Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I noticed your warning on the talk page of L.S. WikiCleaner regarding WikiCleaner. I had previously requested that L.S. revert their own edits in good faith. However, an anonymous IP made the revert instead. Subsequently, L.S. made a fifth revert within a 24-hour period. This behaviour suggests an unwillingness to engage in discussion and indicates potential edit warring. Could I kindly request that you take appropriate action regarding this matter? Additionally, please consider reverting the latest edit to encourage L.S. to address the discussion on the talk page. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said many times to Michalis, I have no intention of accusing him to any adminstrator. My goal was to find a solution through the Talk page and that's what I did. Creating an IP just so he doesn't break any edit rule seems funny to me, but as I wrote to him on the talk page, it doesn't bother me and I continued to talk exclusively about the topic of our disagreement. I am surprised by his insistence on me being punished(?) and also there was an RFC about the neutrality of the artcle and everyone agreed it was neutral.So its not only my opinion but other editors agree too. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Michalis as i said in the Talk page:
You were warned by an Adminstrator once because you claimed I was vandalizing.Instead of apologizing as requested by the administrator, you left a message on my page calling me a vandal again.
Also from what I can see there are quite a few complaints about the way you edit articles.And some warnings to be more constructive on Talk Pages.
I refer to these not to target you or to accuse you to this Administrator. But to make you realize that the way you operate is authoritarian with the result to lose your right and the patience of those who oppose you is wasted.Please be more constructive.
Hi PhilKnight, immediately after the expiration of the 48-hr block you placed on the IP address 27.145.140.187, they are back again falsifying information about band members on music articles (e.g. diff 1, diff 2), this time with the usual User:Brettandelle habit of putting forward-slashes in the summaries of some edits. Could you block it again for a longer period please? Thanks! — AP 499D25(talk)09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Wom and continued unnecessary removal of information
Hi, I'm a user who doesn't really edit on Wikipedia much, but me and a friend tried adding something to a page (DC League of Super Pets). Specifically we felt it'd be necessary to point out how nothing has been done with that movie despite it being part of a franchise with plans for more content in the future. However, this "Barry Wom" user keeps deleting the fact despite it being pretty worthy of mention (at least, IMO). I noticed Barry Wom has been blocked at least a few times for edit warring too in the past.
Barry Wom and another user named Indagate are refusing to accept that DC League of Super Pets' current franchise plans are unknown, dismissing it as "unnecessary" and "not notable" and that other pages containing the "It is currently unknown if" statement aren't relevant to the page, even though I showed them as proof. Here's the talk page for you so you can make your own decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DC_League_of_Super-Pets#Movie's_Unknown_Future
I'm a friend of this anon user who first approached you, and we are seriously trying to be civil here, but we can't find a way out, so do we have to try talking to other Wikipedia staff higher-up ourselves about it? If so, we might need some help on what other users to find. JoJoTheDodo456 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for blocking User:190.198.169.107 for their continued vandalism, especially on Toyota articles. Just so you know, what appears to be the same user is doing the same kind of vandalism under User:190.206.160.216 while the other account is blocked. See here for an example. Any additional help would be appreciated. Best, Bahooka (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil, I hope I'm not being a pest, but I just saw Jidarave's response on his talk page. I want to mention, in case you don't have the technical background to recognize it, that the text that they say they want to add is more of the same meaningless technobabble gibberish they've been spamming to the Reference Desk for years. I've been informed via email by another editor that Jidarave is likely a sock of User:Architect 134, and after reviewing the behavior of the numerous socks of that account, it seems likely to me. (I'm not mentioning the informant's name because they say they've been harassed by A134 in the past but I can send it to you privately if you wish.) CodeTalker (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second thought?
The ‘recently active’ tool says you’re… well… Recently active. Just wanted a second thought on something.
14:23, 1 August 2024 User account Bryantkiser was created by Jbk932 and password was sent by email
(Can’t get original too work)
Jbk’s only edits designate them a COI SPA, as far as I can tell, and I was thinking of giving them {{User alternative account|Jbk932}} on the new account’s Userpage so that, while we AGF and give them a chance to be a legit net positive, their origins aren’t missed if anything comes up.
Obviously, making someone else’s Userpage probably isn’t going to go down well, but I was thinking there’s good reason for a little IAR to be applied. They don’t seem to be trying to WP:VANISH either.
Hi MM, I think you're being a little harsh in characterizing Jbk932's edits as COI SPA, they were correcting an error, and were supported by the source. I think you should let them create a new account, and wait to see what edits they want to make. PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could we also have the history of this page (mostly) revdel'd to remove the death threats, and this troll's ability to copy/paste/restore them over and over? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to ask regarding this edit: [2]. Clearly, this repeatedly inserted claim is false information and not based on reliable sources; it is part of an online antisemitic harassment campaign against this person, as detailed here: [3]. I edited the article to remove the incorrect claim. Is there something else that can be done to prevent this from happening again? Whizkin (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
I don't think it should have been deleted. First off, I don't think "attack page" applies to redirects. Furthermore, the question has received extensive media coverage, quite a little bit of which made it into the JD Vance article. Lastly, I think it should have been RfDed rather than speedily deleted. pbp12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi pbp, thank you for your polite message. I'm fairly certain that attack page applies to redirects. However, I recognize your other arguments are legitimate. That said, I stand by my decision to delete the redirect. I suggest you file at WP:DELETION REVIEW to request an overturn of my decision. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Niko415, the new account that you reverted[4] when you blocked an IP yesterday[5], is making the same edits as that IP, changing figures relating to religion in Albania contrary to sources. Do you want to deal with them yourself now, or would you rather we proceed through warnings and reporting at AIV? NebY (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new, young editor has posted their personal information here [6]. Can I ask for deletion please? I will put a message on their talk page. Knitsey (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks for checking on my suspicion of sockpuppetry in this case. In the active article deletion thread, is there a particular 'best practice' regarding the "votes" in the article deletion thread? I was thinking a brief parenthetical near the top ("Interaham and SupremeLeader90 were identified as engaging in sockpuppetry", so their votes have been struck") and then putting a strikethrough on their votes - and by votes, I mean only the vote word, e.g. "Keep" but leaving their textual contributions unmolested? Mainly not sure on the propriety of altering even just the vote word. Then there's also the matter of the IP, which I presume from your comment on the sock case that it's a grey area. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.04:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PhillKnight I am encountering several issues. I'm not sure why, but when I tried to submit a WP:SPI request, but it wasn't pushed to the actual request at the SPI requests table. [8] I may have made mistakes while submitting the request. You can see what the problem is in my report or in the requested template?. 2409:4051:2EB5:D43E:0:0:2C89:B60C (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe per the given differences/evidences in the request you may like to check?. After seeing many similarities with these accounts, I compiled this SPI request, but the CU result will be helpful in this matter?. And per CU requirements, I have linked some diffs that might fulfill the requirement to run a CU?. 2409:4051:2EB5:D43E:0:0:2C89:B60C (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
