Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Add topic
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 days ago by Ferien in topic Requesting move of categories
Shortcuts

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?


Sock puppet

[change source]
Latest comment: 4 days ago21 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

User:Baangla constantly lying:

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

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

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

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

The message about the ONESTRIKE is friendly advice not exactly a warning - I have not violated any rule here on simple wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe that this and this edit are by the same editor when logged out (he has removed sourced content with it).-Baangla (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
And now he is lying for the fourth time, it is not me. He built this whole case on lies. Even after this, the sock puppetry is not proven. But these 2 edits are not made by me.
Some serious kind of action should taken against this person. Zubarkokar (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=10618109 shows his self admission of logged out editing.-Baangla (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am wondering why no action has been taken yet. We should not allow disruptions like this on Simple wikipedia. I don't wish to edit war with a person who does not understand the rules.-Baangla (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
First of all, I said that I may have made some edits in the past in which i was logged out. But the recent 2 logged out edits u alleged on me is not me.

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

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

If you believe these are connected accounts, you can present the evidence at WP:RFCU. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fr33kman: You have defended this user's use of multiple accounts here but if you see those edits, it is POV pushing which is not as per WP:NPOV. What is the guarantee that he will not use more than one account? On the English Wikipedia, using multiple accounts leads to a complete ban.-Baangla (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The policy clearly says multiple accounts are not forbidden as long as they are not in violation of policy. It will be simple to see if they continue to use multiple accounts in the future. They have said they will stick to one account. Let's wait and see. fr33kman 16:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please read this.-Baangla (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why are you linking to the English Wikipedia’s blocking policy? CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@CountryANDWestern: Please provide the link to the blocking policy of Simple wikipedia then.-Baangla (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Baangla: Please see Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks a lot!-Baangla (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ferien: He is continuing to replace sourced content with his version of events.-Baangla (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would like to see, where i did this.

But i could show Baangla did this in his recent edit like here he removed multiple neutral assignment paragraphs without giving any reason.

And here when an senior editor reverted the Baangla edit because it violated Wikipedia's policy.
Baangla again restored his POV-pushing edit. Here

Baangla also got recent twice warning for being blocked because of his immature behaviour. here

Zubarkokar (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

User: Baangla is possibly a sock puppet check out this Zubarkokar (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
That was declined.-Baangla (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment: conduct of User:CountryANDWestern

[change source]
Latest comment: 11 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Summary

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

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

Evidence

[change source]
A) Deletion tagging without prior improvement
B) Nominations without prior discussion / denying reasonable time to improve
  • On C&W’s own talk, a page creator explicitly asks for time: _“Hi you just asked for a page I’m currently making to be deleted… Please give me 10 minutes to add the references”_ (2 Jun 2025). C&W replies that sources still don’t establish notability and continues the deletion track rather than pausing to allow improvements: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CountryANDWestern (section around 12:20–13:06, 2 Jun 2025).
  • Multiple user-talk notifications show a pattern of immediately moving pages into deletion processes rather than opening content discussions first (examples 7–9 Nov 2025 in contributions list: mass “Notification: quick deletion nomination…” posts tied to fresh page creations): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountryANDWestern (see 7–9 Nov timestamps).
C) Resisting feedback / process issues (IDHT-like pattern)
Pattern summary

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

Requested community input / proposed remedies

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

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

Note: I received similar attention from temporary accounts at English Wikipedia yesterday as well. Someone's on a retaliatory campaign against me it appears. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Beast4U Don't use an LLM to make a report to the administrators, please. Use your own words. Your LLM is linking to the wrong things and misinterpreting how deletion works around here.
  • Thomas Built Buses and tagging articles for QD soon after page creation -> Admittedly, I would rather wait a few minutes before tagging an article for quick deletion unless it's obviously vandalism, G4/G5able, or an attack page. You should check your LLM's output on Thomas Built Buses, the diff ID in your link isn't correct.
  • Noam M. Elcott, J. Eric Robinson and all the articles that are RfD with the notability rationale -> This is normal. If you have done enough research and determined that the subject is not notable then there is no way to improve it further. It just isn't notable.
  • Unennunium -> Nothing wrong here, if the nominator thinks that a redirect is not viable for the article and/or if it's not worth reworking, then deletion is viable. Also, this is an RfD. The page won't be deleted immediately. If you think that you can improve it, you can voice your opinions in the discussion page.
  • Multiple user-talk notifications show a pattern of immediately moving pages into deletion processes rather than opening content discussions first -> The page creator has a chance to dispute the QD in the talk page. If an article obviously meets a QD criteria, a discussion isn't mandatory before tagging it. More contentious deletions are discussed in WP:RfD.
  • Reverting an RfD closure -> You're completely wrong on this one. Admins are the only one that can close an RfD. Now tell me, is User:Robikalita62 an admin? No. Then C&W's revert of Robikalita62's closure is appropriate. Not to mention the fact that Robikalita62 is the creator of the article, which also excludes them from closing the RfD were they an admin.
  • Talk-page defense of mass deletions -> I believe you're talking about this thread. C&W is correct here, perhaps you should read the thread yourself instead of having an LLM skim it and not picking up what the actual conclusion of that thread is.
  • Needing reminders on QD criteria -> I believe you're talking about this thread. I see improvement on C&W's part and they have followed fr33kman's advice when tagging with G1 and G5.
The only action I will take towards C&W is to remind them that one should wait a while before tagging an article for quick deletion, unless it's obviously vandalism, G4/G5able, or an attack page, in order to give the creator some time to improve it.
On the other hand, your account was registered seven hours ago as of writing this post and your only contribution here is to create this ANI report attacking another user using AI, around an hour after another similar AI-generated report was filed against the same user. If you are caught as a sockpuppet, then you will be blocked. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reminder and the detailed reply to the post above. I don't know which of the accounts I've "wronged" is behind it, but based on what happened at En. yesterday, they're hiding behind proxies so are a bit of a moving target. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@CountryANDWestern You should give users more time to make pages. Again (Special:Diff/10625363), you have nominated a page for quick deletion for having no content one minute after it was created. ~2025-32843-25 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. This isn't a complicated issue, he just deletes at random. Beast4U (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Beast4U: What do you mean when you say he just deletes at random? C&W doesn't have the ability to delete pages, so you may have meant to say something else. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm interested to know how you're so aware of my editing pattern as someone with no edits prior to this thread. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@
Fehufanga
Just to clarify where I’m coming from: like a lot of people, I usually edit casually without an account. However, like a lot of other people, this person’s behaviour has been annoying enough for me to make an account and report it.
I understand my critique wasn't perfect but I shouldn't have to make a critique in the first place. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing platform. As someone else chimed in two days ago "Again (
Special:Diff/10625363
), you have nominated a page for quick deletion for having no content one minute after it was created"
CountryANDWestern needs to apply for a job with Encyclopaedia Briticana or another Encyclopedia with subjective editors. This is Wikipedia, we're supposed to have collaboration, not just a guy referring every article he can for deletion. Look at his recent deletion requests - were any of them necessary? Not one SINGLE edit to improve.
I’d still like the underlying concern to be considered: that this pattern of quick tagging can be discouraging to good-faith editors, especially newer ones. --~~~~
Beast4U (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Beast4U The Wiki relies on editors to patrol new pages and recent changes on the wiki. C&W is just one of a handful of editors who contribute in Wikipedia this way, by tagging pages for deletion if they meet the quick deletion criteria and reverting vandalism. I do think that in most cases, an editor should wait before tagging a page for deletion. However, the burden of improving a page shouldn't be placed on the tagger. Think about it this way, if an editor makes an article about somebody who is clearly not notable, say, something like this:

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

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

a very tall skyscraper

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

REJECT REMEDY: There is nothing in the policy that states they must make an attempt to improve the article. If it falls under certain categories, it can be recommended for speedy deletion or a request for deletion can be used to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted. Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 00:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Import request

[change source]
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please import Template:IPA vowels/styles.css from en:Template:IPA vowels/styles.css to make {{IPA vowels}} appear correctly. ~2025-34828-25 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done Ternera (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Robikalita62

[change source]
Latest comment: 15 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Robikalita62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Robikalita62 is blocked at the English Wikipedia as a sock per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sukhi vale/Archive. The socks were creating articles on Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim. Robikalita62 did the same here. It was subsequently deleted at an RFD (where they likely socked with temporary accounts), and I warned them on 10 November that continuing to edit related to that subject could result in a ONESTRIKE block.

They have now recreated the article at Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim (Football Player) and removed the QD template from it when it was tagged as G4. Suggesting a ONESTRIKE block at this point as the behavior of the En. socks has been displayed here after a warning. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I find good reference that's why I created.. if any person Wikipedia was deleted afterword that person meet notability so i created. Robikalita62 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
or i edit everything which one I shiuld get in my edit suggestion so I'm not only for Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim Robikalita62 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arguments

[change source]

I edited everything not only Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim administration can check my edit list , or i follow every guide line in Wikipedia or i can't doing any wrong edit , I find source Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim(Football player) i can create it that's it. If any Wikipedia delete or afterword that was i find reference which one accepted in English Wikipedia i proof his GNG so what is the problem . If I'm doing any wrong thing I'm so sorry Wikipedia administration... Robikalita62 (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apology

[change source]

if I'm doing anything wrong so I'm really sorry...or i create a article that article meet GNG that's why I created, or i can't doing vandalism or i follow Wikipedia every guidelines, Robikalita62 (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

User: 'Ches ain't sh.. & they ain't say 'nothin A hundra muth can't tell e'nothin

[change source]
Latest comment: 14 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This username appears to violate Wikipedia user policy and may be a vandalism only account as his only edit is the creation of an article (which has been deleted) about Trump. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Account locked by stewards. Ternera (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ternera (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Crosswiki sockpuppetry

[change source]
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good morning simpleadmins! I am an admin and checkuser on enwiki, and processed a checkuser request/sockpuppet investigation this morning in which sockpuppetry was reported on simplewiki as well. Please see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colassww for details. The following accounts are all the same user on enwiki, and I suggest they be investigated here as well (I cannot checkuser accounts on other wikis):

Secondly, when I came here to report this I see that a number of temporary accounts have opened LLM-written complaints against user CountryANDWestern, who is the user who reported these accounts on enwiki. The user of the above accounts also edits frequently with temporary accounts, and given the timelines it seems likely that these reports here are retailatory. It would be useful to investigate the temporary account filers of those complaints as well.

Please ping me in replies if you need any more info. I don't check in here often but I will get a global notification. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the work and bringing it here! I also had it open here on Simple at WP:RFCU and linked to your findings on En. just now before I saw this thread.
I think the LLM targeting pre-dates my involvement with this sock farm. I feel like those targets come from a nest of UPEs who are mad that their articles keep getting deleted. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind

[change source]
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Нind appeared on my ~automatically generated list of pages with mixed scripts. I wanted to move it to correct Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind (all Latin characters). Intended summary: fix unwanted mix or Latin/Cyrillic (…ul-%D0%9Dind → …ul-Hind). Action was blocked: *hazw.*[H|h]ind.* # [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6]], repeatedly recreated under multiple titles. So maybe it should be somehow allowed to move, or deleted? —Mykhal (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nigg*r in the w*odpile

[change source]
Latest comment: 11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is Niggеr in the wоodpile article containing a couple of Cyrillic characters (in the title only). Correct name should be Nigger in the woodpile. —Mykhal (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved to correct name. Ternera (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hhrlan23

[change source]
Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hhrlan23 (talk · contribs · logs) has created a ton of articles that are copied from English Wikipedia and should be deleted. ~2025-35713-88 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@~2025-35713-88 and Hhrlan23: Created articles have been deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Steven1991

[change source]
Latest comment: 8 days ago50 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Globally locked sockmaster Steven1991 is back as Special:Contributions/~2025-36586-13. See User:Polygnotus/Steven1991. Polygnotus (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Accusing people of sockpuppeting when your unexplained mass deletions are reverted is not a good way. The onus is on you to satisfy the community that every single of your deletions is justified in the absence of any editing summaries. Note that Polygnotus recently received a logged warning on English Wikipedia for similar behavior. Polygnotus was also a subject of a U4C case for long-term abuse on multiple Wikimedia projects. ~2025-36545-57 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you mean Polygnotus was also a subject of a U4C case for reverting long-term abuse on multiple Wikimedia projects. Polygnotus (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The evidence within the case request, though unsuccessful, speaks for itself. Barely a few of your mass deletions are justified. You continue the same conduct despite admin warnings on English Wikipedia. Had you not had the warnings you might have had some kind of high ground, but it is not the case. No one owns articles on this site, and your continuous reverting without reasonable editing summaries + unfounded allegations against others have gone far beyond what is acceptable under the TOS. ~2025-36260-17 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since you are globally locked you are not allowed to be here according to that same ToS. Polygnotus (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You need to stop pointing fingers at others / diverting attention from your own misconduct. Just because someone did something questionable, it does not justify everything you have been doing here and in other projects. ~2025-36587-80 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is an OUTING violation. Posting IP addresses and linking them to random accounts are a form of outing. Please stop. ~2025-36587-80 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You might enjoy en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List and en:Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse#Reports and stuff like that. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Whatever. Attacking others does not change the nature of your behavior, which has been going on for months on multiple projects. ~2025-36587-80 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Eptalon as an oversighter you may wish to have a look. ~2025-36587-80 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's not outing. The named account is CU blocked as Steven1991. The IP's have edits from before temporary accounts. It's Polygnotus's (who is not a CU) view those IP's and temp accounts are the same as Steven1991. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are more than enough violations from Polygnotus to justify a time-limited (if not an indefinite) block, while the user continues to launch personal attacks on those who disagree with them. Their "everything is their fault" attitude is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Every line has basically been crossed, so it is hard to justify non-action. ~2025-36630-44 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you not know that allegations without evidence are a form of personal attack? Had this happened on ENWP, it would have been another warning for him. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would you mind commenting on this corpus of evidence which shows the long-term abuses committed by Polygnotus on multiple projects contrary to what he accuses others of in a bid to divert attention from himself? ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also Special:Contributions/~2025-36545-57. Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which of your mass deletions is justified? You provided no reasons for any of them at all. You are the one who have been breaking rules and disrupting the platform. ~2025-36545-57 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since you are globally locked you are not allowed to edit here. Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will not entertain your personal attacks further. There is no factual basis for your allegations. You are throwing them at others to divert attention from your violations. ~2025-36260-17 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello all, just to clarify: as a checkuser, I cannot link usernames, and either temporary accounts or ip addresses, and as to oversight, there is a mailing list where you can report cases. Eptalon (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Eptalon can you block my socking buddy here please. See User:Polygnotus/tmp for more information. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are more than enough violations from Polygnotus to justify a time-limited (if not an indefinite) block, while the user continues to launch personal attacks on those who disagree with them. Their "everything is their fault" attitude is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Every line has basically been crossed, so it is hard to justify non-action. ~2025-36630-44 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's an obviously bad-faith quick delete nomination of an article Polygnotus created recently from the -44 temp account - . Rather than revert, I tagged with wait and talk page explanation. Pretty obviously done to escalate the drama. 15 seconds to look at the en wiki page and no way that article should be tagged. Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I created the Xeno-canto thing as it was one of the most linked red links, so it was one of the Most wanted pages. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add a bit more from the lead with some extra sources and this tag thing, even disruptive, is a stupid easy remove. Ugh, hate dealing with persistent and disruptive socks, sorry you're having to deal with this one. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
He doesn't need you to Wikilawyer for him. Would you mind commenting on this corpus of evidence which shows the long-term abuses committed by Polygnotus on multiple projects contrary to what he accuses others of in a bid to divert attention from himself? ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
No. There's enough wikilawyering here from you. Thanks though. Ravensfire (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Fixing what he alleges to be POV issues does not justify him breaking every rule on the website, including personal attacks on everyone disagreeing with him. I do not see how your response could be reasonable. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How do I Wikilawyer? Are you not able to read the evidence from the link itself? What prevents you from doing so? Bias? ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps you've heard of a term sealioning... And I actually did read that jumbled mess you posted on Meta. Neither of you look like ideal editors to be honest, but you're clearly Steven1991 and that taints everything you're doing as evading a block IS disruptive editing. Your tagging of that article was 100% disruptive editing, that you ignore that shows the disruptive intentions of that act. Obviously though, you're not going to listen to comments from others. That was exceptionally obvious from the readthrough of your enwiki talk page and reinforced reading through your talk page here. Best of luck to you. Ravensfire (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, refrain from making unfounded allegations against others. You could present no evidence for your claim. You are the one tainting others to defend someone you are sympathetic to as shown by the slant of your comments on this thread. Sealioning is the accurate description of your conduct, not mine. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you not know that allegations without evidence are a form of personal attack? Had this happened on ENWP, it would have been another warning for him, if not you. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wish that you would also bear in mind that allegations without evidence are a form of personal attack. Had this happened on ENWP, it would have been another warning for him, if not you. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Casting aspersions is not a good way either. It is a subtle personal attack unbecoming of any users with sufficient etiquette. ~2025-36741-19 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Steven, this is a very small wiki where a few friends try to have some fun and make something cool. If you can't stop yourself from doing this, please do it on enwiki.
Because you are globally locked you need to convince stewards you won't repeat the same behaviour that got you indeffed, arbcomblocked, checkuserblocked and then globally locked.
Behaving like this won't help your case.
I am not your enemy. I deal with many Wikipedians who ran into trouble and none of them are. I cleaned up Simplewiki from your POV pushing because I felt you were destroying someone elses sandcastle, not because I particularly care(d) about Simplewiki. I am just some random person with an internet connection who happened to notice what you did and clean it up. If I wouldn't have done it one of the other volunteers would've noticed at some point.
Good luck, Polygnotus (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, you treat everyone as an enemy as shown by this corpus (~100 diffs) of evidence whenever someone disagrees with you. Everyone who dares disagree with you was subject to a torrent of abuses from you. Many have stopped editing controversial topics, allowing you to seize control of several articles, because they do not have the mental capacity to withstand abuses from somebody as aggressive as you. Do you need me to quote every single one of their comments that pointed out your violations? ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is how you treat others across multiple WP projects. I would let them speak for themselves about their interactions with you, which contradict your claim that you somehow do not treat anyone as an enemy:

Now that you’ve resorted to name calling, revealing a decided lack of neutrality, it is clearly appropriate that DaveApter has requested another RFC. I initially found myself in some agreement with you ("proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Wikipedia"), but only to a point. As an editor, haven’t you agreed to validate the edits you make? To assess cited resources for accuracy and credentials? Or have you merely looked for “evidence” to support what your “cult members” references reveal to be an obvious point of view? Ndeavour (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You have made your opinion clear. Please refrain from bludgeoning and allow other people to weigh in on this. Also—and I fear to say this, lest I provoke you further, but I feel it needs be said—you have been unacceptably rude at several points in this discussion (not to me, but to ProfGray and Rhododendrites). We can disagree about policies, including extremely important policies like BLP and NPA, without resorting to incivility and personal attacks of our own. Please bear that in mind. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
... ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, Ndeavour, who is indefinitely banned by the enwiki community. Not sure if that is a great example.
I am not sure why you are still this angry after so much time has passed. I noticed what you did on enwiki 20 weeks ago.
But if you want we can talk some time on a chat app if that would help you move on? Do you think that would help? In exchange I ask that you stop editing simplewiki, forever. Polygnotus (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to liaise with anonymous users in private. It is unclear why you even come up with this proposal? To threaten them? To blackmail them? What makes it difficult to "talk it out" here? Again, you do not own any articles, not even remotely a project, you have zero right to tell anyone to "stop editing forever". Your attitude cannot be more absurd. You are the one who is not here to build an encyclopedia when you don't even know how to respect others as human beings, not to mention the hundreds of tendentious mass deletions without valid editing summaries. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Compassionate727 and ProfGray do not exist, do they? ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, @ProfGray, @Compassionate727 and @NorthernWinds, would you like to comment as well? ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ravensfire any comments? ~2025-36615-15 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Tell me if you have ever said sorry to any of these users?

I would not characterize myself as having been sympathetic to Polygnotus in that one discussion where I was involved, although I did try to be cordial. In any case, I haven’t read the totality of the evidence presented here, but it’s not clear to me why this rises to the level of requiring U4C intervention, other than perhaps the cross-wiki scope of the problem (although, admittedly, his comment to Rhododendrites about uploading moth photos is the most egregious incivility I can recall ever seeing someone get away with, and were I an admin, I would have given something like a 48 hour block for it). I thought based on his response to my rebuke that I would need to escalate to ANI, but both Prof Gray and Rhododendrites were intimidated into not participating further and nobody else took up their position, so the whole thing petered out. All of this is our civility processes working as they normally do. (Perhaps not how things should’ve gone, but I don’t think we should expect better from people.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As shown in a couple of diffs above, Polygnotus did interact with me a bit, including saying AOT that I uploaded images, for an article, as if they "serve no purpose other than to falsely accuse Wikipedians."[1] At the time, I did wish that their statements toward me, and others, were more civil, less personalizing, and more AGF. The same concerns could have been expressed entirely in terms of WP policy or guidelines. Such user conduct does discourage me from editing controversial topics, despite my interest and knowledge. Since their interactional style is not uncommon on Wikipedia, and this is my first exposure to a U4C case, I'm not sure what else I can contribute to this situation. ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

...

Before you hurl more insults at me, or anyone else on any other projects, reflect on yourself, first. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I was kinda hoping the offer to chat with me would be tempting enough to stop you from spamming more. Oh well, if communication doesn't work then it'll be the old mantra of revert, block, ignore. But often that will get people really angry and bitter and they become LTAs who make it their lifes mission to destroy perceived enemies on a website that is not that important.
It is all so incredibly pointless. If someone else would've discovered your behaviour and cleaned it up, they would've been the target, so I should probably be glad it is me. Polygnotus (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
If someone intending to address POV issues were more civil than you, no conflicts would happen, not even AN reports or U4C cases. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You can bludgeon your way out of the dispute, or manipulate whoever comes across this to ignore your multitude of wrongdoings, but what would not change is the corpus of evidence of your cross-wiki abuse linked in some of comments. Whether your friends, or whosoever, are smart enough to know how you have been behaving is immaterial. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ravensfire any comments? Perhaps do not selectively ignore? Perhaps tell us whether you two are coordinating off-site given Polygnotus history of canvassing as found by the ENWP admins who gave him a logged warning a couple of weeks ago? ~2025-36615-15 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You can bludgeon your way out of the dispute, or manipulate whoever comes across this to ignore your multitude of wrongdoings, but what would not change is the corpus of evidence of your cross-wiki abuse linked in some of comments. Whether your friends, or whosoever, are smart enough to know how you have been behaving is immaterial. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, if you don't wanna talk I can't really offer much to you, so it is unclear what you are hoping to achieve. I am not a steward so I can't remove global locks. In addition, you are blocked by arbcom and I also have no control over their actions. I am also not an administrator, not on simplewiki nor on enwiki. So I can't unblock you, even if I wanted to. Polygnotus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you believe that the person you are arguing with is a troll, you can ignore. No one is able to mandate a response from you, or anyone else. ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Report any new temporary account to WP:VIP. I will go through this discussions and blocks the ones here.--BRP ever 12:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.

Revision deletion request

[change source]
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please could the edits by User:Big V Andall at Nigersaurus be revision deleted for being grossly offensive. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Not done I don't think this meets RevDel policy. It is certainly beyond normal vandalism, being a slur, but not eligible for RevDel. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ferien: That's a surprising outcome. Perhaps the user account could at least be blocked? It's fair to assume that someone who has chosen the call themselves a vandalism in their username and has made a grand total of two edits, both of which fit their chosen name, is not here to edit in good faith. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Richard Nevell: Sure, I've blocked the user - sorry I didn't really process the username too much in my head. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 11:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

RevDel requested

[change source]
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm requesting a revdel |for this edit, and this edit as well both edits themselve are juvenile, but it has a person's name at the end. It's very likely NOT the person's name that added it in, it's in the edit summary so only a sysop or higher can remove that.

Thank you!

Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 22:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Not done Just having a person's name doesn't make it eligible for RevDel. It needs to meet the revision deletion criteria at WP:REVDEL. This is not grossly insulting, degrading, offensive or disruptive so it is not eligible. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another RevDel

[change source]
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just came across | this gem] in my gnoming. This edit is pretty juvenile, but it mentions someone's name in it. I'll revert it, but it may need a revdel as well.

Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 22:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Not done Just immature vandalism. Does not meet RD2/RD3. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

temp account blocks

[change source]
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Length of temporary account blocks re: length of temporary account blocks. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

2025 India–Pakistan conflict - protection request

[change source]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2025 India–Pakistan conflict is experiencing an on-going change war involving both temporary and named accounts. A protection is likely necessary to prevent further conflict. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done Dished some 24 hour blocks out. Article is fully protected for 48 hours to allow them 24 hours to discuss on the talk page. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Revdel request

[change source]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Edit summaries by Special:Contributions/~2025-37485-15 contain copyrighted lyrics from "All I Want for Christmas Is You". Please remove. Saroj (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 07:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requesting move of categories

[change source]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When someone has time, could they please move the following categories (and the pages in them)? All of them seem to be navigational boxes, so the proposed titles make more sense. Also they were moved on the English Wikipedia.

~2025-37934-07 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done I thought I had done a few bonus ones but I think you listed all of them! Will try and also go through them now to make sure they have the type=navbox parameter on the template category template :) --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=10659029"