Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 66

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User page semi-protection request

May I have User:MathXplore/QD log/202210 semi-protected? An IP user appeared here but I don't think any IP user would need to change this place. MathXplore (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFDs

Just in case anyone was wondering, I've been trying to keep on top of closing RFDs, but there are a few I'm not closing because I commented on them. Someone else should do those. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for keeping up on them. I'm currently traveling for a week or two, but will try to get back on top of them as well when I return. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just closed two overdue ones, still two left but was involved with those. --Ferien (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page protection of Surendra Singh Gour

Request for semi-protection for 1 month due to repeated creation.-- Dibyojyotilet's chat 16:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DRC-B5: Done by Eptalon. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, semi-protection might not help, because the page was created by a registered user at least once. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nude photography

A commons user have requested for the last picture in the gallery to be removed. Should we oblige? --Trade (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'with this photo I am threatened by spreading them everywhere with hate messages.' Sounds serious--Trade (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: Do you mean the request to remove the photo from Commons? As long as it is still in Commons, we can use it here. The photo illustrates exactly what the article is about, so there's no reason to remove it. If it gets removed from Commons, they will remove all uses of it in Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not censored, after all. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't think Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED applies if he never consented to the image being uploded here Trade (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: If that's the issue, it needs to be resolved at Commons. If they determine that the image should be removed, then it will be removed here. You can join the discussion on Commons if you like. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortdescription on Template:Bot

Should the use of {{Short description}} be removed from {{Bot}}? That template is generating most of the transclusions of {{Short description}}. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done. It seems the edits were made by copying the bot template over from enwiki. I don't see why that was done,as it only made the bot template more complex and added the short description to loads of pages. Thanks for letting us know. --Ferien (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Canadian artists

Article made by an LTA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.62.211 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page promotes Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research Project: Plain English Questions For You

Hello! I am a master's student working on a project regarding the use of Plain Language, which I believe is a similar concept to Simple English. As the people behind this offering I am wondering if I could ask some questions to someone on this forum regarding Simple English, if you have any statistics on the usage of the Simple English Wikipedia, and how the process goes for translating a page into Simple English.

If this is another forum or channel you'd like me to direct my questions to, or other contacts in the Simple English space please let me know.

If you'd be open to answering some of my questions, I posted some exact questions on on my talk channel and we can discuss there. Thank you for your help :)

Primarysorcerer (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Primarysorcerer! You could also add this topic to Simple talk. I plan to answer the questions soon. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I will post in Simple talk as well Primarysorcerer (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A hoax article that I mentioned at CU has returned. Can we have this entry protected? MathXplore (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-notable actor BLP but an IP editor continues to remove QD tag. MathXplore (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/Queen-Divas ‎sock.--MCC214 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Now this account have been globally banned, so admin can ignore this block request.--MCC214 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for removal of rights

Hi there! Please remove rollback from this account. Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Ferien (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to have this article reviewed, requested QD G4 but contested by the creator. MathXplore (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be a copy from here but an IP user is contesting the QD. MathXplore (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The creator agreed to remove enwiki copypaste, so I will withdraw QD A3 for now. MathXplore (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Viet146

This user was blocked due to a bad username (bot in account name), but changed the user name. I think this account can be unblocked. MathXplore (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MathXplore: That is something the user can request if they want to. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request

Please consider blocking and deleting pages created by 31.190.195.83: Long-term abuse, see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson (global block already requested). Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mtarch11 Blocked, though pages are not deleted for now. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This TV series article does not claim notability but an IP editor is contesting the QD. I would like to have an admin to review this page. MathXplore (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MathXplore: Reviewed; deleted as not notable. FYI, I don't consider removing a QD tag to be contesting. Using the {{wait}} template would be contesting. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I came from ruwiki. Can you delete and then protect the article Helpinver so no one could recreate it? This is a spam article, it has been created in multiple Wikipedias. Thanks in advance. Radmir Far (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the notice. Appropriate action has been taken. Best, Griff (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dexter's Laboratory

Dexter's Laboratory has been getting constant attention from IPs. They tend to be adding a large amount of off topic and/or unsourced information. Ive reverted and/or cleaned up the article multiple times in the last few days. While not unmanageable, if no one was watching it and pruning constantly, it would get out of hand. Short term partial protection (confirmed users+) may be needed for a while. Pure Evil (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Ferien (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check the page Mudros Armistice one time and you will know what is going on. The page is a type of vandalism. Koqkpa - TALK 15:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Deleted. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Protection for User talk:郊外生活

I would like to request semi-protection for User talk:郊外生活 due to excessive vandalism by cross-wiki long-term abuse Sidowpknbihihj (ja:LTA:HEATHROW) socks. This LTA uses multiple accounts in order to post abusive language at my user talk pages on multiple Wikimedia projects, and my userpages on enwiki, meta, commons, and wikidata are now semi-protected. --郊外生活 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: The user is not so much active at here, so I think indefinite semi-protection is possible. MathXplore (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done for a year --Ferien (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete this page What two breeds make a pomeranian. It is a vandalism page on Wikipedia, some kind of test page? Koqkpa - TALK 16:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koqkpa  Done Thank you but there is no need for you to also report on Administrators noticeboard unless the quick deletion tag is being reverted multiple times. Quick deletion requests automatically go to a category that admins monitor: CAT:QD. --Ferien (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Talk header

The search bar doesn't work on {{Talk header}}. For example, on Talk:History of the United States, if you search for something, it searches in pages with the prefix "?'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'?" and doesn't find any results. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed*Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juiceslf (singer)

The IP user who created Juiceslf (singer) claimed that it is "different from the deleted version", probably to avoid WP:QD#G4, so an admin can verify if it's really different enough or otherwise quick delete it. The RfD is at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Juiceslf. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done by Op873. Thank you! Griff (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion review needed

Folkloristic anthropology was put up for quick deletion G7. The request was declined with the reason given as "original author did not write most of what was on the page before blanking"


There have been 2 editors. The first was the creator. the page was created at 7180 by that person. Another editor added 3 tags to the page (simplify, more sources and cleanup needed) and headers and moved the page to the proper title. (total size now 7389). OP then blanked 6958 of the content (pretty much all of what they put up) The other editor then tagged it as qd-g7. This was denied saying the OP who added 7180 of 7389 did not write most of it. The only thing on the page is 3 tags, an empty reference section and an external sites section with a link to example. G7, no content and test edit could all be valid reasons but as it has been denied, this needs upper level attention to deal with it (and the redirect what was created in the move) Pure Evil (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:QD#G7 says "only if most of the page was written by that author and was created as a mistake". I don't think the page was created as a mistake. I do apologize for misinterpreting the edit reason "add sections", though: I was thinking it meant that sections of text were added, when it was really just section headings. (That's what I get for not paying attention to the character count.) If another admin wants to delete, I won't protest although I think it was not created as a mistake. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP editor continues to put RFD tag at here, but I don't see any recent RFD about this page. I would like to have admins to check this page if it is OK to clean up the RFD notice. MathXplore (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like they've stopped. --Ferien (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jalierium, possible QD A6

I think this page is a possible hoax but the author continues to remove the QD tag without meaningful improvements. MathXplore (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi fella MarcusAAA76 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Deleted. --Ferien (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a page about a cartoon studio, but I don't think it claims or explains the notability as a studio. Although the author does not agree and continues to remove QD tags, so I would like to have admins for a review. MathXplore (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QD tag was restored by Hockeycatcat. MathXplore (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QD declined, as I don't think it's a clear case of A4 and not everyone agreed it wasn't notable (with the author removing the QD tags). Hockeycatcat or MathXplore, please feel free to send to RfD if you wish. --Ferien (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the review, I will take this to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Sari Katha. MathXplore (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has been recreated. I think it is different from the former version discussed at the last RFD, but I don't think it claims notability. Since the author does not agree to QD, I would like to have admins to check it again. MathXplore (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move request

Is there anyone who can move patriot to Patriyotlar? Patriyotlar has past history and I cannot move with my user rights. MathXplore (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would withdraw this request because Patriot was blanked by the author. MathXplore (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its done, you can see Nalanidil (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50.89.178.84

50.89.178.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has an extended history of questionable editing to Lists of television programs by XXX articles. Their talk page shows a long history of warnings they have been given. They also have a prior 1 week block for abusing multiple accounts. Currently, I am dealing with them on List of Nickelodeon Animation Studio productions where I am going through item by item and trying to weed out the false info. The IP has a habit of reverting these edits or just readding things. These actions are adding false information as I am removing programs that are not NAS productions only to have him re-add them. Some of his most recent edits were valid typo cleanups but the also include adding Kappa Mikey which is broadcast on Nick, but wasn't produced by it (let alone created by NAS) If his actions are this bad here, what is being done to other articles. I have enough of a problem clearing existing damage and the base articles linked in ( a host are attribbed to Canada when the en. infobox shows no connection to Canada so I also have the clean up those articles to make sure we have the correct info on the list)

There is also the issue that if they are getting 4-5 warnings a month for the last year, how many of his edits either slipped through or were reverted without a warning? Pure Evil (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • added note. The IP is currently sitting out a one year block on en. for disruptive editing. Their editing is reminiscent of the Disney IP LTA vandal that was here in the past. This one is also from Florida so it may be more than reminiscent. Pure Evil (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 150.176.175.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is having the same effects on the same group of articles. As with the above user, this one is also on a 1 yr En.wiki block and geolocates to Florida. Pure Evil (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should be blocked for disruptive editing. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is now edit warring. As of this time, I have stopped trying to correct the errors in all program lists due to the constant uncontrolled edits from IP with a long history on disruptive edits. Pure Evil (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done - Blocked for disruptive editing. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fehufanga Can you block the 150. IP too? Lights and freedom (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done - I see the same pattern of disruptive edits. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double redirects from User:Hulged

Hello, could an admin please delete all the redirects to my userspace on Special:DoubleRedirects. User:Hulged and User:Baggaet were my previous usernames. --Ratekreel (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done*Fehufangą✉ Talk page 06:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the article claims notability in page, but the author contested the QD, I would like to have review from admins. MathXplore (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taken to RFD. MathXplore (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propsed it at Rfd, which is the standard procedure for such cases. Since I proposed it, I likley won't be the closing admin. Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2600:8805:d609:3d00::0/64

The user 2600:8805:d609:3d00::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is making many disruptive edits. They have added false information to a number of articles, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4]. They have been warned a number of times (level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4/final, level 1, level 1), but their IP keeps changing, so people may not see the warnings. I think they should be blocked for some amount of time, maybe a month. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thought I had blocked them for longer, done for six months. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movie redirects

Hi everyone. The original code for movie redirects (previously discussed here) has been lost and needs to be remade. It's been about two and a half years since then, which is a really long time! So I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it, or if there is still community approval for it. Let me know. Naleksuh (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with it myself. --Ferien (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this page was deleted per RFD but now it has been recreated, QD G4 has been contested. I would like to have admins to compare this one with the deleted versions. MathXplore (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides a few images added, no significant difference. Deleted. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 09:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going to liberal/woke

you're loosing a great deal of your audience.... falling too far left. GOOD BYE. 216.164.103.160 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear IP, this is a Wikipedia, where anyone can edit. It is clear that the articles will reflect the views of those who edited them. If a particular article shows a bias,so that it no longer represent a neutral view, it can be flagged (with {{NPOV}}. I invite you to flag articles which show this bias, so that they can be fixed. As to my personal political ideas: they are irrelevant, as we are creating a wikipedia, and an article with a lot of bias hopefully won't stay that way for long. I again invite you to create an account, and edit here; anger/hatred and vctim blaiming don't serve us in the long run. Eptalon (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from Koqkpa at User talk:MathXplore

It might be needless to mention that I welcome everyone to my talk page if their messages are constructive enough and helpful for the project, or otherwise provide assistance to me, but I strongly doubt the quality of the questions from Koqkpa to here. The things that generated my concern is

I can hardly understand the question intent for these as a Wikipedian, and I cannot imagine how these things will lead to a helpful conversation for the encyclopedia. How can these be justified or needed? Maybe its too fast to label as extraordinary trolling or activate WP:ONESTRIKE, but how much should we offer free Q&A social networking services for Koqkpa? MathXplore (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is perhaps worth noting that I sanitized Koqpa's user page a few days ago, as they were quite liberal as to the information they shared with the wiki. I also left a message on their talk page. And to answer the question: yes, probably a few wiipedians know me, but I don't think it matters. Eptalon (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This User@Koqkpa, also reverted what I have written on the simple talk page, but then changend it back. Everyone can see if they have a Look on the Simple Talk page. I have no idea what that should be Nalanidil (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't check that. We must be sure about how and how not to use talk pages. MathXplore (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This case seems to be answered at Koqkpa's talk page. MathXplore (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Eptalon, thank you for taking care of the user page incident. We must make sure that this is an online encyclopedia, and user page features are just a part of the project. MathXplore (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the questions aren't the sort of questions I would go around asking users, I don't think it's trolling and newer users ask a lot more questions than users who have been around for a while, even if they are less related to the project. Most importantly, I would strongly discourage any other administrator from blocking Koqkpa under the ONESTRIKE policy, as Koqkpa has done a lot of good work here and has massively improved since his enwiki block. --Ferien (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree to you evaluations, but I did not see those improvements brought to my user talk page. The most doubtful thing (special:diff/8590860) just appeared recently and that is why I brought this agenda to the noticeboard. MathXplore (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1,000 edits is a milestone that you are told about through notifications, and is a pretty big number. Perhaps he just wanted to tell someone about it. I don't think it alone shows that Koqkpa is focused on edit count and not on building an encyclopedia. --Ferien (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) I don't like involving in this matter, still. After checking their track record, it is clear that the user is quite not serious about the user talkbacks. If you refer to their enwiki talk page, he did even give threats about creating another account, which lead to TPA revoke. Maybe he is doing good contributions here but asking unnecessary questions all the time might be considered disturbing to them, for Math I don't know. I must recommend a strong warning for Koqkpa to avoid trolling and making him aware about the onestrike rule. Dibyojyotilet's chat 16:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the onestrike rule is already recognized. I just wanted to give opportunities to focus on encyclopedic works instead the questions as above, so he/she can avoid wasting time on user talk pages. MathXplore (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I guess they are aware now. Perhaps a notice must be given to them of not wasting our time with trolling. Dibyojyotilet's chat 02:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advertising

Could someone take a look at the contributions of 2401:4900:1C48:84FE:ED75:A595:C52A:C229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They dropped a couple ads into articles. The edits were reverted but the summaries are still there with their advert in it. Best to just nuke the whole thing and prevent them from having a free advert. Pure Evil (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The QD is contested but I don' t think notability is claimed in the latest version. MathXplore (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since @Koqkpa: has contested notability, I have sent it to RfD.
Koqkpa: A listing of an artist's works on their biography does not show notability by itself. I can make the claim that I wrote a Mass and a symphony but that wouldn't make me notable enough for Wikipedia. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author does not agree to QD A4 but I only see a plot and character list, possibly missing claim of notability. MathXplore (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new account (already reported to checkuser, possible block evasion) has made this page which is related to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Angel Valeriev Tsvetkov (2nd nomination). Since I cannot check the deleted versions, I would like to have admins to review and compare the pages. MathXplore (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor differences, G4 applied, user blocked. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 10:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

President of Argentina-related articles

Some user/users have been constantly adding fake information onto Alberto Fernández's, Mauricio Macri's, President of Argentina's, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's and Miguel Ángel Pichetto's articles.

The user continues to add fake information that Macri is the 'current' president of Argentina having assumed office in December 2023 (a year from now) and modifies Fernandez's infobox as being the former president (even though he's the incumbent president). Continued edits include making Kirchner a former VP (even though she's the incumbent VP) and Pichetto's infobox by listing him as the incumbent VP (assuming office one year from now).

These edits have been ongoing for a solid month, largely by unregistered user 186.141.135.185 and @Marcos365:. They even go as far as to reverting my edits undoing their vandalism. Is there a way to protect these articles (mainly Fernandez and Macri) and having a more watchful eye on the rest? Some of these false information have been visually public for days.

Thank you. 73.110.175.228 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for alerting us. I have edit-protected the articles for a week (so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them). I invite you to create an account, it makes many things easier. Eptalon (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time for a block of

See here and here amongst others. We have been patient enough. --Gotanda (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've seen enough. Blocked for incivility and violation of ONESTRIKE. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --Gotanda (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page was deleted per RFD, but it was recreated today. I would like to have a comparison and review with the former deleted versions. MathXplore (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment: The article has been renominated for deletion (2nd nom) but the user who created it keeps removing the RfD tag. The comparison may be able to get it QD as recreated RfD and bypass this issue. If so. salting may be in order as a casting director is not likely to ever be notable. Pure Evil (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately, it is not able to be quick deleted as if an RfD gets no comments (as that 1st nom did) then it should be treated as a "soft delete". That being said, if the constant reversion of the RfD template continues then the article could be semi-protected for the remaining duration of the RfD. --Ferien (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem there is that the rules for a soft delete have been violated twice. One by the user as they must request it be undeleted, there is no statement in the rule that they can just recreate a similar article. No request was made. Also, the closing admin is supposed to annotate that it is a soft delete. Auntof6 did not do this. According to what the policy is, there is no indication that a soft delete was done. Also there is no clause in the en. soft delete policy that says a soft delete can not be quick deleted if it is in violation of a valid policy. I find it questionable to defend keeping something based on a policy that the article's existence is a violation of.. Using the rule being broken to defend what is breaking the rule... Pure Evil (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And currently, the user has removed the qd twice and the RfD 2x. 4 instances of removing a deletion tag should be enough to constitute "constant". Pure Evil (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding soft delete: while process wasn't perfectly followed, a soft delete is basically a prod delete. As we have already gone through that one prod, we cannot delete again as that prod only allows us to delete the article once. By deleting this as G4 we would be going directly against what SOFTDELETE says, that soft deletes should be treated as prods. While the guideline on enwiki says that labelling it as a softdelete should be done, it isn't a requirement for a soft delete being a soft delete. It is very clearly a soft delete and IMO can be treated as such even if it was not labelled as one by Auntof6. Finally you warned the user after they reverted the rfd notice and now they have stopped. That's why I said if the reverting does continue it would be protected but from what we have seen so far your warning has stopped them so there is no need to protect the article anymore.--Ferien (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are we reading the same policy? The one you linked to has no mention of the article being redeleted. There is nothing that a G4 quick delete could possibly violate. Soft delete states a few basic things. the article can be deleted, the article can be requested to be undeleted, the deletion should be marked as such. there is a second paragraph but it deals with redirecting the page in applicable which is not applicable in this case. Of those 3 steps, only one was followed. It was deleted. No request, no tagging. Not perfectly is a bit of an understatement. Not marginally would be an overstatement. Not at all would be more accurate.
    As to "we cannot delete again as that prod only allows us to delete the article once". that is completely wrong and violates the deletion policy. The entirety of g4 is all about redeleton after an RfD (not a prod... this is not en.) G4 would not apply if a discussion took place or it was created in the User space. Neither of these took place. This is entirely about an article that was deleted after an uncontested RfD being recreated in a similar form in the article space. this entire thing (the article, the refusal to follow policy, the rfD part 2, this discussion) is just wasting time that could be used to improve things... Pure Evil (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Users must not be allowed to game the system when we have a consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When there aren't any comments, there's not really a consensus. We can avoid any possible "soft delete" results by having more people comment at RfD. --Ferien (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The lack of comments can be from complete consensus. There is often little reason to pile on the delete train if there is no opposition. If someone agrees with the delete reason and no one is opposed, little is achieved with a "me too" / "per nom" post. If nothing was said, take it as either agreement or the fact that it got overlooked/ ignored. Non oppose often equals agree / no opinion. Pure Evil (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a claim of notability is included at this page, but the creator repeats QD tag removal. May I have someone else for checking? MathXplore (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam, with no evidence of notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this page needs semi-protection. IP users continue to make unhelpful and/or non-English changes. MathXplore (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected for 1 week. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 12:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request

Per User talk:WindTempos#Deletion requested, could I request User:ZudoMC/huggle3.css be deleted under QD U1/U2/any other applicable criteria? It's a double redirect from a very old username of mine. Cheers, WindTempos (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WindTempos: Done. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting page protection of this page as this going through IP vandalism. YIEWI talk 20:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

197 line items and 8 refs.. there is little doubt that article is full of fake information. Its the case with IP edits to most lists of this kind. Pure Evil (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged QD but an IP user wants to replace with RFD. How should we take care of this? MathXplore (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QD:A4 requires that it be uncontested. If it is contested, RfD is needed (or an admin going IAR). As the editor is pushing for RfD, that would indicate they are contesting the A4. Just ensure it is tagged properly for RfD (tagged, request page, add to RfD page) and move to the next issue. Pure Evil (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore @Pure Evil: I have declined the QD request because A4 does not apply to events such as parades. A4 applies only to "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites".
If anyone wants to go to RFD, that's fine. However, it isn't enough to just put an RFD template on the page -- an actual request page has to be created, and that page has to be added to the main RFD page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible content dispute, protection needed. MathXplore (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I 100% agree here. 🄰🄽🄸🄼🄰🄻 🄴🄳🄸🅃🄾🅁 - 𝙇𝙚𝙩'𝙨 𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've protected the page and warned both users involved. --Ferien (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module needed

(sort of)


The template {{Pp-move-indef}} is generating a "Script error: No such module "Pp-move-indef" error. This is not a big deal as the template is only used on one page and it is in the User space. Unfortunately, the template is part of {{Protection templates}} so while it is not used, it is linked to on many pages. The pp-indef template also has an internal error showing on its own page. As it is not used, we may want to just remove it from the nav template and delete the pp-indef template as it is unused but that call is above my paygrade. Pure Evil (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We appear to have done the same change as en where the indef template actually isn't necessary anymore so I have gone ahead and redirected {{pp-move-indef}} to {{pp-move}}, and removed it from the nav template. --Ferien (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a claim of notability is included but an IP user continues QD tag removal. MathXplore (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sent to RfD. --Ferien (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice on closing RfDs...

As it's year end-again, let me point out that when an RfD is closed, the 'current year' will be taken for the default reason (generated for the RfD). Therefore, you'll manually have to the enter the reason when you close RfDs that started in 2022, in early 2023. Eptalon (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through and added "|year=2022" to all our pages currently at RfD to avoid any problems getting from the page to the RfD page as we go into 2023. Happy New Year everyone! --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can also set up redirects from the /2023/ page (which is what the MW software will detect) to the /2022/ page (where the actual discussion took place). — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fehufanga: We can, but that could cause conflicts if pages are recreated and nominated again for deletion in 2023. I wonder if it would be good to use the year parameter on all RFDs all the time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we wanted to do that, it would be fairly easy to achieve. Looking at MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js, it appears just one line has to be changed if we want to add the year parameter. --Ferien (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: That change isn't affecting the close reason when I go to close a request. We still have to do something manually. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auntof6, yes, it only fixes the link between the article nominated for deletion and RfD so it doesn't come up with "please create a discussion page" on the article. Although another thing we could do to prevent extra work in the new year is have the RfD fill out the delete reason, like in the QD template. --Ferien (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's few months past, we have two requests already under pending for conclusion. It would be better if an admin/closing admin would keep an eye on this matter. @Elytrian last requested to close the request at the talk page on the 30 September 2022. Dibyojyotilet's chat 11:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRC-B5, that message was posted in 2021. There is currently one request open, I have just closed the other as not successful. While the page states that Proposals run for three weeks., in reality, proposals run for quite a bit longer to allow for more comments. Sometimes, proposals will not even get a single comment in three weeks. Proposals are not closed simply because it has been three weeks since the discussion started, admins would usually wait a bit longer than that before closing. --Ferien (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the action. Dibyojyotilet's chat 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a valid claim of notability is included, but author continues to remove QD tag. MathXplore (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Deleted --Ferien (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page has been recreated again; after it is deleted I would recommend the page be protected. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the two users Indahkusnul and Marwah16 (likely the same person as this has happened before when the page was created) are removing the QD templates, but the page should still be up for QD InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tossed it up for RfD to make it harder on them. They can remove the tag all they want but it wont stop the RfD. A4 could still be applied though not everyone beleives it does so that gets tricky. Snow could still resolve the case quickly but it will eventually get to a decision without it. Salting may be in order if deletion is the result. As there is a good likelihood of sockpuppetry here, a CU may want to be standing by in case this becomes an issue later. Not fishing, just staying vigilant. Pure Evil (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went and requested CU attention after I had deleted it. It appears they're using socks to make it look as though more people have an opinion against its deletion than is actually the case. I will let a CU deal with it from here. --Ferien (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]