Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 85

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Hi, there are a few requests in this category which haven't been dealt with in a long time, could an admin please look through? Matrix (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: Someone must have taken care of them because the category is empty now. Thanks for the nudge. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

BRPever took care of it. -Barras talk 21:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Resolved. Barras talk 21:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Mia9542

Regarding Mia9542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)...

The above user is blocked at English Wikipedia via a checkuser block. The checkuser who performed the block did not name the connected account nor is there an SPI; that checkuser (Ponyo) is currently on vacation so I can't ask her what's up to determine if there's a connected Simple blocked user. Does anyone recognize a pattern with this user that matches anyone who's blocked here at Simple? I'm not asking for a checkuser fishing expedition here; just looking to see if their edit pattern matches anyone other users are familiar with.

Long story short, they've made dozens of translated stub articles that are generally orphaned and generally not showing notability, and I'd rather not sift through each one if we can consider a nuke option for G5 purposes. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern: I can't speak to the checkuser issue, but I have left another message telling the user that the articles they created don't have enough info and don't show notability. If it continues, we can escalate that to the point of blocking and nuking.

Maybe one of the other enwiki checkusers could give us more information. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on caste pages

For some time now I have been acting as mediator on various POV edit wars going on to the Caste based pages. As such I have now made it a requirement that any new additions to these pages must first get consensus on the relevant talk page prior to any edits going libe. I have warned the editors that directly editing without consensus will result in either an out right block or else a topic ban. Just FYI. Thx fr33kman 11:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Baldi's Basics

Hello. I can't revert the vandalism on Baldi's Basics as the edit filter is blocking the URL kickstarter[.]com (it was in the page originally). Could someone please take a look? Thanks -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done fr33kman 14:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

These categories need to be merged somehow

• Category:Wikimedians banned by the WMF, which doesn't exist, but includes three pages.
• Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

2607:F140:6000:8032:7CD9:9D9F:1917:7739 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I made the Wikimedians one a redirect. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

RevDel

Not 100% sure but I think this is something you are supposed to RevDel. (Sorry if this isn't the right place to report this) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 04:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

QD deletion request

Hi, Could someone delete Mexico Countryballs as an IP keeps removing the qd, Page is a hoax, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Done.-- BRP ^ever 19:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks BRP much appreciated –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Abuse filter (in regard to something 'beyond copying over, one bad-fourLetter-word)?

Today, i copied from en-wiki (from a disambig page), and pasted large parts of it, to sandbox (and attribution got done also).

I seem to remember that when i did Preview (before publishing), then there was no warning about 'bad edit etc'.

At the end of this post, 'a diff' is mentioned.--Some time around 8 AM, i removed
"[... one four-letter word] for Forest, an environmental group that raises money through the production of pornography".

If the use of Sandbox was problematic (beyond copying a 'four-letter bad word',from an en-wiki disambig), then i do not understand why.

Edit comment for the two diffs 'that seem to have set off (automated) alarms':

• 08:02, 9 June 2025: 2001:2020:309:cbe7:a13e:f8c5:22fd:4b0b (talk) triggered an abuse filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Abuse of sandbox (diff)
• 08:00, 9 June 2025: 2001:2020:309:cbe7:a13e:f8c5:22fd:4b0b (talk) triggered an abuse filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Abuse of sandbox. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:B93D:391D:6372:A173 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, my later edits at Sandbox, did not 'set of alarms', to my knowledge. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:B93D:391D:6372:A173 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

User has been blocked for two weeks for general disruption. fr33kman 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

New block interface?

I went to block an IP earlier and upon clicking the block link was taken to a new "Manage blocks" page with what I can only assume is a new interface for blocking people. It has new options on it too. Is this the same for everyone else or is it just me? Thanks, fr33kman 01:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Same for me it seems, and across all projects.-- BRP ^ever 02:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Would have been nice to get a heads up. It seems the devs these days are just rolling out changes as they please. I do like the table that shows up after you block someone. fr33kman 02:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: Could it perhaps have been mentioned in the tech newsletter? I don't always keep up with that, so I don't know if it was there. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't know, I never read it. I guess it's not a big deal as it's easy to figure out, it was just a surprise. fr33kman 02:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There were mentions in the tech news but I was caught by surprise as well.-- BRP ^ever 02:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman There is a further read at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Multiblocks if you are interested. BRP ^ever 02:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link fr33kman 02:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Me, too. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Can you protect Mark Speight? There's a lot of vandlalism. 2607:F140:6000:8072:50FD:3C0A:40FC:5D51 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There has been vandalism, but it doesn't reach the threshold of being too much to keep up with so it doesn't need protection at this time. Thanks to Barras for reverting today's vandalism. I'll add the page to my watchlist. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has resumed again at Mark Speight. Can we consider a protection for a bit? Since April, there have been 344 edits to the article, and I don't see any that aren't vandalism or someone reverting vandalism. The En. article is protected until December, and it appears that the IP users have just moved here instead. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern: Done for a month. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Block review for 2001:2020:309:CBE7::/64

The IP range 2001:2020:309:CBE7::/64 was blocked on June 1 for one week and on June 11 for two weeks, both by Fr33kman. I do not believe the reason for blocking was good enough, and at least an admin should have explained the problem to them on their talk page. In the section above titled Disruptive IP, Steven1991 said linked to a number of edits on the sandbox, which I assume were caught by the abuse filter. The fact that they were logged by the abuse filter does itself make them vandalism, as some were tagged due to containing swear words, such as the mention of an organization called "Fuck for Forest" which was mentioned by the IP range themself in the discussion above labeled Abuse filter (in regard to something 'beyond copying over, one bad-fourLetter-word)?. In some cases, it appears the problem was that other editors did not understand this IP's comments, not that they were vandalism. For example, the discussion on Simple Talk labeled Vandalism? (jocularity in infobox?) in which the IP range linked specifically to an edit to June 2025 Los Angeles protests in which someone else had added "Crips, Bloods and other local gang members" to the infobox. However Steven1991 again accused them of vandalism there, which was not the case. I hope other admins can look into this situation and either unblock or tell the IP user on their talk page what they should do to avoid being blocked in the future. 75.238.96.221 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the range due to the number of trivial requests and disruptive posts on community pages. The user was asked multiple times to stop but ignored those requests. fr33kman 19:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

How are these not vandalism? The IP user misused the QD function and restored nonsensical content on at least one stable page several times. Patrolling admins had reminded the IP user repeatedly before restrictions were imposed. This alone justifies further range blocks when the IP user’s hopping back and forth with slightly different IP addresses to repeat the same disruptive operations. You are obviously not presenting the truth here. Steven1991 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Unblock discussion for User:Immanuelle

User unblocked. BRP ^ever 01:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

(moved from ST)

I am putting forth a proposal to discuss the potential unblock of user Immanuelle. This person was blocked almost two years ago for creating bad pages. They are only blocked in main space and retain access to their user space to create draft articles. I have seen this user editing quite often while I've been patrolling New Changes and have delved into their edits and block history out of interest. I personally believe that whatever problems existed before do not exist now. I support unblocking their account and restoring their access to main space. I am putting this forth to the community rather than just unblocking them on my own right because of the nature and length of the block. Also they have made it pretty clean of their user page that they are too afraid to ask for an unblock themselves : hence why I am suggesting it here. Thanks, fr33kman 01:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Was the block in response to a community ban discussion? If not, it doesn't require a community discussion to unblock. Maybe this should be at WP:AN.

But to reply to the issue at hand, I see that the reason for the block by Operator873 was given as "Creating bad pages: Continuing to create machine translation pages with complex language. Limit from article space for now." Before unblocking, and since Immanuelle has been working on drafts in userspace, I'd want to see some draft articles that are in good shape. I've looked at some minor things that Immanuelle asked for feedback on, but I haven't evaluated any entire draft articles, so at this point I don't know what shape they're in. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess we can move it to AN. I want to get opinions on it because I didn't feel comfortable just removing the block. Immanuelle has listed a few draft pages above so you can get an idea of her edits. fr33kman 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Don't you want to tell the user about this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme they did tell me about it. The conversation was just kind of cut off when moved from Simple Talk. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Noted Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Fr33kman I'd support an unblock on condition that they take care of not publishing pages to mainspace unless the pages are ready. The block is quite old, and some of the drafts I checked looks good.-- BRP ^ever 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'd agree to unblock. Just checked five random pages, which are ok for article space. The articles probably need some more work, but I don't think the complex article rationale is still valid. Some sort of a mentorship or something would probably be helpful, I guess. -Barras talk 16:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'd support an unblock too, I've checked their drafts and those tagged with InUse are obviously not ready for mainspace and those that aren't tagged with it are fine/are ready for mainspace. I'm not seeing any problematic edits or behaviour here, Seems the user has learned from this so yeah I'd support unblocking, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Piling-on, support unblock. The user showed willingness to cooperate and improve the quality of their pages before looking to move them to mainspace, and I have no reason to suspect the issues will reappear. Plus, if (in some universe) it goes wrong, we can just re-add the block.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• I gladly support this unblock. I have seen four of this user's drafts and they seem fine to me (sufficiently simplified), so there is no need for the block anymore. --Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I'm an en wiki admin who wants this community to know about the edits this user, Greghenderson2006 is importing from en wiki where his sock, User:Historyjunkie2024, was just blocked. Here, Greg created Sidewalk Clock at 783 Fifth Avenue which Hj created on en wiki en:Sidewalk Clock, 783 Fifth Avenue (now deleted). I'm not sure this project's prohibitions against such behavior, but flagging if it needs attention. I'll watch here but feel free to ping me on en wiki Star Mississippi (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment, he has been blocked on Commons

Star Mississippi (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTHERE Dishonest behavior, like sock puppetry applies given that both of the aforementioned accounts exist here. Simple Wikipedia is not a secondary playground for someone whose been kicked out of standard English Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, we will keep an eye out for any problems. At this point there is no indication of socking here. fr33kman 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman:, I believe WP:NOTHERE applies. Simple Wikipedia is intended as displaying contents similar to en.wiki in simpler English for ease of understanding. Not an alternate dumping ground for non-notable articles or advertorial junk. If you look at Greghenderson's articles created here, you'll immediately see the contents are written in difficulty level more appropriate for main en.wiki. Graywalls (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I've QDed the article under A3 as its a complex article from another Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! fr33kman 19:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman:, generally speaking that is. You'll see he's specifically focused on people and local places, most particularly Carmel-by-the-Sea in a township in the US State of California, like Tirey L. Ford, Pacific Improvement Company, which appears to be meant to expand his "Carmelopedia" than to help make things simpler to understand. So, everything about WP:NOTHERE is relevant. The editor also has a history of undisclosed paid editing on numerous occasions on en.wiki. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, will definitely keep a close eye on the situation. I'm also a checkuser so will keep an eye out for socks. fr33kman 22:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Fr33kman for your assistance and advice Star Mississippi (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Togetic

Togetic (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article is suffering some edit warring between an IP and different users. The page has been redirected to List of Pokémon multiple times. The IP reverts that now for like a month. I'd appreciate a semi-protection and revert to the redirect. -Barras talk 13:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverted back to redirect and protected.-- BRP ^ever 13:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Mass Hoax article creation by a blocked user

Two users, TheMaxChannel528-24 (talk · contribs) (their article creations) and TheMaxChannel528-35 (talk · contribs) (their article creations), have created a bunch of TV network articles such as Star Channel (Australian TV channel), FX (Japanese TV channel), and Discovery Kids (Southeast Asia). They're all essentially the same issues: unsourced, unverifiable, and not on other wikis. Googling these channels is giving back these articles plus fandom wikis. I'm not finding existence for them.

Each account is blocked on English and Spanish Wikipedias for socking. What's the best way to approach these accounts and articles? I'd like to avoid making massive RFDs if possible and I don't feel confident enough to declare them all hoaxes for QD purposes. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern what about merging them all into articles like Discovery Kids?

They might be not on other wikis because their operations in a single country are not notable, but notable as a group. Then we can work on trimming off the unverifiable content later. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern update both have been blocked by @MathXplore so is it good to just delete all the pages as hoaxes now? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern @MathXplore considering that they seem to be just posting things from this site https://dreamlogos.fandom.com/wiki/NBC_(Russia) to here, and this site seems to be explicitly a hoax wiki, I think they should all be speedy deleted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 would you be able to mass delete their created pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Any admin can do a mass delete of a user's created pages if they agree it's appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 do you agree this is appropriate? You are an admin right? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern Most of the ones I looked either are hoax or have no sources or claims for verification. Many I couldn't even find outside simplewiki, I will be mass deleting these, any other admin is free to restore them if they see value these content.-- BRP ^ever 16:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have left a few out that had enwiki equivalent, and few redirects that looked fine. Please check those and take them to RFD if necessary.-- BRP ^ever 17:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting through this; it definitely saved a lot of work on tagging and such. I'll take a glance at things this week and follow up as appropriate. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Unblock template

Hello, fellow admins. I updated our unblock template by importing from English Wikipedia. That fixed a problem where a user's request sometimes didn't display properly. To see the text we need to accept or decline the request, we now need to expand the "Administrator use only" section. We don't currently have the "Unblock on hold" template that section shows, but if anyone wants that template, we can import it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Hi, can you point to an example of problem with the template. I would like to keep the design a bit distinct from enwiki to avoid people confusing us with en, so I am wondering if it can be updated and fixed instead.-- BRP ^ever 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: Sure. I put the previous code in the sandbox, and here's an example.

************BEGINNING OF EXAMPLE****************

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

• Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_85 (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock • check user)
• Reason for unblocking:

I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)

---

Administrators: If you decline this request, replace this template with:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)|decline=reason -- ~~~~}}

If you accept this request, replace this template with:

{{subst:unblocked|1=I'm sorry --Auntof6 (talk)|2=reason}}

************END OF EXAMPLE****************

You can see that blue background shows up only as a thin horizontal box, and the actual request isn't inside of it as it should be. I've seen this off and on before. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: It appears that the issue was because of two special characters :: used at the start. I think It's fixed after I added a line at the start.--BRP ^ever 23:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: Cool. If you're waiting for my approval before implementing, go ahead. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, we have gone back to the plain old template now. Please let me know if you see it causing any error. Thanks,-- BRP ^ever 23:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete and block request

Hi, Could someone delete Pat And Patty please as an IP keeps recreating it, and could the following IP be rangeblocked please as they've been doing this for a few days on a new IP,

• 2405:201:a016:c832:a464:2744:707c:3b1f (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, second this request for deletion and WP:SALT at Pat And Patty and OurCal. They're being frequently recreated by spammers. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I did originally request protection here too but removed it assuming a rangeblock would be enough, Of course I have no objections to salting this and the others, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 Moselweine - repeatedly recreated –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman or @FusionSub - Could the IP be rangeblocked please? They've been doing this all day on new IPs, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Already done by fr33kman.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Just did it fr33kman 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Freekman much appreciated –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

They've now moved on to Pat and Patty (without the capital And). Could that be salted too? CountryANDWestern (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern: Salted for 3 months by BRPever. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

New manage blocks interface

Just an FYI. I went to change a block to add a revoke talk page access to a user and I ended up adding a second block to the user rather than just changing the existing block. What you have to do (I now know) is click on the little pencil to modify the existing block. A little different but tricky if you're not expecting it. Cheers ;) fr33kman 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Bhumibol Adulyadej and Vajiralongkorn

Helo fellow Admins, please protect these articles due to persistent vandalism by changing the date of death, reign and age of Bhumibol Adulyadej. The IP user also vandalise his successor, incumbent Vajiralongkorn. Thank you. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 15:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Henri Aja: First one semi-protected for 3 months. The other one not protected because it hasn't had much vandalism, and none in the last week. Feel free to report it again if vandalism increases. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Auntof6, much appreciated. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 06:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I got a minor error that was remaining Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Immanuelle. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^Talk ✉ 08:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit war at Roma people

Hi all, this morning I got a request to look into this case, and I did see some disruptive editing from the account here and on enwiki for which I blocked them. However, I think some effort at communicating should have been done by other involved users. Now that this has passed, I would like to bring the page to a stable version. @Steven1991: thinks that the current content is dubious and promotes a POV, and on my not-so-deep analysis, I do think that is the case to an extent. So, if someone with some degree of familiarity can look into the sources and update the page to a stable version, that'd be great. Since this has been going on for a while, I would like someone familiar to review it once before we see if the page needs protectsion.-- BRP ^ever 12:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Id like a more detailed rationale as to what is NPOV, but realistically this is a content issue now, rather than an administrative one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever The user seems to have set up another account to repeat the same action, with deceptive editing summaries. Steven1991 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Salin Man Bania

Hello fellow administrators. I need help you for deleting the article because this article have deleted in English Wikipedia and many others the reason is cross-wiki spam article. Regards Badak Jawa (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 please delete the article Badak Jawa (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Badak Jawa I've QD-tagged their articles under G5, You could've done this yourself, Also please stop pinging admins as it's not an emergency and the articles will be deleted when the next available admin comes back online, Until then we be patient and wait, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Badak Jawa: The article has been deleted. I agree with Davey: please do not ping individual administrators when you post on the admins' noticeboard. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Mia9542

Mia9542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above user continues to create articles as translations that require clean up from other users or have questionable notability. They have been warned to stop many times, including by an administrator, but continue their article creations. They have not edited anywhere but articles; they have not made any indication that they are aware of the concerns. They are blocked on the English Wikipedia as a sock of a long-term blocked IP address. Please consider a ONESTRIKE application for creating bad pages and not engaging in addressing concerns. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Imho their articles should be nuked and they should be blocked per ONESTRIKE, All of their articles are more or less one-liner stubs none of which contain any sources at all, –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• I blocked the user. They've been warned numerous times, and I actually fixed quite a few of their articles. However, they don't seem to be willing to learn or responding to the existing problems. It's time to stop that per WP:ONESTRIKE and creating bad pages or making unhelpful changes to the project. I'm not going to just delete everything, we need to sort that out a bit. Articles that are already fixed and notable don't need to be deleted. -Barras talk 20:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Barras Oops sorry Barras, I had only checked 3 of their articles and those 3 were unsourced-one-liners so I simply assumed they all were, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

RFD backlog

There is a big RFD backlog. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 08:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, admin. I've been working on reducing the count at Special:WithoutInterwiki, and it's resulting in a lot of RFDs and QDs because there are many pages that slipped through new page patrols. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it has been that way for a while. We are mopping our best. ;}-- BRP ^ever 13:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just closed a bunch of requests. The backlog is now down to the pages I nominated. Someone else should close those requests. (If no one is doing that, I will also take care of those requests.) -Barras talk 13:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I closed the rest, except one which I think might need some more discussion.-- BRP ^ever 13:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could someone revdel this please, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 10:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Done. -Barras talk 11:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for page protection: Sophie Xeon

Hello, I would like to request semi-protection or full protection for the article Sophie Xeon.

The page has been subject to recent vandalism and disrespectful content regarding SOPHIE’s gender identity and cause of death. I believe page protection is necessary to prevent further harm, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject and SOPHIE’s status as a respected figure in the transgender and music communities.

Thank you. Berlington11 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Berlington11:  Not done Our rule of thumb is to protect pages if there is so much vandalism that it's difficult to keep up with. That isn't the case here. The most recent edits to the page were on 28 June: there were four edits, including your three. During this month, there were only seven edits, including the four on 28 June. That isn't enough to protect. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah. Alright then.

Thanks for response!

Berlington11 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Userspace admin protection

I will try to create a more complete list (if there are anymore) tomorrow, but for now can an admin please unprotect User:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archive box. I'm sorry, I had not planned for what happens if I don't have the permissions lol. --IWI (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No urgency at all btw. --IWI (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:  Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :) --IWI (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Protection of Italian brainrot

The Italian Brainrot page has been repeatedly vandalized. I suggest restricting it to auto-confirmed users and up Thegoofhere (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thegoofhere:  Not done Our rule of thumb is to protect pages if there is so much vandalism that it's difficult to keep up with. That isn't the case here. The article has had only 5 edits in the last week. The most recent edits before that were a few on 14 June. That isn't enough to protect. Feel free to report again if the amount of vandalism becomes difficult to keep up with. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Page SputnikMusic Being Consistently Edited by Agenda'd Ex-Staff

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnikmusic&action=history

Users keep adding an unnecessary "Controversy" section (with and without neutral language issues)

There was indeed a contingent of staff who recently chose to leave the site. Some have taken defamation of the site to wikipedia. I apologize for any edit warring. User "tectactoe" is a user who has decided to aggressively provide "support" to ex-staffers. TwentyWhiteTents is former staff member JohnnyOfTheWell who has been demoted and banned from the site and is understandably unhappy about that. 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the Simple English Wikipedia. You need to ask on the admins noticeboard on the English Wikipedia. We can't help you here fr33kman 14:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I have no idea what I'm doing. 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Abuse filter

These abuse filters have not been hit for the pass few years/have not been hit much and should be disabled:

• 112 (By Eptalon, 2 hits, last hit in 2024)
• 120 (By Operator873, 44 hits, last hit in 2023)
• 140 (By Fr33kman, 45 hits, last hit in 2024)
• 141 (By Fr33kman, 2 hits, last hit in 2024)

Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 07:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that because they have been hit they should remain. They aren't hurting anyone's ability to edit and may be used again in the future. If they had zero hits I could understand. fr33kman 11:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

how about the one that was hit 2yrs ago? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 12:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it doesn't hurt to have filters like this "just in case" they end up being useful in the future. If others feel they are unnecessary, maybe they should be combined since some of them are quite short? Ternera (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess they could be expanded, but an admin need to do that. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 22:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, abuse filters are usually monitored quite closely by admins. There are actually quite a few that have been disabled in the last few years. The main issue is when false positives start to occur, but as long as a filter is doing its job, there's not much reason to disable it unless it hasn't been hit in years and years. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, someone might want to chk the private ones. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested for Don Bradman

Hi, I'm having a spot of bother with an IP who seems to be fixated with a particular link in this article. I've had to revert three times in the last three days. Basically, the IP clearly does not understand redirects, and will not comply with w:WP:NOTBROKEN. I think a period of semi-protection, perhaps till the end of July, would be justifiable. What do you think? Thanks very much. Jack (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Just as a note - usually, protection is only added if it's the only option available to solve the vandalism, per WP:SEMI. Ternera (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Ternera. I realise it's not a major problem, and I'll be happy to just keep an eye on it. Hopefully, they will get the message. All the best. Jack (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Yeah, I'll keep a watch on it too but this isn't the level of disruption we'd consider protection at yet. Thanks, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Ferien. All the best. Jack (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of talk pages

What on earth is the point of this? Examples:

• Special:Redirect/logid/2974293
• Special:Diff/10372453

172.56.200.107 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

In both cases, a user (an IP in the first case, a registered user in the second case) had created multiple article talk pages that contained only the talk page header template. We don't want to encourage that, and the pages were deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Steven1991 and targeted harassment

Hi, Steven1991 was blocked from EN.Wiki for harassment, and has taken it upon himself to try to drag my name through the mud in edits such as this https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10174808, and taking it off wiki https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestinian_Violence/comments/1hgveqf/yeah_sure_the_juice_poisoned_the_wells_username/. I have also reported this to trust and safety. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF for more. Polygnotus (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns and have removed the image myself as well. I think that the whole Online_antisemitism#English_Wikipedia needs to be closely examined, particularly its use of images. What is in the article is labeling particular users as antisemites, even if names are obscured. This raises WP:NPA concerns. I don't know the history at English Wikipedia that led to the block of Steven1991, but if there was a harassment campaign of this particular user that contributed to that block, continuing here by adding that image to the article reeks of continuing the harassment and may need the consideration of a WP:ONESTRIKE block. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern Would you be so kind to remove File:Serial_erasure_of_content_in_a_Jewish_history_article_by_a_user_engaging_in_tendentious_editing.jpg from Wikipedia:Vandalism? I am not autoconfirmed here. And yes, they should be indeffed. This kinda behaviour is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some of the trash, but someone should really take a critical look at those sections. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have some concerns over their pages as well. Some of them seem to have OR, complex, and based on studies/sources that represent one side of things. However, I have had some involvement with them on an RFA so I am not the best person to handle this situation but I have seen more than enough for WP:ONESTRIKE.-- BRP ^ever 02:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The edit on Antisemitism alone is sufficient for a WP:ONESTRIKE block. The original research is another reason. Blocked. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 09:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's a fun one. Whenever Steven and I have had conflict, I get repeated password requests from an IP either in Scotland or on the border of Scotland. I can't prove it's them, but it seems highly suspicious, given that Steven has said on his EN.Wiki talk page that he is from the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Lucy Letby - article protection

Please consider semi-protection of Lucy Letby due to continued IP disruption there. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

User:CountryANDWestern

A dispute has arisen between myself and this editor (C&W) who has apparently decided that I'm not fit to deal with rogue micro-stubs in the cricket sphere. I took issue with C&W over this edit which I reverted, posting my reasons on the article's talk page. With no regard for w:WP:BRD, C&W abruptly restored the edit and refuses to comply with BRD. C&W has subsequently set about restoring other micro-stubs which I had redirected, obviously to make a w:WP:POINT.

I should make clear that I don't object to anyone restoring a redirect if they are going to expand the article citing reliable sources—I do that myself. It may be argued that this is all C&W is doing. But, is C&W interested in cricket, or is C&W asserting that C&W is right and there is nothing to discuss? Does C&W really believe that we should store a huge pile of useless micro-stubs that were created indiscriminately by bad editors with questionable motives—for example, the Auckland IP, Nikolai Kurbatov, or Spec150?

I have another concern about C&W. I noticed that they first edited Simple on 15 May, only three days after I started here, and so I looked at their first edits to see what brought them here. I was a bit surprised that C&W's first edit used a warning template. A few minutes later, C&W was loading the monobook.js and the twinkleoptions.js. So, I assumed they must have, like myself, come over from enwiki having had years of experience there.

I then looked at C&W's Xtools to see the extent of their experience. This shows that C&W had never used Wikipedia before 15 May. They have made a small number of edits at each of enwiki, wikidata, and commoms since then. I think this needs to be investigated, because no one can know so much about Wikipedia processes and procedures without long experience. This person is plainly not a "newbie". It is interesting to read C&W saying You haven't been around long enough to know on 1 June, only a fortnight after joining.

I suppose C&W might claim to have been a long-term IP editor, or they might put forward the old "fresh start" chestnut. If they were an IP, we should really be asking for evidence of past editing. If it is a "fresh start", what was/were the former account(s), and why has a fresh start been necessary?

Please ping me if you need to ask me anything. Thanks. Jack (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Is that now about edit warring somewhere (which is one problem that need to be looked at) or is that about a person possibly doing a clean start, assuming good faith in that point? -Barras talk 14:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m also curious since this was broad to AN: what administrative action is being sought? CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Uh the whole point of a fresh start is that you don’t reveal the previous account so you’re not connected. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting.--(Fresh start? Well, user:C&W is now 'largely claiming that c. none of the Norwegian mayors (of municipalities), are notable to on a List of Norwegian mayors (2023-2027). If not a frivilous claim, then it seems close.--Here is the article, where user C&W is part of a '2-1 lead', in regard to "votes".--Now, if user:C&W is in fact, edit-warring (as the original poster, seems to claim): Would it not be enough to give one or more warnings, and following that, one steps up sanctions, to say a one-week block.--Thoughts? 2001:2020:359:B9D1:8915:4255:47BD:6A40 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

C&W is a fresh start account so that explains his editing experience. He has no requirement to explain who he was or explain the circumstances of why they did a fresh start. This is not the first time this has been brought up and we have expressed support for C&Ws fresh start. He has not caused problems on simplewiki (apart from nominating about 7000 articles for RfD :) fr33kman 14:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hollowww - edit intentions

Hollowww (talk · contribs) has made 804 edits since starting to edit here on June 4. Of those 805 edits, 800 are to their user space, 2 to their user talk, 1 to Wikipedia space, 1 to the template space, and 1 to a main space article. They have made 36 subpages of articles that are unlikely to pass Simple English standards for language and construction.

They are currently blocked on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I asked about their edit intentions on their user talk page and they said "I only want to make and use sandbox there, I don't intend to create articles at the moment" and, when asked what they're writing the drafts/what they intend to do with them, "Just for fun I'd say, I like writing." I see WP:NOTHERE intentions with this account; they don't intend to contribute to the project, just to write their own things for their own "entertainment." Can an admin please review if further discussion or any action is needed with the user? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can assure you that I never meant to actually publish any articles on the Simple Wikipedia, and that I have been using my sandbox area for personal practice and to learn formatting and editing suitable for Wikipedia. I understand how my edits could have appeared suspicious to you and other editors, and I apologize for creating any misunderstanding that I did. I'm glad to restrict my sandbox activities or follow any recommendations or advice to avoid that this all happens again. -- Hollowww (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that since you responded to this post, you have made one main space edit and approximately 200 to your user space pages. CountryANDWestern (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi, Could someone delete all of the empty talkpages 217.161.67.210 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has created please, I'm guessing the IP is an LTA so wouldn't object to them being blocked either, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Done and done fr33kman 15:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Freekman much appreciated :), Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

List of countries

You know how List of countries by area is semi-protected indefinitely? Well List of countries should be protected for the same reason. People have recently been adding entries such as:

• West Korea
• Queen
• North Switzerland
• Mykolaiv Oblast

Yeah, it really needs to be protected. And some criteria should be established for the list. Should it be sovereign states, or does it include territories and dependencies. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that all of the vandalism today is from the same IP. It would probably help to block them as a first start. I have reported them to WP:VIP. Ternera (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much going to say  Not done on that request. I also think we should consider removing the other protection. Not sure this is still needed. -Barras talk 19:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Create protection

this per user request Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 22:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

User:AjirikMitau is reverting my deletion requests

Please make him stop doing it Trade (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I placed a warning on their talk page since that had not been done yet. Ternera (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked by MathXplore Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Gadget request

Hello! I'd like to request the creation of a new local gadget called WizardCat, which I have written and tested. It is a semi-automated tool that helps add categories to the pages that are currently in Category:Category needed.

When in effect, it loads the uncategorized pages and suggests categories using the Wikidata P910 links and the categories on enwiki's version of the article. It allows the user to click to automatically (using MediaWiki's API) add the selected category and (if present) remove the {{uncategorized}} template (HotCat rarely removes these templates). CSRF is also used here. Categories from enwiki will only show up if our Wikipedia has them.

Would an admin kindly move the script to "MediaWiki:Gadget-WizardCat.js" and add WizardCat[ResourceLoader]|WizardCat.js to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, please?

I would very much like feedback on this if something doesn't seem right. Thank you for your time! ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 19:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far, although I just have a couple of comments to make:

• For Ain't I a Woman? I was presented with a category to add from enwiki, with a tick, but the article already had the category on. Does this tick mean the category is already added? Also, should it have loaded if the page was no longer uncategorised by the time I looked at it?
• As a procedural note, I'm not sure how we go about adding new gadgets, as we rarely get them. Should we have a discussion first before adding them, have a slight testing phase first, etc? Not certain on this end of things, so I'll defer to another bureaucrat or admin.

--Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien The ticks were supposed to be for suggestions, but I changed them to lightbulbs to show they are suggestions. Categories that are already added to the article are not displayed.

No, WizardCat does not load. After the next button is pressed, the article is seen as categorized and is not seen again.

I think testing the code and consensus would work in this case. This can be between administrators here or posted on the Simple talk to gather other users' thoughts. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a period of time would be a good idea to let people play with it and that there should be a gathering of consensus; although I'm sure people will like it. It should only require a short period of trial. It should be done on STfr33kman 00:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

My comments:

• If simple and enwiki both have a category, but the name is different (for example, if ours uses simpler words), does the gadget recognize this and suggest our category? Or does it only suggest if the names are the same?
• It can be a problem if a page is incompletely categorized. For example, with a biographical article, if the only categories added are for birth and death years, that is not enough, but the page leaves Category:Category needed and we lose the indicator that more categories are still needed. I see this often when people do the categorization, and I suspect it would be the same with a tool. I think it is less of a problem for the page to stay as it is than to be incompletely categorized.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the script only suggest the ones with the same name as I had gone through quite a few with no suggestions. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there an edit summary for the script, so that more users know about this and that people know the user is using the script? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme The tool does have an automated edit summary. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee why does it add/suggest non-existent cats? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee I have a suggestion. Can it be called CatWizard instead? A powerful feline wizard. Polygnotus (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

314 Action Editing war

There are documents cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/314_Action that are for 314 Action Fund. I sent the user the two seperate entity registrations with the Federal Election Comission and he said that it was the same. User also attempted to add zionism in the United States as a category, but that wouldn't apply to this group. Additionally the article referenced spending so it was critical to include the spending attributed to the correct organization.

Here are the links cited in the article that belong to another organization

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633248/1785300/sa/ALL/3

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633248/1785300/

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/314-action-fund/C00633248/pac-to-pac/2024

He says the website has a paid for by 314 AF - but couldn't it be a shared brand?

Here are the two legal entities paperwork with the FEC https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633248/?tab=about-committee

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C90017781/?tab=about-committee

Please help remove the edits attributed to the wrong organization and protect 314 Action Jc124!1 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That editwar is on the English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/314_Action Also read https://theintercept.com/2024/05/03/portland-aipac-susheela-jayapal-maxine-dexter/ it looks like you misunderstand. Polygnotus (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes the article was incorrectly citing the wrong entity Jc124!1 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Polygnotus

I have recently been in discussions with @Polygnotus about changes. I would like to report misconduct. The user has constantly harassed me as I have explained here and later revised here. The disagreement over conduct concluded with his apology, and that's where it ended. However, Today I noticed he removed the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page, which is quite a weird thing to do. In accordance to his edit summary, I searched for controversy but could only find controversy relating to them defining anti-Zionism as anti-semitic, yet in what he removed (from the main page), there was nothing about antisemitism nor antizionism. As such, I concluded the edit constituted vandalism (factoring in my previous interactions with him) and have posted a warning on his talk (which he proceeded to delete immediately and ask me about it in my talk page). We proceeded to debate the validity of his edits. He has failed to source his claims despite claiming to do so (spicing it with ). At another instance, he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own, uncited definition (WP:OR), rather than relying on academic sources and primary sources (enwiki, which he invoked as a source, is not a source, and in fact, it disagrees with him as well). In our discussion he was not attacking my point, but a separate one, which I have never brought up. He was talking as if I have said removing the antisemitism definition is the vandalism, when in fact I very clearly stated that it was the holocaust denial definition that he removed which I found to be vandalism. Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. The old definition of antisemitism that included the specific holocaust-denial related definitions I concluded were vandalism to remove did not have any controversy around them, making his claims of controversy especially invalid, since not only does no one today say it is controversial, but actually there was nothing controversial about the organization and definition as a whole before they added the anti-Zionism is antisemitism clauses. Essentially, he has removed a great chunk of information that included the holocaust denial definition, which was the one I paid attention to, with a bit in the notes that was justified in removing. This constitutes en:WP:GAMING

I would like to point out that this behavior may be cross-wiki. Just from this comment alone, when he denied request for comment, baselessly accused me of WP:ATTACK and rudely asserted It is obvious that you are wrong, you can clearly see he is WP:NOTTHERE. Record shows that any time I reverse his changes, a revert by him follows, yet he is the one who accused me of edit warring twice . One time for a wiki article, which turned out to be a misunderstanding and was retracted, and another time for two reverts I've done on his talk page, one a regular revert and one with an addition of information. Record shows I try to reason and walk back on what I say/do when I am wrong, but he will just not en:W:DROPIT when needed.

Here is another example of WP:OR.

Also, I didn't mention it above but he immediately reverted all my reverts of him, violating en:WP:BRD

Another thing I found odd is him trying to remove the record of him accusing me of edit warring, and hiding it in the history by adding text so that it doesn't seem like something was removed. It was especially odd when this repeated today, with him removing my notices on his talk. but that is not a part of the report so take it where you want it

Sorry for the long report, but there was quite a bit to cover. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

mentioning @Fr33kman since you concluded neither of us have been rude or dishonest NorthernWinds (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds Record shows I try to reason and walk back on what I say/do when I am wrong Records will show that you keep doubling down when proven wrong, and this post is a great example of that. I'll waste another hour of my life refuting all your claims if necessary, but in an ideal world reading your talkpage should be enough.

he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own Other way around. You restored the incorrect version after I fixed the problem, so then I had to fix it again.

Detailed response follows, so for now I'll say that I am a bit tired of dealing with NorthernWinds personal attacks (claiming constructive edits are vandalism) and his editwarring on my talkpage. It is obvious that NorthernWinds is following me around and posting baseless accusations. Polygnotus (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

And of course they broke 3RR on my talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I have been cleaning up the mess Steven1991 left behind, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Steven1991_and_targeted_harassment. He was not just harassing and attacking users, but he was also pushing his POV on Simple. His tactic was to write some stuff and then to spread it in as many articles as possible, which required a lot of shoehorning irrelevant and duplicated stuff in.

I have been carefully removing the propaganda that was spammed everywhere.

One of his enemies are "western/left-wing academia/academics". I have no clue why he hates em so much but he claims they are indifferent about all kinds of bad stuff, especially antisemitism.

• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=prev&oldid=10380337
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=10380347
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazar_myth&diff=prev&oldid=10380386
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Combat_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=10380390
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_of_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=10380392
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy_of_Iran_towards_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=10380408
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=10380413
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=10381290
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10381292
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10381293
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381304
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381306
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381314
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportation_of_Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=10381345
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportations_from_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina&diff=prev&oldid=10381347
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportations_of_Chechens_and_Ingush&diff=prev&oldid=10381350
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerrilla_war_in_the_Baltic_states&diff=prev&oldid=10381408
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=10381410

This list is not complete I missed some and I left some intentionally out that are difficult to spot because the diff is complicated.

Because Steven1991 has an interesting worldview sometimes his articles were just the complete opposite of articles on enwiki.

NorthernWinds is a buddy of Steven1991 who backed him up when he got blocked and appears to share roughly the same worldview. But, I gotta admit, I like NorthernWinds way more because the tactics they use are less bad. What they share is attempts to get others blocked and trying to mislead admins with false allegations.

NorthernWinds is now hounding me and having pointless discussions. It is very possible that there is also a language gap, which makes communication even more difficult.

We butted heads a bit in the Hamas article, where NorthernWinds inserted the claim that Hamas enjoys relative popularity in the Middle East and Western academia...

I pointed it out that that claim is of course insane and it looked like we understood eachother a bit more but they wanted to keep the claim that Hamas was popular in the Middle East. I reverted myself so that they could add their source upon request and explained in detail how I think about such claims on the talkpage but received no response there.

That was July 8 and 9. On July 10, the NorthernWinds account became active again but instead of engaging in the discussion about Hamas they reverted me on Holocaust denial and Big lie. I explained on their talkpage that what they believed to be a definition of Holocaust denial was actually a definition of antisemitism mixed in with a definition of holocaust denial.

The Big lie thing was rather strange; they still believe that they were right and I was wrong (and have even listed it above as an example of my alleged misdeeds).

My version is: The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique[2] where someone tells a huge, outrageous lie repeatedly until people start to believe it. Adolf Hitler described this idea in his 1925 book Mein Kampf, explaining that people are more likely to believe a massive lie than a small one because they can't imagine anyone would dare to lie about something so big.

They version they reverted back to is:

The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a lie of the truth, used as a propaganda technique. The German expression was created by Adolf Hitler, when he wrote his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so big that no one would believe it.

Of course the a lie of the truth phrasing is weird, but this is completely missing the point of the concept of the big lie. The English Wikipedia explains it correctly:

The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

I explained all that but NorthernWinds still believe they are somehow right.

Now my reponses to what they wrote:

They seem to not differentiate between criticism of Wikipedia content written by someone else, a book written by someone else or themself.

They say I constantly harassed them, while they were following me around reverting me on various articles, and wasting my time with long discussions that didn't seem to go anywhere.

The disagreement over conduct concluded with his apology Yeah I was polite and decided to AGF, knowing that there was a language barrier.

Today I noticed he removed the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page No, I removed the definition of holocaust denial that contained in it another definition of antisemitism from the holocaust denial page. So the first items were from the holocaust denial definition and then came the antisemitism definition and then came the last item of the holocaust definitioin. Either a copypaste error or an attempt to pad out the list. And I didn't just remove em, I wrote a new article called International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance where I put both definitions (correctly, not as a jumbled mess).

I explained that these definitions are very controversial and a separate topic, and that we shouldn't favor one potential definition over all others (especially not one that is very very controversial). I wrote a bit on the Holocaust denial article to explain that there are different definitions and linked to this one.

In accordance to his edit summary, I searched for controversy but could only find controversy relating to them defining anti-Zionism as anti-semitic, yet in what he removed (from the main page), there was nothing about antisemitism nor antizionism. I repeatedly explained to NorthernWinds that there was a jumbled mess of 2 definitions that were copypasted one inside the other, but they still repeat this false claim. This is a pattern. If you show that NorthernWinds is wrong about something they ignore it and repeat themselves.

I concluded the edit constituted vandalism I repeatedly asked them to stop calling good edits from a goodfaith user vandalism, and explained that that is a personal attack but he kept doing it (see our talkpages).

posted a warning on his talk (which he proceeded to delete immediately Since we already have difficulty communicating I am not going to have a discussion in 2 places which complicates the discussion even further. Also, if you post a vandalism warning on my talkpage when I am not vandalizing anything it can go to /dev/null.

He has failed to source his claims NorthernWinds links to his own talkpage which contains stuff like this and they replied to it so they must be aware of it.

he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own, uncited definition (WP:OR), rather than relying on academic sources and primary sources Yeah this is the funny bit.

(enwiki, which he invoked as a source, is not a source, and in fact, it disagrees with him as well). I did not use enwiki as a source, I just stated it explains it well, and it supports what I wrote and not what NorthernWinds wrote.

He was talking as if I have said removing the antisemitism definition is the vandalism, when in fact I very clearly stated that it was the holocaust denial definition that he removed which I found to be vandalism. That seems to be a language gap.

Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. That is a strawman argument.

The old definition of antisemitism that included the specific holocaust-denial related definitions They still don't seem to get it. There is no old definition that included holocaust denial related definitions. I seem to be unable to explain it to them, despite linking to the website and writing an entire article.

The Commons link they use is in relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF where I discovered what Steven1991 had done. I should get a medal for how patient I've been.

baselessly accused me of WP:ATTACK Not baselessly.

he is WP:NOTTHERE Yeah that is rather rude. And a weird thing to say considering the difference in our track record. I don't think NorthernWinds is NOTHERE. I think they have a strong POV, but that is allowed, and they could be a productive editor if they understand their limitations and move away from what is the most difficult topic on Wikipedia (I/P). But they should stop harassing and insulting me and leave me alone.

he is the one who accused me of edit warring twice Yeah because you did editwar, see my talkpage.

he will just not en:W:DROPIT when needed. Any accusation is a confession?

Another thing I found odd is him trying to remove the record of him accusing me of edit warring, and hiding it in the history by adding text so that it doesn't seem like something was removed Yeah again I was polite and assumed good faith. Please don't make me regret that.

Sorry for the long report Yeah now you not only wasted my time but also that of others.

I dunno if its CIR or a language problem or whatever, but I would like them to leave me alone and stop wasting my time. I don't think they are ready to edit a topic such as this. Since they have never made an edit that was not related to Israel there is a decent chance that if you topicban them from Israel related stuff they just leave. That is a short summary, I am probably missing some things. If anyone needs clarification let me know. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I am imposing a topic ban on the both of you. You may not edit articles that deal with anti-semitic topics or articles that deal with the Holocaust at all from this point onwards. Yesterday you told me the issue was solved and now you come up with this mess. As adults I'd expect that you should both be able to coexist with each other. You are further not to have any further interactions with each other. If you edit anti-semitic or holocaust articles or interact with each other from this or point you will both be blocked from editing. Please act your ages! fr33kman 03:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman That makes no sense? How is it my fault? I haven't done anything wrong in relation to either NorthernWinds or this topic. You should be thanking me for fixing the mess on Simple, a Wikipedia I don't normally use. I saw that there are only a few people here and that the problems have not been fixed in months, so I figured I'd help you guys. And instead of a barnstar I get such a flippant response. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is your fault just that the two of you should be able to sort it out as adults. We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily. Of the two of you I support your side the most but I have to try and be neutral. You are both guilty of making this mole hill into a mountain. I was told the other day that it was solved what happened to that? Nothing I wrote was flippant but the protection of the project must come before all else and right now this argument is hurting it. Also there is no need to go and ping all the other admins because you don't like what I'm saying. fr33kman 07:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Yes there is, because you obviously made the wrong decision. How does topicbanning me help? What have I done wrong? The answers are that it does not, and that I have done nothing wrong. And I did a lot of work to help Simple wiki, because I knew you have few editors and people are perhaps not willing to spend a lot of time to undo the damage caused by a determined POV pusher who made tens of thousands of edits. But instead of a barnstar; I get this. Teaches me to not help people anymore. I really think you should think about this.

You are both guilty of making this mole hill into a mountain. What should I have done? Simply revert him without talking to him? That is usually not how we do things. They kept hounding me and posting cryptic messages, and now you are blaming me for trying to explain stuff to them? the two of you should be able to sort it How is it my fault that they post cryptic and often nonsensical messages, and repeat themselves when they've been proven wrong?

Your weird decision to punish those who help Simple and reward those who POV push is hurting the project. It's not like you have (m)any people willing to fill my place, here or on enwiki. Polygnotus (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6, BRPever, Barras, Bsadowski1, Eptalon, Fehufanga, Ferien, FusionSub, Lee Vilenski, M7, MathXplore, TDKR Chicago 101, and Vermont: See above. Polygnotus (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: There is no need to explicitly ping all the admins. We will see this discussion because it is on our noticeboard. -- Auntof6

(talk) 10:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to apologize for misunderstanding the edits and what I was reinstating yesterday in Big lie, I thought I was reinstating something else. I do still I think your wording is incorrect, and should reflect the academic source I sent you, but that is beyond our previous interaction, and with it the things I originally wrote in the initiation comment

NorthernWinds is a buddy of Steven1991 This is a foul move, and a very strong accusation. I do not have any connections with Steven, and have simply responded to him when he pinged me on the basis of, as I said, the limited interaction we had, which mainly involved him reverting the vandalism of a sock puppet who reversed all of my edits. At the time, I did not know the whole story.. this is a far-cry from "a buddy of steven". You have linked an edit of me saying it shows my support to a certain POV which you claimed he does, when in fact, I simply turned a biased article with misinformation into an unbiased one.

Any accusation is a confession? No. In the discussion about Hamas and western academia, I also concluded that there is no consensus and have chosen to not add it and stop engaging. In Hamas talk I have agreed with you and stopped discussing. There are likely some examples I missed, so please do not en:WP:GAME the system by en:WP:GASLIGHT. Even here, in this response, I have apologized for a mistake I've done.

In contact my open mindness, see this weird comment you made: If the book makes that claim then it is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used, no matter who published it... This is the same as saying "No matter what this is wrong and nothing will change my opinion"

Another case of gaslighting in your message is you saying And of course they broke 3RR on my talkpage. No I did not. You did

I repeatedly explained to NorthernWinds that there was a jumbled mess of 2 definitions that were copypasted one inside the other. This misses the point. I never never talked about the removal of the definition of antisemitism. In fact, I did not even notice it happened or that you were talking about it until a much later state of the conversation. I was very clearly talking about the definition of holocaust denial, which I now see upon further inspection of your response, that you agreed with me. If you agreed why not add it back and end it there? What you did constitutes en:WP:GAMING, or more precisely, en:WP:FIXFIRST.

NorthernWinds links to his own talkpage which contains stuff like this and they replied to it so they must be aware of it. No, you have only brought sources saying the zionism-israel definitions were controversial. As I have already stated (see paragraph above) the zionism-israel related definitions were not what I was discussing

I think they have a strong POV no... If you would like to discuss strong POVs, perhaps this comment by you would be of more use

knowing that there was a language barrier There was no language barrier... I have no idea where you got that from

Since we already have difficulty communicating I am not going to have a discussion in 2 places which complicates the discussion even further This makes absolutely zero sense. On the contrary, discussing different things in different places will only help. Instead of doing that, you opted to bring this up in a completely unrelated chain, making my talk page very convoluted and uncomfortable to read or look at

Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. That is a strawman argument. To this I quote: I removed the definition of holocaust denial that contained in it another definition of antisemitism from the holocaust denial page. So the first items were from the holocaust denial definition and then came the antisemitism definition and then came the last item of the holocaust definitioin. You are contradicting yourself. I have already discussed this earlier in this response, where I talked about en:WP:GAMING. I am not sure if it applies here, but this could be en:WP:GASLIGHTING

But they should stop harassing and insulting me and leave me alone Never have I insulted you, please do not en:WP:GASLIGHT. You could debate on whether good faith vandalism notices, or just reinstating violation notices could be considered harrasment. I have never meant to harass you and I am sorry if this is how it came accross

I don't think they are ready to edit a topic such as this On the contrary, I have often opted to discussion and understanding. In comparison, you have said that if a book says something, then the book is not reliable no matter who published it. You said this without bringing any counter-evidence

I have not responded to everything you said, but some of my paragraphs can respond to several of yours. You have repeatedly gamed the system in your response.

@Fr33kman, I agree with you here: We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily...You are both guilty...the protection of the project must come before all else and right now this argument is hurting it. I have too contributed to this, accidentally I would say. However, I disagree with your conclusion here Of the two of you I support your (Polygnotus) side the most.

As for Yesterday you told me the issue was solved and now you come up with this mess, I believe removing the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page is considered vandalism. I have discussed this extensively earlier. His justification is not a good justification. He himself provided This link of the definition that he removed. There was never controversy about this, unlike what he claims. Again, I am talking about the definition of holocaust denial, not antisemitism, which by the way, the controversy of it only came up recently when they added passages to the definition. The page he himself sent, which contained controversial matters (according to him) is from 10 October 2013, while the controversy only arose in 2016. Perhaps he meant the new definition of antisemitism that he removed (rightfully so). Still, specially considering he has seen this, read and sent me this govt article, I can find no explanation as to why he removed the exact same definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to respond to this wall of text? It should be obvious what has happened here. This is yet more wasting my time.

Firstly, I would like to apologize for misunderstanding the edits and what I was reinstating yesterday in Big lie, I thought I was reinstating something else But you can't just think you were reinstating something else, you have to actually read and understand before reverting. And you've been explained this a bunch of times and you vehemently denied being in the wrong, and insisted I was somehow wrong.

I complained about you wasting my time, and in response you are wasting even more time.

If Steven1991 is not your buddy then I do not understand why you were sticking up for him when it was completely clear what he had done. We already knew about the harassment and insults and the POV pushing and bad faith accusations which led to their enwiki block.

At the time, I did not know the whole story. Clearly. You still don't.

If you would like to discuss strong POVs, perhaps this comment by you would be of more use You still don't understand what I am saying there. Please, carefully read the linked pages (near the bottom are the definitions). Or read the article I wrote. Then compare it with what you inserted into the article.

Never have I insulted you You repeatedly called my improvements vandalism.

You could debate on whether good faith vandalism notices, or just reinstating violation notices could be considered harrasment. That is no debate.

I have never meant to harass you and I am sorry if this is how it came accross If you hound people and insult them and revert their improvements and call it "vandalism", that is a form of harassment.

On the contrary, I have often opted to discussion and understanding. Israel related stuff is perhaps the most difficult stuff to edit on Wikipedia. You are clearly not ready to be a constructive editor in that field, hence why we are here.

You have repeatedly gamed the system in your response. Please read the page you linked to. You do not understand what gaming the system means.

I have too contributed to this, accidentally I would say. Yeah very accidentally.

I believe removing the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page is considered vandalism But I didn't. And I have explained that like 10 times to you but you still do not understand. And you keep repeating yourself.

There was never controversy about this, unlike what he claims. I have provided the evidence on your very talkpage, and you responded to it.

Again, I am talking about the definition of holocaust denial, not antisemitism No, you are not because you added a jumbled mess of both definitions into the article. But you seem to be unable to understand that. Read it again, carefully. Do you see what you did wrong?

Perhaps he meant the new definition of antisemitism There is no new definition. Please read and investigate so you understand before you post messages.

I can find no explanation as to why he removed the exact same definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page. I didn't, as I have noted many times now, and I have explained that already multiple times. Do you not read the messages I write? For example and and in more places.

Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the last time I am responding to you.

But you can't just think you were reinstating something else, you have to actually read and understand before reverting I read, but misunderstood. Things happened and I am sorry for the disturbances.

We already knew about the harassment and insults and the POV pushing and bad faith accusations which led to their enwiki block I don't conduct research on everyone. I saw people saying he is writing bad pages so I responded based on my experience. No, at the time I did not know about his harassments.

You still don't understand what I am saying there to this I quote: If the book makes that claim [the claim you disagree with] then it is not a reliable source, no matter who published it

You repeatedly called my improvements vandalism I have not disrespected you, I have raised concerns

If you hound people and insult them and revert their improvements and call it "vandalism", that is a form of harassment from en:WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I am sorry if it came across as if I am trying to cause you distress or "seek revenge", I had no such intentions.

If I did not respond to something you said, that means one of these: it was said unconstructive manner, you did not fully read what I said, you did not look at my sources and links.

I will not spend more of my time responding to you. I feel like it is more of a "waste" than a "spend" NorthernWinds (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds This is the last time I am responding to you. Thank you.

I read, but misunderstood. Things happened and I am sorry for the disturbances. But you did that many times in a row with a handful of topics. You were insisting I was wrong, and even when I explained it you kept posting false accusations.

to this I quote:... You still don't understand that bit, otherwise you would know your reply does not make sense.

I have not disrespected you, I have raised concerns You have wasted a lot of time and energy.

I am sorry if it came across as if I am trying to cause you distress or "seek revenge", I had no such intentions. If you don't have the intention of hounding people, dont follow them around. If you don't have the intention of insulting people, don't call their improvements vandalism. If you don't want to cause distress, don't waste people's time with cryptic nonsense and stubbornness..

If you honestly want to learn about how various groups have different definitions of holocaust denial then you can look at the laws in various countries where holocaust denial is illegal.

For example, in Germany or in Israel or in Switzerland or the EU's Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA or Deborah Lipstadt's work.

Some definitions of holocaust denial focus on saying the entire thing didn't happen. Others also see distortion or minimization of the facts as holocaust denial.

In some cases the legal definition of holocaust denial is rather different than what some academics use. The IHRA definition is not the definition, it is just one out of many. All of them are very controversial and have various levels of adoption. I should probably write an article about them. Like I wrote here You can just Google "definition controversy X", and then instead of X the word you are interested in. Polygnotus (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote, he also gamed the system by "walking back" here (and possibly, I believe also) here note: this is speculation, not fact. the note was added after Polygnotus responded in order to clarify NorthernWinds (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I deeply regret being nice to you. If only I would've been meaner we wouldn't be in this situation. I could've just editwarred with you, and got you blocked, instead of trying to help you understand the situation. And now you claim that me being polite and understanding is somehow gaming the system. Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As one of pretty much all admins pinged to this discussion, I will happily endorse what Fr33kman said. I think there's a lot of accusations going around and you are both just accusing each other of things to the point I'm not sure what I'm even looking at. To me this is honestly just a wall of text where I am just seeing accusations and arguments. Neither party exactly comes out well from this. I'd prefer we had no administrator intervention in this at all. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien If you want a tl;dr, you can just ask for one. NorthernWinds have posted so many comments that it can be hard to follow what happened.

But topicbanning someone who demonstrably did nothing wrong is clearly unacceptable. And there is still quite a bit of mess left behind by Steven1991's POV pushing.

So I need the topic ban lifted and an apology, and then maybe I can be convinced to continue working on the problem.

I'd prefer we had no administrator intervention in this at all. Well, that NorthernWinds is topicbanned is fine, they probably won't be back because they have never made an edit that is not related to Israel.

If Fr33kman is unwilling to read all that then I am happy to provide a very short summary. But just to blindly topicban both parties, is very insulting to me. Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be the cause of some soul searching. If POV pushers can make tens of thousands of edits, and they only get detected after months because someone notices their behaviour on enwiki, is Simple a viable project? And if the admins on Simple are unable to differentiate between someone who posts cryptic nonsense, and seems unable to understand at least a handful simple things that have been explained multiple times, and someone who is cleaning up the mess left behind by a POV pusher, should Simple continue in its current form? What is the point of an encyclopedia if its biased like Conservapedia? I think you guys are very lucky that I am stubborn as a mule, because 99% of people would just give on Simple as a whole, and let it be a safe haven for POV pushers and trolls. Polygnotus (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Insulting Simple is not the way forward here. We appreciate all genuine attempts to help the project but like Ferien has said you both have come off as problematic due to the way you have conducted yourselves. It's become a case where someone unfamiliar with the situation is unable to determine who's right and who's wrong. I told you that I'm leaning towards your side of the issue but like I said we can't have a situation where the project is being harmed. As such I feel it's better if both sides just stop. As for an apology that's not going to happen because I've done nothing wrong. Another admin has given an opinion on what's going on (at your request) and you disagree with what they've said. fr33kman 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman As for an apology that's not going to happen because I've done nothing wrong Topicbanning me was obviously wrong. How can you topicban someone who did nothing wrong? An interaction ban is a good idea, but NorthernWinds has already indicated they will stop wasting my time.

Insulting Simple is not the way forward here. I didn't. I pointed out the fact that if POV pushers can rack up tens of thousands of edits here without being detected, it may point to an underlying problem, like not enough oversight.

We appreciate all genuine attempts to help the project Well looking at the recent changes list I am the person who has made the most positive impact on Simple in quite a while. But instead of appreciating you insulted me by topicbanning me, instead of thanking me.

we can't have a situation where the project is being harmed You just harmed the project by topicbanning the person who is cleaning up the mess by a POV pusher.

I feel it's better if both sides just stop The damage caused by the POV pusher is not completely fixed yet. You can untopicban me and then I might fix the rest and go back to enwiki. Because I don't like it here.

The fact that you don't understand is understandable, but you could've just asked for a tl;dr. Being an admin here is a volunteer job. If you don't want to read walls of text, you can ask someone to provide a tl;dr, or let someone else handle it. But you can't insult the person who is fixing the problem by topicbanning them even though they did nothing wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Fix what you need to fix and then let's call it a day. fr33kman 15:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We figured it out. Polygnotus (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

References