past days by IP or new accounts. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 19:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Semi-Protected for 2 weeks. There has been a lot of vandalism -- Enfcer (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I also recommend that people add it to their watchlist so that more of us will see the vandalism when it happens. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah (alt account)

This account is not Oshwah's account. see this link This account should be hard blocked as a person pretending to be Oshwah. It is not Oshwah's account. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A little odd that you would dig up an account created 3 years ago and has never edited. But yes I can block them. -DJSasso (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RFD protection

Could an uninvolved admin look at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Russell Surasky and determine if semi protection is needed for the rest of the discussion? There are many new accounts, likely meatpuppets, in the discussion piling on keeps. Only (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's also paid editing beyond any reasonable doubt. Vermont (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Protection for Air pollution

Several IPs have added spam links to Air pollution in the past few months. Could the page be protected? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Only an edit every few days. Not enough to warrant protection. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RfD overrun

Need someone independent to decide and clear up the overdue items on RfD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I closed a bunch -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Thanks. Are you going to take care of the article you decided to keep (remove rfd template and add oldrfdfull on the talk page)? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. -DJSasso (talk)

Attack accounts

Phlystar93 thinks he can stop me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Oshwah thinks he can stop me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Zziuuzz thinks he can stop me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Obvious sock of course. IWI (chat) 23:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Already locked. Vermont (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: I just saw, thanks. IWI (chat) 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wondering what to do during this last week which lead me to having a better chance of a successful standard offer?

Hello there, and hope 2019 has been good to you. I know this doesn't effect this Wiki, but this is a Wiki where I can ask questions. I am wondering what I should do which would lead me to having a better chance of a successful standard offer? I know it's a bit late, but I am curious. As my Standard Offer expires in 10 March, and I will eligible for requesting an unblock. Thus, I am wondering how I can help. Thank you very much! The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't really give advice on's standard offer. Just be productive here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, which is what I told you months ago. If I were the admin reviewing at the English Wikipedia, I wouldn't be impressed by your 30 some edits here when 5+ are posts here asking for advice on your English Wikipedia problem; 10 or so are related to a poorly advised RFD; and 5 or so are your user page. Nor would I be impressed by the fact you haven't edited in 2+ months then suddenly come back to boost your resume last minute before your appeal. As others have said, know that March 10 is the first day you can apply but it might not look great that you're applying the second you can. Only (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
We not only don't give such advice, we can't give such advice. We have no idea what the enwiki admins will be looking for if you request an unblock. Only they can know that. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the first two people to reply to this were enwiki admins. Regardless, The Duke of Nonsense, this is not the place to ask. Vermont (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


This needs an update to reflect Mentifisto (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes) name change. Thanks for helping in advance.--Cohaf (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who has the rights to make the edit, you should change adminrights['Mentifisto']=1; to adminrights['Lofty abyss']=1; at line 15. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I will take care of it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Djsasso.--Cohaf (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Offensive language

I think the summary should be hidden on this diff. IWI (chat) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this one. Maybe the Ip should be blocked, it looks like they’ve continued disputes from other IPs/accounts. IWI (chat) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I RD'd the second link; I don't think the first one falls under RD policy. Vermont (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: It’s subjective I suppose on what is "grossly insulting", it definitely has no encyclopedic value though and was directed at another user. IWI (chat) 21:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: -- The words used are meant to be insulting and often times are meant for a specific editor, but we have in the past ruled those as only insulting & not "Grossly", and not rev-del'able. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Enfcer: That seems fair enough to me. IWI (chat) 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Only has blocked the range that made these changes. IWI (chat) 22:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally "Grossly" refers to stuff that would rise to the level of hate speech. Needs to be really really bad. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this one qualify? IWI (chat) 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No I wouldn't revdel that. Just revert, warn/block, ignore. No one is going to go back looking through old edits for minor swears and its not aimed at anyone specific. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I fully understand this now. IWI (chat) 21:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a bad username?

Special:Contributions/My name is hank hill. i sell propane and propane accessories. Could be a promotional name, or even an LTA? J991 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA for sure, at worst it’s a promotional name. I’d say it’s a bad username. IWI (chat) 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bad user name. Hank Hill is a fictional character who is in the propane business. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Auntof6. It doesn't appear to be a bad username as yet. Watch for behavior and report to VIP if necessary. Operator873talkconnect 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware of that character. In that case, not it’s not a bad username. IWI (chat) 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: We even have an article about him. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


Do you guys feel you have adequate sysop manpower these days? I've been less active around here than I used to be, but I'm also a pretty experienced sysop now (from work on Meta and Incubator). If you can use an extra hand, I'll sign up. If not, no worries. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Actually it will be great to have someone who is good at Simple English as sysop. I think we need more sysops who are good at writing articles and who can work on GAs and VGAs.--BRP ever 14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xxxx: Why does it take sysops to write articles or work on GA/VGA? Those aren't admin things. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I meant someone who can make good use of tools and write quality content as well (Content admin). I think StevenJ81 will make good use of these tools, just wanted to know if they can work in these areas as well.--BRP ever 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we have a huge need, but I also wouldn't stop people who wanted to work. I do always suggest people not self-nom themselves. But that isn't a hard fast thing for me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I probably was not going to take on a lot of new writing. (I still owe @Auntof6 repairs on chess articles, and I still have a list of Judaism articles to work on.) I was mostly asking if the usual sorts of sysop workflows (vandalism, page deletion, RfX closing, etc.) needed extra hands; if so, I'd be happy to volunteer. But if not, I have plenty to do elsewhere to keep me busy. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon's edits

I gave Tony85poon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) a WP:ONESTRIKE warning yesterday as the user is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia. He was initially blocked there for a week for edit warring, particularly on Cory Booker and other presidential campaign related articles, and then indefinitely for sockpuppetry. I would like other admins to take a look at his current editing pattern here.

I feel like he's on the same path. I've already had to revert him a few times for adding a lot of "hype" to those articles. These include excessive "obscure" endorsements, here too, adding info about the campaign to an unrelated article, undue weight to Jimmy Carter in the Booker campaign article, adding Wikiquote links in the middle of prose, twice that happened, calling subjects by their first name (something he was specifically warned about on English Wiki), bizarre campaign position, an odd "not to be confused with".

Note that almost all those edits occurred in a few hours yesterday.

He also created 35 redirects for the Booker campaign article in the last 3 hours, many of which are of questionable need. Could other admins please examine and determine if action is needed at this time? Only (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I followed his edits yesterday, and since then it has become obvious that he should be indeffed. His out-of-control editing and POV changes on political pages are part of what he was doing on En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Political POV editing should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Vermont (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked him as I was watching yesterday and was waiting till there was enough to be a slam dunk case. He has far passed that at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the homophobia on Movies banned in China. IWI (chat) 11:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing homophobic on that article, he is just listing movies that China banned. If anything that would be the opposite of homophobic by bringing to attention China's actions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The page is definitely not neutral, one way or the other. It’s also not encyclopedic and based on Cohaf's comments about the Chinese version of the article, it is clearly not good. IWI (chat) 11:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is POV laden either, if the films are banned (and I haven't looked if they are) then listing them is just a statement of fact and the definition of neutral. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The POV is the article is trying to say that the Chinese government censors films without trying to give reasons or other government also. I'm not for PRC censorship but this form of article isn't neutral. The English version is much better. Shall we discuss this at the RFD. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But it doesn't have to list other countries reasons. This page is about China's censorship, not other countries. Articles for other countries can also be created. But yes I commented there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the page is homophobic but it's POV laden. Chinese Version of article was tagbombed with all the tags but I didn't read the article in depth to make sure are the tags correct. --Cohaf (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the state of the chinese article is rather irrelevant here as they are two very different articles based on current content. I haven't looked to see if those films actually are banned, but if they are then the page isn't remotely POV. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It's quite similar actually, I read through. Both are lists of censored films in China. Chinese community editors noted the POV stance there but well we have to determine here independently. Just giving some context only. --Cohaf (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That page has paragraphs of prose including a whole column of prohibited profile which is possibly where the POV might come from there. Here we simply have a list. There can't be a POV when its a straight list of facts. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I explained slightly more at the RFD. I think it's best to discuss here as this is really a little irrelevant to the point of this thread. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) admitted here that they are block evading, most likely a sockpuppet of Tony85poon. IWI (chat) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) per DUCK, they are also a sock. IWI (chat) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ditto. IWI (chat) 01:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)