Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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?

This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
See WP:OS for oversight.

Concern regarding speedy deletion of Satish Raj

Hello, I would like to respectfully raise a concern about the recent speedy deletion of the article Satish Raj.

The deletion tag was added by 2001:2020:303:BB75:3CC2:307E:962A:5791, who mentioned that "if the article is not on English Wikipedia, then it is not notable on Simple Wikipedia." I believe this is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as notability should be based on reliable sources, not presence on another language Wikipedia.

Within seconds, I added the {wait} tag and politely asked for clarification, but the page was deleted before any response could be provided. The article was not a draft—it included a complete biography, awards, categories and references.

As someone contributing with sincerity, I’m left unsure what the actual issue was, and feel discouraged. I also noticed the IP who tagged the page had no visible user profile or significant edit history. My concern is whether editors should be allowed to tag articles for deletion without review, especially if they are not established contributors. It may lead to confusion or even feel like a personal attack to new users.

I deeply respect the Wikipedia guidelines and the work of administrators. If I’ve posted this in the wrong place, I sincerely apologize. I’m only trying to understand the process better and ensure good-faith contributions are given a fair chance.

Thank you. 🙏 Moulyags (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted the page because I did not find a claim of notability listed. It had nothing to do with whether or not it exists on enwiki. We have thousands of pages here that enwiki doesn't have. Regards fr33k man 18:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest people

There's some sort of edit warring going on at Oldest people. I spent some hours this morning to check the sources an clean up everything. I'm tired of it. Please protect the page and also review the changes of Дејан2021 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The account's been blocked on enwiki related to the same problems as here. - Barras talk 14:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the user from editing the page and protected the page. If the situation gets resolved through communication, user can be unblocked.-- BRP^ever 15:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! -Barras talk 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever and @Barras, I already said that I listed the main sources, I updated the page thoroughly and accurately, however, the user Barras, removed 80% of the content, replacing it with the wrong content and with only Top 10, instead of Top 100 oldest people ever, so the best solution would be, do you want Top 10 or Top 100? Дејан2021 (talk) Дејан2021 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Дејан2021 Hi, I'd say we keep it to top 10 that makes it fairly easier to update to make sure it's accurate. Also, readers are generally only interested in top ten and having a list of 100 makes it unnecessarily long, and adds a lot to maintenance work. BRP^ever 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever, Ok, I agree too, although I managed to regularly update the Top 100 as well, and the Top 10 will be perfectly fine and easier after I do the formatting later and add more References (one other independent source for each person from Top 10). As for living people, they will be in accordance with the official data of GRG and LQ, combining both sources, because some cases are not validated by both organizations, and for our article it is enough that it is validated by at least one organization, such as GWR, GRG, ESO and LQ... Дејан2021 (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished formatting, completing and adding more sources, is everything ok now? Дејан2021 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

For the past few weeks, 2001:2020:309:CBE7:F5D9:160D:93C2:8187 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and its associated IP addresses have shown a pattern of making spurious claims about well-sourced articles being “non-notable” (e.g. 1, 2, 3), and abusing the QD function (e.g. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). This is highly disrespectful to other contributors. The same range of IP addresses has also engaged in spam-like behaviour on the Simple Talk page (e.g. 8, 9, 10, 11). Steven1991 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Check user here to stop this long term abuse and to know actual active and sleeper accounts hiding behind these IPs to damage the project. 2400:C600:531F:86ED:4034:C2FF:FE8A:1CEE (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser does not link IP addresses to individual accounts though. What makes it tricky is that the IP user is hopping back and forth with slightly different addresses of the same range. Steven1991 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of QD tags (i.e. at Sejwal (caste), and other articles): admins might want to check out which persons in this discussion, are involved in that. Diff,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sejwal_%28caste%29&diff=10299851&oldid=10299688
. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them were removed because you had abused the QD function, including removal by admins when you were using other IP addresses to do so. Instead of reconsidering your actions, you continue deflecting it onto others. I am hardly convinced that you are participating in good faith. Steven1991 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have put back QD-tag in Sejwal (caste), see edit @17:51. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 @FusionSub @Fr33kman Would you mind having a look at this issue? Steven1991 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-authorized removal of QD-tags, has now happened again. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been abusing the function to the point that it can be considered disruptive, if not vandalism, depending on context. It is better to avoid such IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, and engage constructively when this is a collaborative project. Steven1991 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a slim chance that you can keep "your" article Sejwal (caste), and that is by you (or anyone) taking it to Delete-discussion or AfD.--However, the QD-tag is fair, but maybe you can find a 'sympathetic user' that can 'convert' the QD, into an AfD. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not written by me. I am not involved in that topic area. I am commenting on your behavioural pattern as a third-party observer. Would you please learn to listen to others’ concerns? Steven1991 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop placing QD tags using notability as a reason. Lack of notability is not qd criteria, and lack of an enwiki article isn't either. You can see all the valid reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reports that the IP user is continuing the same behaviour. It does not seem to have the intention to stop. The Talk page warning that he/she had been given yesterday was also removed by him/her. Steven1991 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New QD-tag (as of 18:21). Justification has been 'improved'. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal has happened yet again, this time by ChenzwBot.--Someone else might need to revert that edit, by that Bot. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot rightfully did so. It has also left a warning on your Talk page. Desisting from it is the best course of action for you. Steven1991 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're now placing deletion requests/opinions at article talk pages rather than taking action themselves: 1, 2, 3, 4. It's funny, in these edits and in others, they're commenting that they're too busy working on other articles to take action but I'm not really seeing a lot of "fix[ing] articles that have passed Delete" like they say they're busy doing.... CountryANDWestern (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub Is it possible for your team to handle this? The IP user seems to be causing substantial disruptions to the platform. The IP user has no intention to desist either. It continues the said abuse in Wikipedia:Sandbox. Steven1991 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sejwal (caste)#Needs Delete (or AfD).--The sooner, the better.--After that, let the chips fall where they may. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:890B:9EEE:6387:3E54 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Range-blocked for a week by Fr33kman. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to build an encyclopedia

The account User:CountryANDWestern was created just a couple of weeks before and aggressively tagging articles for deletion, like this one, Winston Churchill as a writer, without even trying to find a source for notable entities. I am requesting checkuser here as this user is clearly not new but a block evading sockpuppet who is trying to damage the aim of constructive encyclopedia. Will object this behaviour from a newbie. 2400:C600:531F:86ED:4034:C2FF:FE8A:1CEE (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reasons newer users may have more experience than a typical new user. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most block evading sock puppets do provide this beautiful excuse of clean start. Anyways, I found your way of editing objectionable to the actual aim of constructive encyclopedia. So just need another set of eyes here, to check if we are dealing with the block evading returning scammer. 2400:C600:531F:86ED:4034:C2FF:FE8A:1CEE (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His edits seem more reliable than yours. -Barras talk 14:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barras offwiki canvassing? 2400:C600:531F:86ED:4034:C2FF:FE8A:1CEE (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a great example of assuming good faith… yes, anyone who disagrees with you on this post is clearly being canvassed. You caught me. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to "ride" on user:CountryANDWestern, so that s/he provides inline references (also for tall claims).--However, the QD of that Churchill article, does seem fair.--The way forward: provide diffs (also in the future), if the user seems to be editing in an objectionable manner. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got an example of places where I’ve failed to provide sources or wrote “tall claims”? CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has provided diffs (yet), which convincingly ties user:CountryANDWestern, to 'bad stuff'.--One should have good-faith (and 'more diffs', if one has complaints beyond the complaint about 'Churhchill, the writer'). 2001:2020:309:CBE7:247D:46C0:A810:7B74 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with CountryANDWestern's editing. You, however, are coming across an disruptive. I suggest you drop this conversation and move on. fr33k man 18:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - Most established users here are aware C&W is a CLEANSTART account and fwiw CLEANSTARTS aren't forbidden (unless C&W is an LTA/sock which I'm assuming isn't the case here).

The title of this thread is also misleading as tagging articles and reporting LTAs is improving and building the encyclopedia. Not every edit here needs to be article-expansion/created related.

Provide diffs that C&W is an LTA and or not here to build an encyclopedia and your complaint will be taken a lot more seriously.

Lastly; WP:RFCU is that way →. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you really want to convey? Steven1991 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all of you, yes, RFCU is that way, but there are two basic problems here. While I, as a Checkuser can make a link between a named user an an an IP address, I am not allowed to tell anyone. And secondly, the checkuser policy forbids what is called a 'fishing expedition'. So, unless there's a concrete request, there's little to do here. And I don't know if you know them, but the Salem witch trials were started by a group of adolescent girls, who accused a number of people; at least 30 people died. The villagers believed those teenage girls; and iirc the teenage girls, who admitted they invented most of it, a few years later weren't even punished; that was in the 1600s, so 400 years ago. Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm officially turning down your request for a checkuser. fr33k man 20:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 fr33k man 11:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done fr33k man 14:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

RevDel

Not 100% sure but I think this is something you are supposed to RevDel. [1] (Sorry if this isn't the right place to report this) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 04:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User has been blocked for two weeks for general disruption. fr33k man 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, fr33k man 01:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. fr33k man 02:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. fr33k man 02:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Thanks for the link fr33k man 02:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblock discussion for User:Immanuelle

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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, fr33k man 01:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. fr33k man 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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. fr33k man 19:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment, he has been blocked on Commons

[2] Star Mississippi (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the information, we will keep an eye out for any problems. At this point there is no indication of socking here. fr33k man 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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