Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 A message may therefore have been archived.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.

Sock puppet

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you believe these are connected accounts, you can present the evidence at WP:RFCU. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Please read this.-Baangla (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you linking to the English Wikipedia’s blocking policy? CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern: Please provide the link to the blocking policy of Simple wikipedia then.-Baangla (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Baangla: Please see Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot!-Baangla (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien: He is continuing to replace sourced content with his version of events.-Baangla (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

User: Baangla is possibly a sock puppet check out this Zubarkokar (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That was declined.-Baangla (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Steven1991

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Eptalon as an oversighter you may wish to have a look. ~2025-36587-80 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Since you are globally locked you are not allowed to edit here. Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No. There's enough wikilawyering here from you. Thanks though. Ravensfire (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Compassionate727 and ProfGray do not exist, do they? ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @ProfGray, @Compassionate727 and @NorthernWinds, would you like to comment as well? ~2025-36744-54 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire any comments? ~2025-36615-15 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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

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)

 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)

@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)

@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)

RevDel requested

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  ^Spe_ak! 22:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

 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)

Another RevDel

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  ^Spe_ak! 22:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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

temp account blocks

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)

2025 India–Pakistan conflict - protection request

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)

 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)

User: Zubarkokar is a confirmed sock puppet on the English Wikipedia. Now, here, he used multiple accounts and is repeatedly removing sourced content if he dislikes it from this article. Please see this, this, this, this, this, this. A topic ban if not a complete ban is in order here. It is a waste of time to keep restoring the sourced content he keeps removing.-Baangla (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

He is removing sourced content from other articles also, if he dislikes it.-Baangla (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

If the WP:ONESTRIKE policy is applied, he should be banned completely from this Simple English Wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

My complaint here did not have an effect but if this user is repeatedly removing sourced content, at least a warning is in order.-Baangla (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a week ago, his accusation against me about Sock Puppetry is rejected on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, and despite that he's keep calling me the sock puppet which is the gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

And secondly his accusations against me is personally motivated, not by any evidence. See his last complaint too, here here
Zubarkokar (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I said that you are a confirmed sock puppet on the English Wikipedia and here, on this Simple English Wikipedia, you have abused multiple accounts. You are also removing sourced content which is not allowed.-Baangla (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

U accused me that i abused my multiple accounts and abusing multiple accounts fall in sock puppetry category. So u are calling me a sock puppet. While in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser i proved that i did not abused my multiple accounts. Clear violation of Wikipedia rules. Zubarkokar (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have provided evidence of your use of multiple accounts on this Simple English Wikipedia here.-Baangla (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

And there you failed to prove your accusations against me about abusing of multiple accounts and despite that now you here repeatedly saying i am abusing multiple accounts.

And you are dragging my English Wikipedia history here in Simple English Wikipedia while you yourself are banned from the English Wikipedia.

This user Baangla is only doing personal attacks against me from the start from when he joined the simple Wikipedia after got banned from English Wikipedia. Zubarkokar (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You have admitted that you have used multiple accounts here on this Simple English Wikipedia here.-Baangla (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts and misusing multiple accounts are 2 different things, I think I'm telling you this for the tenth time. Zubarkokar (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You have used multiple accounts (please click and read the link above).-Baangla (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You should also read why your allegations against me were rejected by senior editors. Click here Zubarkokar (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman:, @Ferien:, @CountryANDWestern: please have a look @Baangla: is keep calling me sock puppet and accused me for misusing multiple accounts while his accusations against me already got rejected on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Zubarkokar (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You are still removing sourced content which is unacceptable.-Baangla (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

O my god another false accusation, now this guy really piss me off. All i did is improved content by using third party/neutral sources instead of baised Indo-pak references. anybody can see my edit history on 2025 indo-pak conflict. Zubarkokar (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Two separate things here: Baangla, if you have evidence that Zubarkokar has misused multiple accounts, please present it. Remember, there is a difference between using multiple accounts and MISusing multiple accounts. Based on the previous checkuser report, there is an agreement that they used multiple accounts, but no evidence that they used them contrary to rules. Right now, all you have shown is that they used multiple accounts. If you don't have evidence of misuse, I suggest you w:en:WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from talking about multiple accounts.

The second thing, I will mostly leave to admin. Zubarkokar received a 24-hour block for edit warring here on November 29. It may be good for an admin to examine whether there has been subsequent edit warring that has occurred, and whether we're venturing into a territory where ONESTRIKE needs to apply rather than typical escalating blocks. I also note that Baangla has been given a ONESTRIKE warning, so admin can also be mindful of that when examining this situation.

My best advice to both parties is to walk away from one another. Stop commenting on each other; stop reporting each other. If the other's actions rise to the level of administrative intervention, some other member here is likely noticing it and likely to report to admin or take action themselves. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much CountryANDWestern, you guys can clearly see that it is the same Baangla who is accusing me here too. I am forced to answer. Wasting my lot of energy and time. Zubarkokar (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to answer. You can choose to walk away and ignore them and let others handle it. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, next time I'll ignore this guy completely. Zubarkokar (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

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)

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

Requesting move of categories

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.

• Category:American musicians templates to Category:American musician navigational boxes
• Category:American country singers templates to Category:American country singer navigational boxes
• Category:American country rock singers templates to Category:American country rock singer navigational boxes
• Category:American hip hop musicians templates to Category:American hip-hop musician navigational boxes
• Category:American pop singers templates to Category:American pop singer navigational boxes
• Category:American rock musicians templates to Category:American rock musician navigational boxes
• Category:Australian musicians templates to Category:Australian musician navigational boxes
• Category:Australian pop singers templates to Category:Australian pop singer navigational boxes
• Category:Blues musicians templates to Category:Blues musician navigational boxes
• Category:British musicians templates to Category:British musician navigational boxes
• Category:Electronic musicians templates to Category:Electronic musician navigational boxes
• Category:Folk musicians templates to Category:Folk musician navigational boxes
• Category:Pop singers templates to Category:Pop singer navigational boxes
• Category:Canadian pop singers templates to Category:Canadian pop singer navigational boxes
• Category:Reggae musicians templates to Category:Reggae musician navigational boxes
• Category:Rock musicians templates to Category:Rock musician navigational boxes
• Category:Alternative rock musicians templates to Category:Alternative rock musician navigational boxes
• Category:Canadian rock musician templates to Category:Canadian rock musician navigational boxes
• Category:English rock musicians templates to Category:English rock musician navigational boxes
• Category:Singers templates to Category:Singer navigational boxes
• Category:Rappers templates to Category:Rapper navigational boxes

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

 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)

Edit warring on List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids

The article lists including the temporary account disruption that was took by ~2025-35867-12. Then, it was all of the additionally unsourced or poorly sourced. Can someone protect the padlock from the page from editing to prevent edit war? — Esteban McKeever (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Please examine this article creation and consider revdel. It has now been converted to a redirect. CountryANDWestern (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)