User talk:Asilvering: Difference between revisions

Thanks for looking into my SPI issues (the meaning of disruptive editing)

Though you must have larger worries, I commend you for your thoughtful comment on the sockpuppet investigation of my work IPs of late. After first taking Wikipedia seriously in 2006 when CNN reported it grew to a million articles with many better than World Book items, I edited here since the Great Recession in spurts. However, admins inevitably warn of blocking me or do so, which prompts me to do something else for up to years. I think the main cause of repeated ire is the sheer quantity of contributions I can make in a time interval rather than their quality.

Part of my grasp of what disruptive editing means here is any activity including yet not limited to needless edit warring, gratuitous vandalism, unexplained content removal, defying policies, lack of civility, ignorant personal attacks, and any other damaging, frivolous, or unbecoming conduct. A large volume of edits, if they are properly sourced and constructive for readers, should not be mistaken as any of those concerns.

Since the abuse accusations (part of which I do not get due to jargon) claim to not see my history, I found a few edits from long-gone IPs and lost-password names. As an eco-consultant and a STEM professor, work took younger me to Southwest Alaska which led me to find the region had no article, so I just made it and then did more Alaska stuff. After months, some user kept posting I changed too much and was not Alaskan and was disruptive etc., so I let the account sleep forever. After other flurries of contributing, in COVID lockdown I made the most edits of any stretch, including notable mostly-kept additions to Template:Branches of chemistry seen across this range, which caused my colleagues to buy me lunch when they found out later. Maybe with pride, my then-new links on Template:Fantasy fiction were so many as seen here, some crawling bot came along that permanently semi-protected it same as any other template with at least 250 hypertexts. Those templates have been reorganized since, yet most of the actual branching is still there, so they cannot be grossly off-topic after user scrutiny for this long.

My point before getting to investigation details is that I am really just a slow normie sporadic contributor. Besides vandal reverts, I believe my only works here have been adding proven verified categories to articles and requesting new ones to be made, improving extant template boxes and asking for more too, and (long ago) making baby starter articles that those who are smarter and more invested than me can expand.

Back in January 2025, I noticed perusing vampire literature due to above-average fandom by me and my family that the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker had a shocking degree of absent categories, given how acclaimed and popular it is. As an important article and a featured one at that, it was no shock that it is semi-protected, yet its categories were so few next to the original Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley which is pending protected thus still editable by anons by request. Even that had neither scientist nor monster categories till I asked, in my estimation an abysmal oversight greatly exceeded by nigh-endless landscape of literary works of sci-fi, fantasy, and/or horror genres that were and are weakly or wrongly tagged. I then resolved that in my free time, largely during running computational chemistry software related to modeling sea-air interactions, I would do something about it. This turned into a whole lot of somethings. There must be thousands of speculative fiction novels and shorter stories on English Wikipedia before even getting to works in other languages, in other formats, or that just lack articles.

I knew the wise could undo mistakes, and I might be faulted for mass editing if I put a category in many places instead of refining one article at a time. What I never knew (till today) from this info page with a rare graph based on this table was a maximum of 7587 users did a minimum of a hundred edits per month that peaked in 2007. No wonder some are appalled by my numerous revisions. I am too now by comparison.

Even with only adding sourced missing categories, a rate of maybe a thousand per week was far more striking than I would have foreseen. When Golikom (who was later site banned for socking and harrassing) griped about my citable edits to the page for the original Carrie novel by Stephen King which is seen here, it somehow got HJ Mitchell to ban my work IP for a week. That was shared throughout this building or at least part of it, but I also use it as a static IP around campus, at home, and elsewhere for work resources access. Having waited out trouble, I returned only to get fouled again by Soetermans for modest changes to the piece on the film Cast Away starring Tom Hanks that led to HJ Mitchell banning again but this time for a month. When I tried to appeal that on the grounds that I meant no offense and wished to make a case for why it was mistaken, the reviewer Yamla not only declined, but also repeatedly slighted my sincerity, my literacy, and my faculties with malice. If I am out of line and need to step away for a while or until doomsday, then okay, but stifle insults to my person when shown the door.

When I saw talk texts and blocks were gone, I returned. I even got kudos from xRozuRozu that is seen here for literary edits. Lamentably, my dumb butt missed that the university or provider had rotated the IPs without loss. This is likely the proximate cause of Harryhenry1, who was critical before others and whose talk page brims with posts on vandalism and warring and disputes and contention and hounding, filing a probe.

If my editing is normal, then please share the articles or I can link some samples for my cause, but no biggie. I have work, a troubled marriage, and a child newly starting at college. Also, you have a life. I am just mildly infuriated that all this time, being bold seems to never apply to category definition as others do multi-kilobyte edits to main content. I just try to aid navigation, period. Maybe I broke policy and now must fear sock claims for days or decades, so maybe I should let go and leave. Even so, if this is fixable, I wish to know how. Thanks for thinking on this. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, none of these have active blocks, so I think you're clear. A question before I get into anything else - is ColonelBatGuano you? -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad you replied fast, though I was slow to notice. Last night, I figured what ColonelBatGuano is, yet it hurts my plea. My geek brother-in-law coworker did a "fun" libelous fake of me, sought categories like mine, and let me find them. I made many before, yet failed to question this gift horse herd. The log shows here I likely edited on a shared workstation that he did not log out, and he halted once I noted the probe.

To paraphrase Doctor Manhattan (if I dare), I am very disappointed. I had lunch / strife with him today about his crummy house renovation contractor referral, his failure to pay his share of a vacation to Mayaguana this past New Year, and the stupidity that I am posting about here.

He and I are Earth Sciences associate faculty at a suburban Northeastern U.S. public college whose wives are sisters and in healthcare. He is professional, yet an odd nerd (more than me). Anon IP geolocation makes it easy to identify us, but I prefer privacy unless off-site if asked.

If it matters, I found some old use cases by me here and here and here and here and here yet more exist that are lost. There is a nontrivial chance of incidental anon parallel edits in that time, but a null chance it did lately without that guy. I did no edits since this befell me, so if they have been otherwise constructive and "normal" as you said, I wish to resume in some way if alright. Thanks for your patience. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I think you should do: you should create an account, and do your very best to only ever edit while logged in to that account. On that account's user page, I would suggest writing something like "longtime IP editor, recently encouraged to make an account" or something so that people understand that you're not a) a new editor with unusual skills for a newbie or b) someone evading a block. If you have an account, it's easier for people to contact you and easier for your edits to be linked across different locations, which you will find very useful - your category edits will almost certainly be reverted less often if they're made from an account with WP:XC, which I expect you will get quickly. Also, with an account, you can use some convenient userscripts like WP:HOTCAT.

Some of your category edits have been reverted because they don't adhere to WP:CATDEF, so please have a read of this guideline before making any more. Wikipedia used to be more anything-goes about categories, but it's stricter now. If you're specifically interested in TV shows and other pop culture categorization by minutiae, TV Tropes is all over that sort of thing and I'd recommend getting into that when you have that particular urge.

I love I had lunch / strife with him today and plan to immediately assimilate this into my active vocabulary. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess of the long-running referenced investigation, but also for not replying in a timely manner. I have been busy with mundane adulting, the start of the school year, and disturbing current events. To make it up to you as an admin here who thus likes both irksome discontent and dark humor, I suggest this article talk page to see folks have a food fight over what is assassination, what is homicide, what is fascism, what is mourning, what is motive, what is suspect, what is political, and what is the meaning of is. If you wish to see every type of passive-aggressive Wikipedia dispute resolution technique, it might make a good funread for you.

As though you have nothing else to do, I actually broke down your last response to prepare better comments than I compose for most memos around here. Generally speaking, I have no problem creating a new account, using only that, and not telling anyone who can do an impersonation of me along with the other nonsense they are doing. However, though I do wish to contribute as I was earlier this year, there must be tools on here that are admin-only or unknown to me that go beyond page history where the same person keeps spamming or like-minded people are playing games like this creep as explained earlier. Assuming I even get to edit again without being called out for editing going back seconds or decades, I have several questions about your recommendations.

As there is an ongoing investigation that you commented on as seen here with plausibly positive comments about me, if I create much less edit with a new account, why would that not be seen as new or continued sockpuppet or otherwise suspicious activity?

If I made an account with a user page with text that amounts to "Hey, I fooled on here as an anon for a long time which is why I am slightly good at it, but an admin said to log in so it is fine now", what stops a new investigation, mass deletions, or total banning?

When (like Thanos) I inevitably do the same or similar activity by improving see also sections, making templates bigger, and most of all adding categories to places I wrote on before, how would that not be seen as edit warring, pointed disruption, or not letting go?

Though I am familiar with the extended protection level of the larger page protection tier system, since I am stumped by the WP:XC concept past the very low numerical thresholds despite reading the entire user groups page, how may it prevent or at least hinder admins, logins, or casuals from reverting or reporting my edits? (As an aside, the WP:CXT feature as described seems awesome!)

Speaking of filthy casuals, as almost all my posts are single category or template links of less than 100 bytes each (though at times in quick succession), what would be the point of using a gadget such as HotCat when I find even visual editing to be major overkill?

Due to all major complaints I get here relating to verification, overcategorization, and citation overkill, is the issue in part that a given reader may object less to a single edit instead of several items in a row or many, causing hostile reflex even if all content is suitable?

Though mention of TV Tropes as an open moving image archive is familiar and intriguing to me, in light of past and hopefully future work on Wikipedia on stuff other than fiction, why should I go to an inferior wiki that is ad-run, full of memes, and quite limited?

It is tons to ask, yet another issue relates to the investigation. For his privacy and mine, I will not feud with "ColonelBatGuano" here. Even so, if you go the Climate change article and use the what links feature at least six iterations out in all directions as with Kevin Bacon, the most evasive warring puppeting vandal is him. There must be other actions on here by him as on other platforms. He is among many I know in the United States who changed or revealed themselves for the worse in recent years, and not merely due to the unlinked person and/or outbreak you may think. I cannot figure your location from your user page and you did not ask me, yet though not discussable at length, the issues seeping from my corners of the real and online worlds are making this site worse too.

I protest too much, yet many years ago, this giant geek wondered what the heroic scholars at then-new Wikipedia were like, yet learned they were even more titanic nerds. I am a STEM professional of some success who figured out late in life that my passion for speculative fiction was okay despite my childhood. Both are excursionary since science and sci-fi are symbiotic across centuries. Add to that my old data entry clerk skills, and the inclination to edit here is almost innate. If it is at all possible for you to help resolve this jam with a favorable outcome so I can start chipping in better as you suggest, I would thank you for it. Thanks yet again. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, unfortunately I am already quite familiar with the chaos on Charlie Kirk.

Regarding the various queries: technically speaking, nothing stops another investigation - any editor can have a sockpuppet investigation about them opened at any time. (Well, admins can't, but that's only because charges of admin sockpuppetry skip SPI and head straight to WP:ARBCOM.) But if an editor tries to open an SPI saying "this guy used to edit as an IP and now has made an acccount!", the SPI clerk is is going to say "good for them!" and close the case without action. Saying on your userpage that you were an IP editor for a while before making this account will help ward off that kind of thing.

Having an account won't hinder anyone from reporting your edits, but I can promise that it will happen less often; XC users get more benefit of the doubt than IP editors or editors with fewer edits. That's not any kind of policy, it's just social dynamics - most editors who have reached XC aren't vandals or otherwise out to destroy things (they get caught before they make it up there), and you've "put in the time", as it were, so people are less likely to assume ill of you. There are also some technical anti-abuse systems that stop firing for established users.

As for gadgets, Hotcat might not be your thing if you're very efficient with the source editor, but you'll really like WP:AWB/WP:JWB, I expect.

As for the various behaviour questions: making a lot of very tiny edits does tend to drive people crazy, but it's good to break your edits up by "genre" so that if someone wants to object to one of them they don't need to revert your entire complicated edit. So one edit to change categories, one to mess with the infobox, one to add a new paragraph, etc. But really that's up to individual editors and how they like to work. Verification, overcategorization, citekill - these are all issues that you shouldn't be having, that is to say, once someone points out an issue you're having with them, you should do your best to stop repeating that problem. (Though, it's possible that other editor is wrong. You're always welcome to ask for a second opinion at WP:TEA or so on.) The reason I suggested TVTropes is that they want a much higher degree of overcategorization than we do, so if doing that is what brings you joy, it's a much better place for you to edit than here, where you'll constantly fall afoul of WP:CATDEF.

Also, another nice thing about having your own userpage as a registered editor is that you can tell other editors about yourself there, or use it as a repository of handy links, or (mostly) whatever else you like. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for missing you on the talk page for this IP. I have not used it for months here besides with you, checking out the investigation status, or monitoring my frenemy. I will message you there about this message, making a messageception.

About said frenemy, his online hellraising including vandalism here in the last 10 months and especially 2 weeks is way out of hand. Please look up any contentious article on science and politics put together, and the biggest harasser is likely him.

I do not like to fight with strangers on the Internet as much as most editors, yet I think I should rat out another naughty person. As a limited-access anon who wanted sanity checks, I used category request forms both long ago and recently to get stuff made while also having a second person confirm that my proposed category was okay. (Fun fact: telling Trolly McBiteMe of it is what got me in trouble.) Going back years, an admin whose user page is here has self-dealt terrible empty hack categories by posting garbage proposals, and then instantly approving them. From their user page, it is obvious they are infinitely more accomplished and acclaimed than I would ever contemplate, yet one can see here and here and here the trash they keep doing without correction. There are many others with most surviving, and it is truly bizarre that someone so experienced would not simply compose better proposals themselves, so maybe see what their deal is as well.

I also say sorry again for inflicting current events on you. Whatever else Charlie Kirk was, he was totally against censorship. I pointed out that editor scrum even before his funeral, as when I last composed to you I was a hundred percent convinced that the netizens will be taken to task after the comedians yet before elected officials, and am now at two hundred percent.

Getting back to being a good Wikipedian, I definitely can and probably will create an account that I shall use responsibly (and not tell anyone in real life about), but only if you review the userpage I make, speak with the relevant admins about my intentions, and answer a few more questions. You are neither my parent nor my flunky, but I would like more clarification.

Though I am glad the investigation has so far not banished me thanks to you, if I create an account now much less edit with it, why would it not be seen by someone as more sockpuppeting sometime between immediately and the far future?

Since I may be credible to you as a normal editor with excess enthusiasm and a jerk near me, will you lobby this PhilKnight or that Harryhenry1 though the former knows nothing of me before this and the latter had been giving me grief for months?

If I make a userpage as preferred, will you see if it defines my status and intent to deter investigation as much as possible?

With a new account while upgrading from dirty anon trifler to glorious extended contributor, maybe by 20 edits per day in the 31 days of October 2025 to get the 30 day and 500 edit levels with 620 edits, what halts anyone zapping me again midway?

If my edits are regularly verifiable, may I resume editing as before at some point when I am established or some such term?

If I get vexed again whatever the merit, why may there not be initial good faith rather than going right to arbitration request?

As an academic with a sociodynamics deficiency, I like to think I still grasp how dedicated effort can gain credibility among others in any endeavor, yet why would an anon not garner some level of integrity if their changes were neutral and citable?

Having looked at AutoWikiBrowser, it seems potent, but do editors get less perceived merit if they just type in article fields?

If folks go mad from many small edits in a row more than one large edit, then if an article has too few categories, is it better to add them all with a single "publish changes" action although someone might wish to easily revert some yet not others?

For those worried about too many categories, a valid concern when trivial or just bad, why is adding all supported by the main text deemed disruptive editing for some items when all prominent feature film articles have giant category text walls?

Should I pose queries to the teahouse as a desired place of guidance, or do they also do informal resolution request stuff?

Here are a pair of matters I do not have questions about: I do not wish to go to TV Tropes that only has meming funposters sifting through every word and still in fiction but nothing else, and I do want to help with navigation whether on categories, templates, or anything else. During the pandemic, all pages got a sticky left-side navbar (or the right, for some languages), and I found it magnificent and still do. Further improvements can be made, which is the whole freaking point of this site.

Lastly, if I can be assuaged that making an account with a viable userpage will be vetted by you yet also not screw up the lingering investigation, I will create an account right just now to get back to adventure without being on a total ramage. At the very least, a sourced one. Please tell me if I am good to go with you and maybe the others, see my impending thanks here if you did not already, and thanks on top of thanks for recurrently reading up on me and talking me down. Be well. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, apologies again for letting this drop. Here we go:

SafariScribe: not an admin! But please don't describe other editors as "hacks" and their proposals as "garbage". This whole enterprise works because we require editors, even editors who might mightily disagree with one another or even hate each other, to, at least outwardly, be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. It sounds like you're accusing Scribe of making bad proposals while logged out, then accepting them on their main account? That doesn't make any sense to me, since Scribe can just make new categories they want themselves.

Sockpuppeting: it's not sockpuppetry to create a new account and start editing, unless you fall under one of the conditions of WP:BADSOCK. To my knowledge, you do not. I am given to understand that you are not indefinitely blocked on any previous accounts, and so long as you stick to that one account (instead of sometimes logging out to edit, and sometimes logging in to edit), you won't violate any policies by creating it. Other editors might accuse you of being a sockpuppet (that's life I'm afraid), but they won't get anywhere with the accusations if you're not actually doing any sockpuppetry. The suggestions I gave you earlier about what to put on your userpage are intended to ward that kind of thing off. And yes, I can tell you if what you've written ought to be helpful for that.

Getting zapped: well, nothing stops any admin from blocking you, technically speaking. But so long as you don't do something that is worth blocking you for, you won't be blocked. If you are blocked, it can be sorted out and you can return to editing, as soon as the unblocking admin believes that you understand what you did wrong and that you won't do it again. If you get into trouble like that and need help understanding what's going on, I'm happy to be pinged to your talk page. If your edits are verifiable and you're not violating some other policy and driving people crazy, it's very unlikely you'll be blocked. And if you're driving other editors crazy, they'll let you know. We rarely block with no warning.

Credibility: some anons do get quite a lot! But because IPs can be dynamic, it's hard for anyone to see the full history of your edits and talk page comments when you're operating logged out. So it's harder to see what all you've been doing, and for how long. Also, some people are just prejudiced against IP editors. They're not supposed to be, but they are. So it goes.

Yes, I think it's better to add all the categories you want in one go. Yes, you may get reverted, but you can deal with that then. Better than adding them one at a time. As far as the giant category textwalls, well: WP:OSE. Sometimes things are crap because no one's gotten around to fixing them yet. Sometimes people care very passionately about what one article says. The whole place is an eternal work in progress.

The Teahouse is a good place to ask questions, yes. They're also a reasonable place to ask for a second opinion, if you're in a dispute and you need help understanding why. But it's not really a place for dispute resolution - that's the talk page of the article in question, or alternatively, the steps at WP:DR.

Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, great latest reply, despite my inquiries born of nervousness and mild issues heeding text-only direction.

About SafariScribe, I could have said dumb and bizarre. Their category creations are very strange, as they use that page to make categories no articles and/or no parents, and then self-approve in seconds. Some get filled later, yet others not, and why not do it yourself well on the page or as a direct creation. So odd even assuming good faith.

Since I have no desire for sockpuppetry much less witting or oblivious strawman junk, I accept your writings that my activity here going forward is okay. Since accounts have always been preferred for regular editors, I shall do so. I also guess that doing a score of article edits per day for October 2025 will earn me extended status lest it deemed system gaming to edit more articles faster in future, which you know I can do (though always with citations).

I further hope the aging investigation will be favorably closed or become irrelevant to my forward logged actions. As I have followed on the general page, it is you who has not only stopped other admins from sending me to the Negative Zone by your hold, but that the vast number of holds there are yours so every confused newcomer and troublemaking clown gets a chance from you to explain. The block evasion pursuits alone must be quite irritating.

My twin original sins that brought me to you were letting WhatsHisFace see me edit at work and not being logged. Admins can be biased against anons, yet logged users build up reps and get into beefs on here I wished to avoid.

On categories, ducking reverts is aided when not adding many to one article or one to many articles. Even so, there are endless pages that are undercategorized and categories that are underutilized. Maybe I will take modest risk.

I thought the best way to dodge disputes was like real life: do something small, almost always let go, and try again later. As one well-educated person to another, that seems the most competent move besides not editing at all.

With mostly good answers in hand with thanks, you may not see this IP again. However, you will me. Real soon. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red September 2025

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Highly interested. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelisaaArcadia, glad to hear it - you can sign up at WP:WOMRED! It's a really welcoming and friendly wikiproject, I recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

done, thx for the guidance. Its my first wikiproejct, actually. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

SPI

Hi @Asilvering: I’ve added a few points to this SPI and shortened parts of my comment to make the evidence more straightforward to review. Could you take a look? I’d appreciate your opinion. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not familiar with this case, can you give me a brief description of what Urabura gets up to? I don't mean evidence with diffs, just a general description. eg from my quick skim through the case it looks like they're interested in Polish history and have a habit of edit warring. You mention a conversation that comes off to you as "inauthentic", does this sockmaster have any previous history of this kind of thing? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Please excuse my late response. I have summarized my observations regarding the discussion with the previous sockpuppet account here. PJK 1993 shows similar patterns to Urabura and their earlier sock accounts: a focus on Polish history, repeated disruptive editing (apparently from a Polish nationalist POV), personal attacks, and edit warring. Particularly concerning is the deletion and alteration of citations in order to remove scholarly findings that contradict their own views (in combination with original research), see e.g. [1]. Even if we leave the sockpuppetry issue aside (in my view, this evidence alone already seems sufficiently clear), the behaviour mentioned above makes it difficult for other editors to work on the affected articles in a constructive way and is in conflict with the core content policies.

At this stage, I think it should be sufficient to refer, in addition to the SPI, to the recent entries on the user’s talk page (the same recurring problems: disruptive editing, personal attacks, edit warring). Given the similarity to earlier cases where admins had to step in and also considering the impact that editing from a Polish-nationalist POV had on Wikipedia in the past,[2] I would appreciate if you could review the situation. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I noticed that you have already taken action. Thank you for that. Just to clarify, since my previous reply may not have made this sufficiently clear: I would appreciate if you could have a look at the SPI because as others have also pointed out [3][4] there is strong evidence that this is a case of sockpuppetry and the SPI has been open since a very long time. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as unfortunately have many SPIs. I've got limited bandwidth at the moment, but I'll see what I can do when I can do it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1, there are many SPIs in the backlog, and I have no previous experience with this case. Please don't ping me about it. I or someone else will get to it when we can. -- asilvering (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. I only pinged you because you explicitly mentioned it on your user page. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: there is new evidence [5] Could you please have a look?

@Asilvering: even more evidence [6]

Apologies

Hello asilvering,

I took your message to heart about being nice and polite. You were right.

Along those lines, I wanted to apologize for how I responded to your message on my talk page (which I subsequently deleted) in regards to that flautist from NJ. I know you weren't calling me that and your message was helpful. I didn't react properly to it, and I'm sorry. I also bit the newcomer.

I've turned a new leaf and appreciate all the help I can get. Thank you. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 16:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, @Mamani1990, and apology accepted. I don't know that I can provide help, exactly, but I can offer some advice: always act as though the people you're talking to are collaborators who want to work together with you to improve the encyclopedia. And of course, vice versa: act as though you want to collaborate with them. If you don't believe that, it doesn't matter - fake it 'til you make it. It will certainly feel very foolish at first, but you'll get used to it and it'll become second nature.

Perhaps you're thinking, "but what if they are here in bad faith and don't at all want to improve the encyclopedia?" Doesn't matter. The only way to avoid the ABF trap is to never make an assumption. If they're up to no good, and you're there next to them acting in the highest of good faith, everyone else will be able to see what's going on. And it's much, much easier for an admin to take action. Go grab one if you ever get too far in over your head. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikifreak20012

Hi, thanks for your response at the SPI. The last two socks haven't been blocked yet, could you whomp those please when you get chance? Wikishovel (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Er, thanks for pointing that out. Not sure how that happened. Fixed. -- asilvering (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Stray training tag

Mz7 copied an SPI report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach/Archive without removing the notice that you were training on it. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to clean it up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to stay there? There are lots of them in the archives from previous baby clerks. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Guess I made a bad assumption, then. Thanks! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't really have any idea what it's for, so I just quietly stopped using it. No one's come after me since, so... -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Shoxrux Hamdamov

I saw you salted Shoxrux Xamdamov; the previous one Shoxrux Hamdamov is not salted on en-wiki, only on uz-wiki -- so flagging that in case you'd like to salt that one as well. Thanks for reviewing the SPI. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating. Assumed it had been since they did the run-around with the name spelling. I'll leave it, actually, for honeypot reasons. I'm more keen on salting the slightly weirder versions that are easier for patrollers to miss. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkem1st

I had no other choice but to log off my account to write this to you. You have told me on my recently unblock request that i should appeal an unblock request on my talk page, But i cannot do this, im blocked from doing so. And i cannt appeal another unblock request on that UTRS website thing. Philknight blocked me from doing any thing at all. 94.191.153.156 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

UTRS is actually available to them -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkem1st, are you maybe trying to edit the old UTRS that was declined? You have to start a new appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you thoughts on UTRS appeal #106470 ? Not sure where to go or what to do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, I've had a look and added a comment to the UTRS appeal. I don't know what moved Phil to call this "likely" instead of just "possible" but it is probably worth having a double-check on that. @Mz7, @Girth Summit, you've both also had a look at socks in this case, maybe one of you could see what you think? I've left some more beansy stuff wrt possible CU data on the UTRS appeal as well. Sorry if it's useless and/or accidentally condescending, as I don't have goggles and am mostly guessing wildly. -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I would agree with  Likely, or even  Technically indistinguishable. They're using identical UAs, and there almost total overlap in the IPs ranges they edit from; the only thing that would prevent this from being a confirmed finding is that they don't actually show up on the same IP at the same time - but then, neither of them stay on the same IP within their ranges for very long. (Without giving away too much about the content of the UTRS discussion, I would venture to ask how they know what they know about the other editor they are claiming not to be connected to...). I wouldn't unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I strike that last comment - I misread, I was interpreting 'edit' as 'edit from' rather than 'edit about'. Still, the technical connection is very strong, I would not unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added some more detailed observations to the UTRS appeal. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I was considering carrying the appeal the community. But I think it would be futile to do so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not an admin or CU. All the people commenting here are admins, so I wanted to comment while I was waiting to see if I should comment or wait for things to happen. I have reported more than 100 users on SPI since January. The most famous tactic of socks is to either change their IP addresses or their identities to avoid detection. On this account Grek0map they claimed to be Greek, [7] but they did not edit even a single Greek article. On their newly created account, Turkem1st, they claimed to be Turk, [8] and again, they do not edit articles about Turks. I think all this masquerading through this account and the others was part of deflecting the pov pushing their had been causing. How could someone of Turk or Greek origin possibly be pov pushing in favour of anything Assyrian-related? Especially look at what Etcnoel1 added to the infobox (10,000 Turks and Kurds massacred) [9]Etcnoel1's sock Ashuroyo22 had created a battle article about Assyrians in one of their first edits, [10] and Turkem1st did the same. They had created a battle article about Assyrians in one of their first edits. [11] Kajmer05 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kajmer05, I've given them the standard offer, so it's just a waiting game at this point. @Deepfriedokra, forgive me, but I refactored your comment on their talk page when I cleaned up all the beans off the floor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for them the standard offer would be the best solution. Kajmer05 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

RM closure

Hey there, re the RM closure - as I summarized here - the prior RM could very easily been challenged at MRV that the alternative had basically universal support and the result should have been moved at that time (which likely would have made this RM here a lot less chaotic). While the "homosexual -> LGBTQ" proposal found no support, no one really challenged the notion of "homosexual -> homosexual men" at the new RM either, so do we really need to re-tape another RM for that move to happen, when no one fundamentally disagreed with such a move? Feels like a pretty simple application of WP:RMNOMIN to execute the alternative move. The same could be said for the other 2 articles, which were broadly supported (I assume you ignored the 2001:8F8:* harassment who's been chasing me for weeks, collecting more diffs to narrow down the range to block, see Ponyo's talk page for more context), some people only voiced opinions on the homosexual article and the only person that opposed it was Buidhe.

• Comment only on homosexual title
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ
    • Rsk6400 (Strong oppose The existing article Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany is a featured article and the hatnote says that it is about the persecution of homosexual men)
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ, but support homosexual -> homosexual men
    • Panamitsu (Oppose per Rsk6400. If we were to move the article, I would change "homosexual" to "gay men". ... "Persecution of homosexual men in Nazi Germany" was suggested instead, which I think would be a better title than what we've got now.
• Comment on homosexual & trans / lesbian
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & support trans & lesbian
    • Brigade Piron (Partial support. I agree that moving the Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany and Persecution of lesbians in Nazi Germany makes sense.... disagree with the "homosexuals" to "LGBTQ people"
    • SchroCat (Oppose; others have been more eloquent.... There is space and freedom on the project for this article and focused articles on other groups persecuted by the Nazis.
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & support trans
    • Zenomonoz (Strongly oppose moving "Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany" to "LGBTQ... However, I do support moving "Transgender people in Nazi Germany" to "Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany".)
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ, but support homosexual -> homosexual men & support trans / lesbian
    • AirshipJungleman29 (oppose the moving of this page to "Persecution of LGBTQ people.... instead, I support the moves on the relevant transgender and lesbian-related articles)
  • Oppose all homosexual -> LGBTQ & Oppose trans/lesbian, no comment on homosexual men
    • buidhe
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & Oppose split of new article to homosexual men & neutral of trans / lesbian
    • Denaar (Oppose - Options 1 and 4, neutral about options 2 and 3
  • Harassment
    • 2001:8F8:* IP range harassing me for weeks, reverting changes and commenting in opposition of various threads I'm commenting on

So, summing it all up (discounting the IP):

User	Homosexual → LGBTQ	Homosexual → Homosexual Men	Trans / Lesbian
Rsk6400	Oppose	—	—
Brigade Piron	Oppose	—	Support
SchroCat	Oppose	—	Support
Zenomonoz	Oppose	—	Support (trans), no comment (lesbian)
Panamitsu	Oppose	Support	—
AirshipJungleman29	Oppose	Support	Support
Buidhe	Oppose	—	Oppose (later comment agreeing there are more sources for trans people compared to lesbian)
Denaar	Oppose	Oppose creation of new article if homosexual -> LGBTQ had happened	Neutral
Raladic (RM author)	Oppose	Support	Support

Or totaled:

Proposal	Support	Oppose	Neutral	No Comment
Homosexual → LGBTQ	0	9	0	0
Homosexual → Homosexual Men	3	0	1 (Oppose creation of new article if homosexual -> LGBTQ had happened)	5
Trans	5	1	1	2
Lesbian	4	1	1	3

Plus the prior RM of homosexual -> homosexual men (initially -> gay men), which Buidhe and Fff explicitly supported as well (and didn't voice further comments on in the new one), plus Panamitsu who now clarified in the followup that they support the alternative.

So just reading it all, a flat out "not moved" seems like an unlikely reading unless you ignore all supporters' comments and only considered Buidhe's comment, or didn't differentiate that some commenters only commented on the homosexual title and not the other two. I even tried to address Buidhe's concerns in the special response for them specifically (with the linked addendum since no other commenters were asking for that much detail), and while they didn't strike their initial vote, they did seem to come around at least on the trans title.

So, I think in the interest of saving the community more red tape discussion, this is a more genuine reading of the discussion: "Moved to alternative Persecution of homosexual men in Nazi Germany per this and the prior prior RM of homosexual -> gay men which had broad support for the alternative homosexual men. There was broad support for the other two articles (support was slightly stronger for the transgender case compared to the lesbian case) being moved to Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany, with one opposition, one neutral and two abstentions, and for and Persecution of lesbians in Nazi Germany, 4 supports, one opposition, one neutral and 3 abstentions, which in light of WP:RMNOMIN supports the moves."

I could understand the slightly weaker support for lesbian (one less support and Buidhe's later comment), but I think support for homosexual men and transgender articles was broad enough to support the moves.

Anyway, I hope the above is convincing to save the community time instead of having to spend more time in another red tape several discussions. Raladic (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Raladic, this verges on the absurd. This is more than two full scrolls of my computer screen. Please stop making excessively long comments and unnecessarily complicated RMs as this is, in itself, a waste of community time. The RMs will take very little time, and require very little further discussion, if you simply open them and let them run. I strongly suggest that you write a statement of no more than 100 words in support of any of your proposed moves, and additionally I strongly suggest that you hold yourself to that same limit when replying to anyone in the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For mopping with empathy, nuance, and rigour — and for being unquestionably charitable with me with your time. I really appreciate it :) Giraffer (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Exxess

It's been a few months since you changed the block on an UTRS appeal, but is this what you meant to happen when you gave talk page access back? --Onorem (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Meant to, no, but why are you asking? -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess I thought it was fairly obvious. They've said they aren't looking to request an unblock...but are taking shots at the editors that they feel 'wronged' by. Why are they being allowed this platform? I obviously don't have access to UTRS, so I don't know the appropriate venue to question their access. --Onorem (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but again - why are you asking? They haven't tagged you, and as far as I can tell you've never interacted with each other. They don't have an open unblock request. What's going on?

As for why they're being allowed, well, it appears to be prep for an imminent unblock request. It's not much of a platform, and they're not tagging anyone other than an admin who's perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, so I don't feel any urgent reason to get in there and stop them from digging that hole even deeper. Maybe they'll find the bottom of the hole, maybe not. If you're concerned about them being unblocked when they finally get around to making a request, don't be. I can't imagine any administrator taking a look at that and thinking "this is someone who will edit collaboratively and productively with other editors, let's let them loose". -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how their talk page wound up on my watchlist. I'll take it off now. They have said they aren't going to request an unblock...so I don't think that's imminent. If the editors they are attacking don't care, I guess I don't either. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Onorem (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it's no inconvenience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Tban

Hi, I just noticed I am involved in yet another CU, am I allowed to reply to it? Wlaak (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair, so long as you stick closely to the topic of the SPI, rather than wandering into discussions about content any further than that. @Hammersoft, you set the tban, do you agree? -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Until Hammersoft responds, let me just say that it's been 4 months, in 2 months I am able to appeal the TBAN. I would not risk anything this far in. But I have nothing against doing a CU check on me, do it as much as you want.

The TBAN has made me detached/not as attached to the topic as I was, which is good. So please, don't start dragging me into it again. I've skimmed through the report, and must say it is not weird for the edits to be on said villages as it currently seems as they are the only ones having a different name of the population from all other villages in the mountain. Regarding the Turkish one, I don't know what to say, might be because there was a GS:ACAS left on his talk page which has the Draft as the number one article listed.

Regarding the "off-wiki" evidence, sure, email them, show whatever they feel like showing, I am more than happy to email you Asilvering my name and Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok username, I've got nothing to hide. I don't have anything against telling my IP, phone, software, whatever you want. I just hope after this time, the constant bashing on me can be let go.

And like I said, do the CU check, do it 100 times a year if you like, this just feels like poor attempts to get rid of me. I've nothing to hide, keep going.

Is there some kind of rule on Wikipedia that mentions ANI & CU abuse against one person? Wlaak (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they're attempting to get rid of you, so much as that they're picking the SPI in your name as the location of the filing because you were one of the more active new editors in the topic area. I'd be surprised to find you are technically related to any of the listed accounts in the current SPI, and said as much there. You certainly don't need to send us any personal information.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. We do have policies against harassment and WP:HOUNDING, if that's what you're asking. Opening an SPI when there is evidence of sockpuppetry is not harassment or hounding, however. Though if this one also ends in no blocks for anyone and editors return again a third time, I don't think the clerks/CUs will be particularly amused. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep logging on as normal and edit whenever I feel like it.

But I have a question again, this TBAN, is it only on the English WikiPedia? Or can I upload images to Wikimedia as well? And edit other languages I know? Not saying I will, but I am curious, specially curious on the Wikimedia thing Wlaak (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wlaak; so far as I'm concerned, I feel you are free to act without concern of the TBAN strictly only in responding on and too the CU Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlaak. I.e., editing OUTSIDE of the CU about the CU would not be covered, only editing on the CU itself. Anyone who questions your actions on that CU can be referenced to this comment by me. As for the TBAN's project scope: It applies strictly only to en.wikipedia.org. Any other Wikimedia project is not affected by the TBAN. However, if you did something on this project that referenced your work outside of en.wikipedia.org and that external reference were to violate the TBAN, then we would have to consider that a violation of the TBAN. Example; uploading an image to Commons would be ok. But, including that image somewhere on en.wikipedia.org...if it could be construed to be in violation of the TBAN...would not be acceptable. Certainly feel free to ask me if you have questions. I'm happy to answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but if I were to appeal the TBAN in 2 months, can my contributions outside of en.wikipedia.org be used against me, like "well you still edited within this topic, proving you could not stay away of it." Or something like that? Wlaak (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that won't be held against you. The fact that you haven't made many en-wiki edits in the interim will, however. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I've tried looking for topics to edit on, but its hard. I've looked into history but all articles are super detailed already... I have tried to edit some finance articles recently and started a topic on Swedish 30 year wall about moving title but no response hahah.. its difficult Wlaak (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you be interested in working through some kind of maintenance backlog? There are loads of them, and they're all pretty boring to handle, unless you're the sort of person who likes handling that particular backlog, in which case you find them deeply satisfying. It's hard to guess in advance which tasks you'll find boring and which ones you'll love, but you could start by looking at WP:TASK and seeing if anything jumps out at you. If nothing does, I'd suggest just picking something randomly and clearing 10 items from that backlog. If you hate it, then move on to another one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I will look into this Wlaak (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I came here to ask Asilvering a favour, and just saw this in passing, but one thing which always needs done is the basic proofreading / editing tasks they give newbies. Another which I grind away at is, pick a random WikiProject. There will be thousands of stub articles, many of which are no longer stubs because they’ve been edited. Recategorise the non-stubs as start/C class, and if it’s genuinely a stub, see if you can get it to a start level and enter it into the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge list. That way all the articles you see will have minimal detail. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well. Never let it be said that we didn't try. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Man, it’s all you can do 😆 Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Just ...wow. <smh>. It's amazing to me how people think they can get away with things. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The SPI revealed that DavidKaf was being used by Wlaak. One of the edits I pointed out is that DavidKaf copied Wlaak's Draft:Aramean people into the Turkish version of Assyrian people. After the blocks I reverted that edit, but what does Wlaak do? They revert back to the version that DavidKaf had [12]. Is this not basically an admission of sockpuppetry? Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, I wouldn't say so, and I'm not quite sure why you think so? Certainly it's further evidence, but an admission of sockpuppetry would be just that: outright stating that both accounts were theirs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering "Admission" is probably not the best word to describe it, but I would say it's further evidence that both accounts are connected. I will try and reply to Wlaak's message on his talk page with more details (Edit: sometime later today). Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, it's best not to do that, as you will probably end up toeing the line pretty close to WP:GRAVEDANCING. We have a CU confirm so it's unlikely that we'll need further evidence, but you might want to hang onto it for now in case more sockpuppets show up (it might help you write future SPI reports). -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not even know that WP:GRAVEDANCING was a thing if I'm going to be completely honest with you, certainly it wouldn't be my intent to try and insult Wlaak as it is unsavory behavior and I want to be as uninvolved as I possibly can be. However, my concerns with Turkish Wikipedia are still valid; they have the same policy for sockpuppetry and there's the CU confirm here, so the fact that Wlaak reverted this revert is a little more then just slightly suspicious.

Furthermore, I just want to inquire on something as well; DavidKaf's account was only blocked for three months after the CU confirmation. Isn't it typically custom that the sock account of a user is permanently blocked? What happens if after December 20th "DavidKaf" suddenly reappears and begins contesting content in the topic area again? Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The sock account is Wlaak, since DavidKaf is an earlier account. DavidKaf has been blocked temporarily for socking and for violating the tban. The tban will still be in force when the block expires, so if the DavidKaf account goes back to editing in WP:GS/ACAS, we will block again, probably indefinitely this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Quick favour

Hi, I have a quick favour to ask. I merged a draft I declined to an already existing page which MUCH less content than the draft (including edits I had made). Could you just check to make sure I haven’t buggered anything up? This is my first tie. Attempting a merge. I followed the steps on the merge page, and it LOOKS ok, but…

page is Kyosuke Takumi

The thing I’m most worried about it whether, when the draft expires, it’s talk page will also expire, deleting the edit history that the merge notice links to…

Thanks 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page and the draft would both be deleted, if they timed out via WP:G13. But since it's an redirect from draftspace, it will stay there indefinitely, so it's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Beginner help

A quick guide to get started Caliimusic (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to help me review my draft? I am unsure how to move it to and from the draft. Caliimusic (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Caliimusic, it looks like you accidentally removed the draft submission template. I've added it to the draft for you, so now all you need to do to get a review is press the blue "submit" button. However, I don't think this is likely to be accepted, and I don't think there's anything you can do right now to make it something that would be accepted either - sorry for the bad news. Basically, you'd need to be able to show that you meet WP:MUSICBIO, and it's very unlikely that you do (yet), since your debut just came out this year. Basically, we're looking to see that all our article subjects have significant coverage, so that we can write about them without having to reply on non-independent sources like interviews, their personal websites, etc (see WP:42). This is so we can satisfy our two really central goals of neutral point-of-view and verifiability. Musicians typically need to have released multiple full albums before they have enough independent coverage to meet our guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:HouseBlaster and User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Since 2021, asilvering has been a champion of the unseen on Wikipedia, whether by providing hundreds of thoughtful responses to newer editors at the Teahouse and their talk page, or helping expand the encyclopedia's coverage of things like the Federated Legion of Women with WikiProject Women in Red. They've put in a lot of work helping to keep the queue of literature-related drafts short at Articles for creation, with a staggering 1835 reviews to their name. Since becoming an administrator, they've been working on unblock requests—a taxing and largely thankless task—helping editors understand why they were blocked, and teaching the nuances of sourcing, copyright, and conduct. The fact that they're now training to be a clerk at sockpuppet investigations is a testament to their patience and tenacity. Wikipedia needs more editors like asilvering, and we hope you'll join us in presenting a small token of appreciation for their work. This nomination was seconded by theleekycauldron, Vacant0, Perfect4th, QuicoleJR, Tarlby, WeWake, Vanderwaalforces, Bunnypranav and Sohom Datta.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Administrator

Asilvering

Editor of the Week for the week beginning

asilvering has been a champion of the unseen on Wikipedia since 2021; whether by providing hundreds of thoughtful responses to newer editors at the Teahouse and on their talk page, or helping expand the encyclopedia's coverage of things like the Federated Legion of Women with WikiProject Women in Red. They help to keep the queue of literature-related drafts short at Articles for creation, with a staggering 1835 reviews to their name. As an administrator, they work on unblock requests - a taxing and largely thankless task - helping editors understand why they were blocked, and teaching the nuances of sourcing, copyright and conduct. They are now training to be a clerk at sockpuppet investigations.

Recognized for

patience and tenacity

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Incredibly well deserved GoldRomean (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely! It's not just the work you do but how you do it. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Gratz! Well deserved! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I was worried when I saw how many pings I had... and then it turned out to be this! Thanks everyone, this is very sweet. :') "Patience and tenacity" makes for a good motto. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from MaxwelJohn (16:10, 21 September 2025)

I'm trying to add stage credits to an actors wiki page but it isn't saving the credits --MaxwelJohn (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MaxwelJohn, welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you got this sorted out in the meantime, but do let me know if you run into any other problems. I've left you some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved from the DRN on ethnic groups in Afghanistan

Hello @Asilvering, as you saw we are making some progress in the "Discussion on Table" talk page. While we sort out how we want to represent the data, we will have to come back here soon to discuss disputed sources. I put a column with your name in the sources overview to have the opinion on all sources from everybody who was involved in the discussions. Do you consider yourself involved enough to give your opinion on every single source? If yes, I would kindly ask you to add your opinion into the overview as soon as possible, so once we have reached consensus on the ethnicity table layout, we can discuss the disputed sources without wasting too much time. If you don't feel involved enough (anymore), that's also fine, then I would remove your name from the table. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@SdHb, it's not clear to me which version of the table we've settled on yet, if any? The version of yours that I was looking at didn't use most of the sources that are in that larger table. I don't see any reason to add in ones that are under dispute if we've already got a table that functions perfectly well. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This may be a misunderstanding. What mostly me and Xan747 are discussing right now is just the format that the ethnicity table should have at the end in the live article. The sources that Xan747 and I are using in our draft versions are more or less placeholders for all sources that will eventually come up. What sources we use for that table, that‘s what we discuss afterwards. And in order to do that, it would be of great help if we know where every involved user stands with their opinion of every source that was ever in question for that live table. For that I think your opinion would be of immense importance, and that is why I have created that overview of sources. It‘s not for the content of the sources, just to visualize whether a source is even reliable or not. If we agree (if needed, after a discussion) that a source is reliable, then we will add the content of that source into the live table. I hope this was understandable. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

mm, alright, I'll have a look. Do you know if the ranges that are in your "demo" tables are likely to change if new sources are added? Or are the numbers also just guesses for the sake of designing the tables? -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes surely they will change. Many numbers are more or less placeholders. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Batter up!

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CU/OS rolling appointment application - September 2025. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

hup hup asilvering (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for text of deleted article.

I would like to be able to access the text and footnotes for the article I created (Erica Coulibaly, the international rugby player). You were the one that decided to delete it. Thank you. Gegenpresser (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can do, but you don't have email enabled, so I've nowhere to send it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you do so now? Gegenpresser (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi @Asilvering! Just wanted to leave a quick note saying thanks for your close on this AfD. If I had the ability to remake that decision, I would've just left it without bothering nominating it, had I known about the drama that was to follow.

I also want to say thanks for giving me a chance with participating in the backlog drive. I'm currently on a break from most online activities, including Wikipedia, as a result I have updated my user page to reflect this and withdrew my username from the drive. It would have felt disingenuous for my name to remain there having only participated for two-thirds of the month. I also don't believe my performance was up to the same standard as other reviewers (that's only a self-reflection of course). I've been notified that the permission will expire in less than a week, which I am okay with! I have made progress at NPP/S, I don't think doing the NPP exercise would have been the best decision to attempt with an ongoing drive. I think a quieter month would give a better chance to complete this without risking the chosen articles being reviewed by someone else.

I'm not going to rush to reapply for NPP, as at the moment I don't think I qualify based on self-assessed performance. That being said, the about 100 articles I did review has given me some excellent practical experience for the moment and I look forward to potentially doing more in the future! Cheers! 11WB (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's good that you nominated that! Your nomination ended up in that article being fixed up, and many sockpuppets being blocked. The system is working as intended. As for withdrawing from the drive - lots of people only participate for part of the month! You're welcome to leave your name in. And it's a good opportunity to get more feedback than you might otherwise get, since re-reviewing is part of the drive. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's true, I guess I was only looking at it from the perspective of it taking up editor time.

I forgot about the re-reviews, I've readded my name for this. There were also a couple of usernames on the list that do not have the NPP right, so I've removed them as well. I've got respect for all the reviewers who have made this is a success, especially those numbering in the many hundreds and thousands! 11WB (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@11wallisb I agree with asilvering; it was a good nom and one of places where time should be spent is AfD.

Speaking of this particular article, asilivering will you please semi-protect it. An IP from the same range as the one that was p-blocked (User talk:122.171.17.156) is back again under IP 122.171.16.213.. It was previously protected for a week during the AfD but as noted in the AfD, for the entire time the article has existed it has been disrupted by UPEs and socks. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure @Asilvering took this into account, however I think a point many later participants may have missed is that the article was at least two-thirds LLM generated. This was taken care of after @Milowent addressed all the issues. 11WB (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I know this isn't the place to request page protection, however the article will likely need it going forward to prevent reoccurrences of the same problems. I second @S0091's request. 11WB (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

oof yes, obvious oversight on my part. Semi'd for a year. Not sure that will really fix the problem, but it will at least help. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Asilvering! Unless they attempt to game the system, that should stop 99% of the issues–though with the SPI, I think they'd be caught long before being able to do any further editing, only to be reverted immediately anyway!

I've completed the theory part of NPP/S. I have decided not to reapply for new page reviewer until I've passed NPP/S completely, hopefully received feedback from the drive and am performing at an acceptable level at AfC and AfD. I would feel comfortable then applying for another month! 11WB (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

AFD Relists

I'm surprised you closed Space Park Leicester as no consensus instead of relisting it, the latest update should be discounted because as I pointed out the article now has fake LLM content, no? Are we just going to let that slide without further review?

On the other hand you relisted Greg Hayes (audio engineer) by discounting my entry, but what I wrote is directly answering what the previous relist by Stifle asked for and is straight from the NMUSIC policy, so the relist is contradicting that? - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

LLM content is an editorial issue - you can easily clean that up yourself simply by editing the article. I closed that one as "no consensus" because there was not a single delete !vote after two relists, so a consensus for deletion is vanishingly unlikely to arise.

As for Greg Hayes, absolutely no one in the AfD has argued that he has not won a Grammy and an Emmy. They've argued that for our purposes, those awards don't "count", for various reasons. winning a Grammy is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC does not help much for answering Stifle's question. -- asilvering (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: LLMs, I disagree and I think I have seem other admins disagree recently because we now have unverifiable information directly on the encyclopedia even after passing through AFD, but okay. Guess it will just be another problem to be fixed.

If the question is whether "the awards won should be counted towards notability" (i.e. Grammy), I do not see how confirming it does count towards notability per NMUSIC does not answer Stifle's question or how it would be answered. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a problem you can fix in under a minute, by reverting to this version and then removing the AfD tag: [13]. We don't delete articles simply because someone added something objectionable to them midway through an AfD.

Indeed, the question is whether the awards won should be counted towards notability. Your response, winning a Grammy is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC, does not meaningfully answer that question, since the issue at hand is not "did he or did he not win a Grammy", but "is he inherently notable for having won that particular Grammy (as part of a group)". That is seriously and persuasively contested in this AfD. Keep !voters have additionally not turned up any other reasons to support keeping the article, such as significant coverage. So simply saying that we ought to keep the article on the weight of the award alone leaves the overall discussion in the same place it was before it was relisted the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it can be reverted, however I am hesitant to do so because it basically resets the article back to when the AFD was originally nominated. I guess there is no consensus as you wrote, but I do not feel great about making that change personally.

Re: NMUSIC, it seems pretty straight forward based on policy to me, but I guess that is a matter of subjective interpretation still. - Indefensible (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Adamrabbithide (00:13, 26 September 2025)

hi! Im new to editing and i changed the main picture in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfin_squid, is this good? --Adamrabbithide (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamrabbithide, it looks like you've uploaded an image that you don't have the rights to? You can only add images to Commons if you created them yourself or if they meet some very specific requirements. See Commons:Licensing for the full details. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

NPP decline

@Asilvering Hope you're well. I’ve been working with a lot of AfD the past couple of days, most of which have been a case of delete. I see my NPP request was rejected, can I get the AfC perm back as it was revoked 2 months before [14], so that I can get some more experience in it before applying in the future if I want to? Jesus isGreat7 07:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there! In case you haven't received a response about this, I wanted to jump in. I would recommend requesting the AfC perm at WP:PERM, especially as asilvering may be a bit slower with responding to administrative requests due to a recent injury. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade Hi once again, I am not sure whether posting an AFC perm would be acceptable because many of my requests in the past have been rejected, including the most recent ones [15] [16]... Unfortunately, maybe because I lack in some part which is needed to hold those rights, so I am just looking for good guidance 🙂 Jesus isGreat7 18:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7, we don't hand out AFCP without a request on that perms page (not WP:PERM, but WT:AFC/P). But you're going to run into the same problem as before - any admin is going to look at the numerous repeated past requests, think "what the heck is going on here?!" and decline. I promise you that three months isn't that long and you can wait it out. My advice is that you keep gaining experience, taking part in the encyclopedia, writing articles, and so on, and apply for zero new permissions between now and 91 days from now. Then, apply for one, and one only (I recommend AFC). -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

IP

Hi Sir/Madam, you can see he did a manual revert. I already explained that don't use [[ ]]. See here JohnDavies9612 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking

(going after me out of desperation, history of warnings/blocks/extremley strange comments) 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment ban suggested 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JohnDavies9612, looks like the IP was blocked before I got a chance to look into this. IP, we don't usually link country names like that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Translation Update Fixing on Pages

Hi @Asilvering, hope everything's alright. I came across some issues regarding the availability of languages in the top-right corner of pages, which shows how many languages an article exists in. On many pages, for instance, the one I recently created Sebastião Vieira, it’s available in Japanese wiki セバスティアン・ヴィエイラ, but only Japanese is shown as available. However, deeper down, it also exists in Dutch wiki Sebastião Veira, but it’s not showing. Is there any way to add available languages manually? Jesus isGreat7 15:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7: (talk page watcher) It must be added into the Wikidata entry, which appears to have coincidentally been done by another user about a half hour after you posted this; see the Wikidata page history. Left guide (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide Saw that, thankyou so much! Jesus isGreat7 17:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

94.128.26.18

You declined an unblock request made by them under a different IP; looks like they hijacked an older request. They've been trolling other talk pages too. Lynch44 23:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's irritating. Thanks for the tip. Blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

My first "project"

Hey @Asilvering! Thanks again for taking me on as a mentee. I'm looking forward to getting started. To wit: I think there can be major improvements made to Subtypes of HIV, and I wanted to solicit your advice. Specifically, there's a lot of missing literature about HIV-2. While it is a lesser-known subtype of HIV, it has its own origin, discover, and treatment history. I made a few changes to the page, but I'm now wondering if a larger overhaul is warranted.

I'm envisioning adding information about the history and origins of this subtype (like HIV#History). Or even making HIV-2 a separate article entirely. Since I'm a newer editor, I thought I'd ask your advice before making such large changes. What do you think?

PS: I read a decent amount of medical anthropology, and I thought it would be useful to engage with the following scholarly sources for this article, among others:

Gilbert, H. (2013). Re-visioning Local Biologies: HIV-2 and the Pattern of Differential Valuation in Biomedical Research. Medical Anthropology, 32(4), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2013.773328

Gilbert , H. 2010 Spinning blood into gold: Science, sex work and HIV-2 in Senegal. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University.

--EspressoMachine77 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EspressoMachine77, I can't be much help on medical articles specifically, but the folks at WP:MED will be able to. Or maybe I can tag in Femke? Make sure you read WP:MEDRS before you get very far. As far as those specific sources go, you'll probably want to avoid the PhD dissertation, both because it will now be somewhat dated (that scholar has probably published more up-to-date stuff since, like that article), and because PhD dissertations aren't usually counted as WP:RS on Wikipedia.

As far as adding more information on HIV-2, by all means go ahead! My advice is to add new information separately from any edits that change something else about the article (eg formatting), so that if other editors want to object to any changes, it's easier for them to do so. As for spinning it out into its own separate article, you'll be a better judge of that once you've added the new information. If it's starting to get too HIV-2 heavy, yes, it's normal to break that out into its own article and leave a summary of it behind in the "parent" article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello EspressoMachine77! Thanks for working on this article! The WP:MED group of editors are super helpful, so do come join us in the Wikiproject. In terms of disserations, my reading of our policy on it WP:THESIS indicates that they are usually reliable, but that it depends on the context. For instance, a US PhD is more work than a UK PhD and might work better as a source. For non-medical claims, the sources you've identified seem okay, but for medical claims, Wikipedia typically wants to rely on review papers and medical guidelines that came out in the last 5 years when there is active research in the field.

I recently identified HIV/AIDS as one of our key articles in need of updating, with the median source age of 2010, so I imagine the subarticles are also in need of TLC. About splitting the article, keep in mind that that increases the maintenance burden, as you will duplicate information across articles. Medical articles have quite a high maintenance burden to start with given the preference for up-to-date medical sourcing. If possible, I would aim to avoid splitting it off. Once you feel confident about editing articles about HIV/AIDS, the main article might be another cool project to work on! It's been listed as a WP:Good article, which means we can get some more folks helping you if we list it for a review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both, @Asilvering and @Femke for the clarifications. I've read up on the guidelines that you suggested, and this all makes a lot of sense. Agreed - both the subtypes article and the main article are in need of updated. I'll try working on them and researching a bit to see how things go. Will come back to you if I have any questions! Once I get my feet wet, I'll join the WP:MED group for more long-term contributions. EspressoMachine77 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Any advise of helping my article be reviewed

Hello, I hope its ok to reach out. You were the last editor to comment on my Talk page but did not have the option to reply there. I resubmitted a revised version of my first article around 8 weeks ago and was wondering if there is anything I can do to help speed up the review process? I added a recent article to the citations ealier today, which Im hoping will help. I would appreciate any advise you might have. Thank you. Sinead RAU (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Sinead RAU, at this point there's nothing you can do to speed it up, and at a quick glance, it looks pretty good - that is, you haven't done anything that would make it harder for reviewers to review. There are two significant things counting against you, as far as speed goes: you're a paid editor, and the article is on a company. These are some of the harder and more time-consuming drafts to review. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me. I suspected it could be for the reasons you mentioned. Good to know there is not anything glaring that is preventing it from being reviewed. Sinead RAU (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive
On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed. Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from KunalRKale on Institute of Management and Economics (07:44, 30 September 2025)

Hello, https://www.amsterdamuas.com/ Can I add this citation link after "vocation university." --KunalRKale (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though it would be more helpful if you could link specifically to a part of that website that is about the Institute itself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank You KunalRKale (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Xalo23

They wrote this message but deleted it after pinging you. [17] They admitted that they have an account named Dunyar77 (talk · contribs). The user has other confirmed accounts here, you can better check it out here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokak99/Archive Kajmer05 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Trust the process please, I know what I'm doing. :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I did the thing (thanks for the advice and encouragement)

Hey now, after much pondering with you since month before last and hesitancy with Wikipedia since decade before last, I did the thing (finally).

Please check out said thing for how appropriate, aesthetic, and helpful it is versus how it could be. Most of all, the big userbox lists should be collapsed by default, so I hope to get good site code for that. I also freely admit to the colossal reuse of material from a squad of semi-random userpages than I recall. Some even came from accounts you paused as per the naughty list page, yet some applied to me, so I hope it is fine.

As I aim to do a finite number of small edits over time as we discussed, I look forward to pinging your talk page as well as hearing from you. ThoughtlessMcSheep (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Good luck and happy editing! I'll close the SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, so I guess you kept me out of the fire. I will say more on what is my new usertalk page, yet in keeping with most notices on here, please consider looking at the several users I grumbled about, even the admins. Thanks so much for taking my dumb situation seriously. ThoughtlessMcSheep (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A thank you from the AfD discussion on Ashworth

Hello!

I wanted to personally thank you for your thoughtful "Keep" !vote in the recent Articles for Deletion discussion for Richard Ashworth.

I was very concerned the page would be deleted (having spent a lot of time researching it both physically and digitally), and I believe your nuanced perspective on sourcing for a historical figure was very instrumental in achieving the "no consensus" result that allowed the page to thrive. Your argument that the article could be improved rather than removed was really encouraging for my efforts.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article and share your insight. It made a real difference.

All the best The Watcher5292 (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I wish you luck with it. Do take Fram's concerns in mind to the extent possible - I think they're well-founded, even if ultimately I disagree with him on whether the article ought to be deleted. Perhaps unfortunately for the stylists among us, Wikipedia desires "staid", or perhaps even "boring", above all else. And, very belatedly, welcome to Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

CheckUser appointment, October 2025

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the CheckUser team following private and public consultation:

• Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser appointment, October 2025

Congrats on your promotion, A! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

ditto -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

congrats asilvering!!!!!! dbeef [talk] 15:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all, and especially @Dbeef for the clerk training. :) -- asilvering (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Great to see this! S0091 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from EspressoMachine77 (13:16, 3 October 2025)

Hey @Asilvering! I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhir_Kakar, and you can see some of the things I hope to accomplish in my sandbox. I noticed that the author infobox and the actual page do not have any pictures of this author.

The WP:NONFREE guidelines are a bit confusing to me. There's a decent picture of the author in one of the references https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2024.2375116 (his obituary). Would copying that picture violate WP:NONFREE? EspressoMachine77 (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that would be a great picture, but I don't know if we can use it. First, you'd have to be really sure that no adequate free alternative exists (that's the basic requirement for any of our non-free uses). Past that, I'll have to call in backup. Sennecaster? GreenLipstickLesbian? -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EspressoMachine77, as far as I can tell, there is not an easily accessible free alternative. Kakar passed last year, so if you wanted, I believe you can reach out to Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar, his wife, to ask if she has a photo that she would be willing to release under a permissive license. You can find templates to modify at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, and Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator is a fantastic and easy to use tool that you can link to her. I am also comfortable doing so if you don't want to for any reason! As a VRT agent, I do mostly permissions work so I am used to this and even uploading submitted photos for users.

Now onto the boring pedantic copyright stuff. @Asilvering, you asked, you get the rambly paragraph. Biographies of recently living or currently alive people almost always have some kind of unlicensed or free media for them; the theory and practice is that you can always request a photo of a public figure. However, we like waiting for a respectful amount of time to pass if a person has recently passed to request any photos. When we do get an instance where no free media exists (ie. only a mugshot exists) then we go through the nonfree criteria. An infobox image of the article subject will amost always pass NFCC with ease, as it fulfills all the criteria by default as long as it's not extensively used. The more you know. Welcome to the headache that is copyright. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded (Senne is much better than I am when it comes to this stuff), but before we get too far down the NFCC rabbit hole, there appears to be a free alternative. It's part of a video taken by an audience member at the 2012 Jaipur Literary Festival, and it's under a compatible Creative Commons license. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all so much @Asilvering, @Sennecaster, and @GreenLipstickLesbian! It's encouraging to witness this type of mutual support as a new editor. To be frank, I was hesitant to even ask!

I especially appreciate @GreenLipstickLesbian's find! I'm curious to learn how you went about looking for this video so that I can replicate the model later. Simultaneously, though, I'm only seeing quite a low-quality (480p) image of Kakar in the video, and that too blocked by the mic in front of him. I'm kind of leaning toward messaging Kakar's wife to see if she'd give permission to use a picture from their site using the method @Sennecaster outlined. Or maybe there are other free images out there?

Open to advice. EspressoMachine77 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It can't hurt to ask! If a family member is willing to release an image to Commons, that's the best outcome, really. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to move this discussion to my talk page so that we're not spamming Asilvering's notifications! EspressoMachine77 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@EspressoMachine77 But... spamming asilvering's notifications is fun! Anyways, to answer your question - you can often find free images of people on sites like Flickr and Youtube, both of which have an option to filter uploads by Creative Commons licenses! And yeah, sorry that the image isn't the best - the disadvantage of this method is that there's no "quality" filter LOL. I hope contacting his wife proves more fruitful, and sorry for taking a few days to remember this ping existed! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian LOL well, as long as I'm spamming fair in square, so be it! Thanks again for the help and clarifications! I'll report back once I know something from his wife! EspressoMachine77 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

CU talk post

Hi @Asilvering, I could use your advice here. Given this frankly ridiculous accusation, should I entertain it with a response, or best I ignore it? I don't want to come off as in agreement (I sure have plenty to say) but if nothing will come of it, then I'd rather let it die down. Thanks Hogshine (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

My advice in basically all similar circumstances is to just ignore it. If anything does happen - for example, if an SPI goes forward, which I don't think it will - I would still advise you to ignore it, unless someone from SPI asks you a direct question about it, in which case you should answer. A CU isn't going to check your account if they don't think it's a reasonable concern, and if they do check your account, they're unlikely to do anything sudden about it unless the technical evidence is really persuasive. If you keep getting brought up in different SPIs by the same person or group of people in a short amount of time and a clerk/CU doesn't notice you're being harassed like this, it's fair to point that out, so we can tell the reporters they need to leave you alone.

In general though, the issue in this topic area mostly seems to be suspected meatpuppetry. That is, that people are co-ordinating off-wiki to implement particular edits or influence consensus. It's fine to talk about what you're editing off-wiki, and even to do some co-ordination (that's what edit-a-thons are, after all), but given how tense ACAS is right now about sock/meatpuppetry, I would strongly advise that you avoid any off-wiki discussions about specific articles, discussions, or editors. Try to keep conversations on-wiki wherever possible, even when they're between off-wiki friends. For one, this is just good practice. For another, it makes you less vulnerable to accusations of meatpuppetry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the future though, there's no off-wiki coordination on my part; on all the articles I've contributed to - including the previously-contested ones - I've edited it entirely by myself. Many thanks for the advice, I'll leave it alone for now. Hogshine (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleitmann family as Draftify

Three days later what appears to me to be a very similar article is newly created in Mainspace. Your thoughts would be useful here. I am unsure how to approach this and doubt I have the necessary 'status'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

your G6 was correct, looks like. I've never seen IAbot do that before. How weird! -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I felt G6 to be the incorrect route because it prepares for a move, but I don't necessarily think G4 applies either. Each is 'not quite right' 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

However your admin experience trumps my knowledge. Good call. I had no idea IABot could even do that! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

G6 is also the "something effed up and we don't really need to have an AfD about it" CSD. So, "IAbot finally triggered after I moved the page to draftspace and so it barfed up a whole new article that we don't need" seems a fair enough reason to use it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Funnily enough, IA bot seems to have created a couple articles recently: Agricultural Palace (history at Draft:Agricultural Palace and Indian National Young Academy of Sciences (history at Draft:Indian National Young Academy of Sciences... does this mean I get to template IAbot with {{uw-c&pmove}}? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I'll clean those up. And I guess yes, you should go chide the poor robot. -- asilvering (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

3 Löwi

Hello! If you have some spare time, can you check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi? I think the evidence now points to a duck but I do not want to revert their edits without a block first. They are still continuing to restore sock changes (compare for example this edit with this sock edit) so I am hoping to get this resolved ASAP. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

On it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Mellk (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, that was really obvious. Sorry it took me like half an hour, I was busy having an existential crisis trying to figure out how to wear the clerk hat and the CU hat at the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for taking the time to look into this. Congratulations on becoming a CheckUser. Mellk (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you block 95.127.7.14? I created a new report but I think this one can be blocked as an obvious duck and the case can be closed. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Would be great if they would try to appeal their ban like a normal person, instead of assuming we're part of some kind of Russian troll farm, but we can't always get what we want. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again. It is indeed baffling considering they've been blocked for more than two years at this point IIRC. Or maybe they enjoy playing cat-and-mouse, who knows. Mellk (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0, I didn't participate in either of those dicussions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

XTools said you did. But thanks anyway. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles%20for%20deletion/Caesar%20DePa%C3%A7o?editorlimit=200 Czarking0 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Succession of SPI users from Fajkfnjsak

Hello Asilvering - Re: this SPI, where you did a CU on 1 Oct, there is suspicion of a succession of socks from Fajkfnjsak + mulitple IPs (blocked) -> AintItFunLiving + multiple IPs (now stale) -> TranquilityBanquet (now stale) -> DataFocused over the period of early 2025-present.

It appears to me that the user may recognize there is SPI suspicion, then drop the name, and create a new name, as can be discerned when editing activity stopped by one user, then a new user was created - within a day or two - with a successive new username and the same editing topics and behavior. AintItFunLiving acknowledged the SPI review with Special:Diff/1296622776.

The rapid, high-volume editing over short periods on different articles by each username above also raises suspicion that multiple users may be cooperating under one username.

As the Fajkfnjsak case was "closed" (but then CU-checked by you after closing) with suspicious similar/same usernames and editing behavior, can this possible succession be checked once more, please?

I added details to the Fajkfnjsak (2) case with Special:Diff/1314957081, but neither you nor Izno responded. Please advise on how to obtain further inspection, if you feel it is justified.

Thanks - Zefr (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

(I wasn't a checkuser on 1 October and couldn't have CU'd anything!) Neither Izno nor I responded because we had no idea you made that edit. I've reverted it now - please open a new case, and add your new information there. Go to WP:SPI, type Fajkfnjsak in the box, hit "submit", and then follow the instructions in the template. That will generate a new report and we'll have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for what was a misinterpretation of the list at SPI where you are the "last clerk/CU edit" shown for Fajkfnjsak.

I will submit a new case for "Fajkfnjsak (2)" as the original puppeteer in the suspected succession. I tried that a few days ago, and was directed to the existing (closed) Fajkfnjsak case, which is why I completed the information there. I did notify you and Izno in Special:Diff/1314957081, but recognize you likely see too many of these daily. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Unblock requests

I didn't know non-admins could help out with that. Consider me interested and open to your assessment of my suitability. My biggest doubt is the third criterion, followed by the first. I think I'm maybe qualified on the second, but of course I would think so. Xan747 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt I'd end up telling you that you suck at it and need to stop, I can say that much. Spend a good while lurking before leaping and I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. Feel free to ask if you've got any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I am an AFC Reviewer

Do you mind deleting Deji Olatunji for a reviewer move; and then when I move it semi-protect or extended protect the article? The Draft I plan to approve. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Valorrr, this draft contains references to deprecated sources and should not be accepted in this state. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I will decline it now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 12:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Salman kauthekar (21:06, 7 October 2025)

How to add a photo --Salman kauthekar (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Salman kauthekar, welcome to wikipedia! H:IUI has a short tutorial on this topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Asilvering for accumulating at least 5 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisika Watchanaroj

You said she is AI Vtuber, No, She is actually person, Don't insult her. Tiamichaelnuksu1994 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see the post where she uses a real-life camera and her Hand. Tiamichaelnuksu1994 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not reply to you because I was not online when you contacted me. I have no position on Watchanaroj whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag.png

Hi Asilvering. File:Logo Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag.png was uploaded as non-free content for use in Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag; however, said usage became non-policy compliant per WP:NFCC#9 once you draftified the article. Since the file is now "orphaned non-free use" it's most likely going to be tagged by a bot for speedy deletion per WP:F5 with in the next day or two; it's possible, though, that the file could actually be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since it seems to fall below the threshold of originality followed by US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected per c:COM:TOO Germany. I'm posting here to see whether there would be any point in doing that in your opinion, i.e. whether it's likely the draft is ever going to be improved enough to be accepted as an article, because of the COI and LLM concerns you expressed in your edit summary when draftifying the article.

There's kind of no point in relicensing the file if it appears the draft is never going to get anywhere; moreover, if the draft ultimately ends up deleted per WP:G13, the file will most likely end up being orphaned anyway. Do you think it's worth converting the file's licensing or should it just be left as is so that it can be deleted per F5? FWIW, I only noticed this because the file showed up in Special:NewFiles. I also guess a WP:REFUND request could always be made if the draft does somehow someday make it to article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, do you think it is protected in Germany? It seems to me that our example suggests it would be perfectly fine to upload to Commons. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It might not be, but I can ask for other opinions at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I asked about this at COM:VPC, and the responses received so far indicate that your hunch is probably correct; so, I went ahead and relicensed the file, tagged it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and re-added it to the draft. Thanks for taking a look a this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, it's aecents / aesurias.

Wondering if you could take a look at this:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2025 Buffalo mayoral election

As I am rather concerned, 1. about the article itself but 2. the user still being allowed to edit anything in the first place.

Thank you so much and have a good day! Aesurias (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that WP:CT/AP is a thing. You may want to take this to WP:AE at some point if you continue to have concerns about this editor. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you review this again and let me know if I should go to WP:AE? They've made repeated personal attacks and are unable to answer the simple question despite prompting from other, random editors. (I should note that the photo of Gainer is set to be deleted in 2 days as a result) They also appear to be stalking my Wikipedia edit history and are leaving comments on other talk pages I'm in, so I'm sure they'll see this too. c; Aesurias (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for personal attacks, but yes, if you don't get a straight answer and continue to be harassed like this I think you should go to ANI or AE about it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Asilvering, new SPI for ya! (shane here)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhj867 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:A011:8990:6947:C2AB (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) page move  Done. Left guide (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from George L Carrillo (17:49, 10 October 2025)

When will my profile be active --George L Carrillo (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@George L Carrillo, you never submitted it for review, so the answer would have been "never"! I've moved it to draftspace for you. You can submit it by pressing the blue "submit" button. But before you do that, I recommend that you have another look at the long list of external links at the bottom. I've removed them for you (that doesn't belong in the article at all), but you might want to integrate some of them into the article as footnotes. They're all still in the article history, and you can see the page before I removed them here: [18]. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way - please be aware that anything you upload to Commons can be used for any purpose, even commercially. All the photos in the draft were improperly listed as "own work", so I've tagged them on Commons as having the improper license. If you do nothing about this, that's fine, and all of them will be deleted from Commons in a week. If you do want them to stay on Commons, make sure you provide the actual source - usually, the person who took the photograph. But again, make sure that person is ok with releasing them to the world to be used for any purpose whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and for removing the content. I submitted the draft for review. Have a great weekend. George L Carrillo (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You too! -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for recommending me the backlogs that really need help! My ADD has found a new home! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 18:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

10gokk10

I'm 10gokk10 I have only two accounts 10gok10 and 10gokk10. I made 10gokk10 because I can't log into 10gok10 and Wikipedia say we send you verification email but don't send me email. If you want block my all my accounts block it,but do not block other poor people that has nothing to this. 2A01:5EC0:1002:26C:1:0:7DEA:8749 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want more explanation, you can ask me here and I answer it. 2A01:5EC0:1800:1881:1:0:7DEF:66AF (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Result of ANI

Thank you for the clear ruling. To ensure I comply with it fully, I'd like to clarify the procedure for the specific articles discussed in the ANI.

My understanding of your warning is that replacing terms is only permitted to correct a "source-text integrity issue." In the cases of Bar Bahlul and , Jabril ibn Bukhtishu the specific sources I cited use "Syrian writer" and "member of the Church of the East" respectively, but the articles currently read "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian" following Hogshine's reverts. The same goes for Jacob of Edessa where all mentioning of the term Arameans was removed.

May I revert these specific articles to align with their cited sources, as this falls under correcting source-text integrity? Or would you prefer a different process, such as first raising the issue on each article's talk page?

I want to ensure my future edits are fully compliant. Thank you for your guidance. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll speak generally, and let me know if this still leaves loopholes. I can imagine seven general situations, which I'll illustrate with the example terms you gave:

1. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are footnotes on the sentences that do this. You read those sources, and find that the subject is actually described as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
2. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they universally describe him as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
3. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they vary in how they describe him. You change our article to say "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East", because these are used in most sources.
4. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they vary in how they describe him. You remove the sources you don't like, so that the sources now universally describe him as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
5. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You find a new source that describes him as "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East", change the article to match that source, and cite that source in a footnote.
6. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". You skip all other steps and simply change it to "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East".
7. you write a fully new article. The sources you use call this person "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You use those terms, and provide footnotes.

And here's the response to each:

1. This is fine for everyone. If someone reverts you, I suggest reverting them only once, with a clear explanation of why. If they persist, do not edit-war. Go to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI to report them for edit-warring in WP:GS/ACAS. Cite this comment if you like. If it's someone who has already been warned (presently just @Hogshine), I will sanction them without further warnings.
2. This is fine for everyone. Proceed as above if reverted. Anyone seeking to dispute this would need to go to the talk page with alternative sources.
3. This is fine for most people, but not you, because you've been warned. If you want to dispute this, you'd have to start on the talk page. I don't recommend going to the talk page at all, because it will be very easy for you to be accused of a failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK and might result in sanctions for that.
4. This is bad form for everyone, and instantly sanctionable behaviour for you, because you've been warned.
5. This is fine for most people, but not you, because you've been warned. If you want to dispute this, you'd have to start on the talk page. I really, really do not recommend going to the talk page at all, since an uninvolved admin has every reason to see this as a breach of the warning.
6. Immediate sanctions. I hope this one was obvious.
7. This is fine for everyone.

asilvering (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this exceptionally clear and comprehensive guidance. I truly appreciate you taking the time to provide such detailed scenarios. it eliminates any ambiguity and gives me complete clarity on how to proceed while staying within policy bounds. This is exactly the guidance I needed. Thank you again for your oversight of this case. :) Historynerd361 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that for Bar Bahlul, it was you who appealed to Wiktionary, which I've demonstrated does not align with your view. I'm aware that this is not real scholarship but it was you who used it authoritatively.

At the time, I have already added a source for Jabril; I don't think you noticed.

Jacob's does not call him anything beyond a Syriac Christian, and as I've mentioned before many times, no "Aramean" content was removed. This is a separate issue altogether re:‌ recent warnings. Hogshine (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples.

I suggest some leeway on replacing "Syrian" with "Syriac" to disambiguate the national peoples from those of Roman Syria, Syrian region (Levant), and modern republic, in specific & relevant contexts. I don't think this is controversial. Let me know what you both think. Hogshine (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Oranienburg

You appear to have opinions. Maybe look at Talk:Cilly Schäfer? What do and don't you think? No hurries if you are still injured (but please don't be, you know?). Polygnotus (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

And my apologies for bringing up such a topic instead of something fun (UFOs?) but I found you on the list over at Wikipedia:Nazi_affiliation_task_force#Task_force_participants and I've been working on some WW2 stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, welcome back! I'm slowly getting better. Have added this to my monstrous list of open tabs, re-ping if I forget to get to it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Did they manage to find all the pieces of the other guy? I will return here every 17 minutes to poke you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me I keep picking fights with things like "cars" and "the ground". Pretty sure they didn't find all the pieces of the car though. So there's that. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Pringleguy22 (07:26, 12 October 2025)

what are some common grammar mistakes that i could change in articles? --Pringleguy22 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pringleguy22, most of the really common ones are already on someone or other's list already, but you could ask around at places like WP:TYPO or WP:TEA to see if anyone has any they'd like to "adopt out". They'd have better ideas than me, since I usually just let the helpful gnomes fix my own typos. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Pringleguy22: also consider checking the category of articles tagged as needing copy edit help and/or joining the guild of copy editors. Left guide (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Warning violation from other user

Hi @Asilvering. Please see this: [19] The "Assyrian" bit is actually cited. That can be verified in the included citation. This was communicated to the user 3 times in total. [20][21][22]. On your list above, it violates #6. Hogshine (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like @Historynerd361 has self-reverted in this case? -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That was done after my post here pointing it out. Hogshine (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

reverting mistake

@Asilvering For clarity and to ensure full compliance with your guidance, I wanted to note that I recognized an error in my edit to Jabril ibn Bukhtishu. I had created a source-text integrity issue by removing a term while leaving its citation. I didn’t notice the new source because the edit summary said: COE member from Iraq, what else would he be'’ and the version before didn’t have that source. I have since reverted my own edit to correct this and have started a talk page discussion to properly address the underlying issue of source reliability. The situation is now being handled through the correct channels.

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your rapid action at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gymrat16, thank you! Left guide (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Saleh al-Jafarawi AFD

Hi @Asilvering, I saw in this edit you reverted a sock and removing the AFD template that they added to Saleh al-Jafarawi. Did you also intend to remove/close the AFD itself, or plan to let it run? Only noting as a bot has readded the template to the page since the AFD is still active. Thanks, Nil🥝 03:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, crud. That was me just rollbacking their edits wholesale. The bot replaced it, which is fine. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Chandra Kuber Khapung

Can you please check if the current version and the previous one are similar? Chandra Kuber Khapung. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I CSD'd. A bit sleepy to get out the goggles myself but I'll set up an SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment

@Asilvering: I won't make comments like that again. Would it be alright with you if I delete it? JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and you're welcome to remove my response to you as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! @Czello: fyi JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Re-report (SPI)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhj867 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F905:8567:AB91:6629 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, you can just report things directly to SPI, no need to grab me or anyone else on their talk pages. I see this one has already been dealt with. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

im just asking if its confirmed that bhj is a sockmaster 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:3540:AC72:4C6D:B2E7 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers will not confirm accounts to IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

82.46.25.83 possible block evasion / hopped to another IP address

Hi asilvering,
82.46.25.83 had IP hopped to 82.7.175.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 82.7.175.187 is doing same disruptive edits on the same articles and few Drafts as IP 82.46.25.83. Both the same city Birmingham. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sure looks like the same person. I'll leave it for now since they don't appear to be doing that disruptive thing with drafts anymore. If they start doing that again, let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Chaistoner (06:32, 15 October 2025)

how create new article --Chaistoner (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chaistoner, welcome to wikipedia! There are some good tips and explanations for this at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. But I don't recommend that you take up this task just yet. Creating a new article from scratch is pretty hard. Instead, you might want to start with something from the giant list at WP:TASK, or, if that looks too overwhelming, Special:Homepage should have some suggestions for you. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

please unblock me

please unblock me for editing Photz9201 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Photz9201, you need to appeal your block on your talk page. You may want to use Wikipedia:Unblock wizard. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Advice

Hey, sorry to pop up here again, but I don't think any of the noticeboards warrant this matter as its not significant enough.

In your opinion, is this Special:Contributions/Atuires112 user editing maliciously? I find it hard to believe that someone has such a small understanding of simple spelling and grammar conventions that they would think these edits are constructive and helpful. They even removed a word and replaced it with em dash, I cannot understand why someone would do that. Aesurias (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias, that's almost certainly someone WP:GAMING autoconfirmed. Not a problem yet, and possible to do in (misguided) good faith. We'll find out what they're up to in four days, probably. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Capgemini - semi-protection request

This is related the User talk:asilvering#Thank you!/WP:Articles for deletion/WNS Global Services above and this SPI where you blocked the IP from the AfD and after the AfD closed protected the article The same IP/range, 122.171.XX.XXX, is now adding promotional content to Capgemini, the company that is in the process of acquiring WNS. Can you protect the page or add onto the p-block Ponyo already has for the /21? S0091 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Added to the pblock, since that appears to catch all the related IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! S0091 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for userfication

Hi Asilvering

I saw that Draft:Legora was deleted under G15. An AI was indeed used to check Wiki mark-up as a final step but the article itself was handwritten. However I understand the reason for the deletion and appreciate the policy intent!

Would it be possible to restore the deleted draft to my sandbox at User:Neilyoung77/Legora so I can manually rework the draft offline before any resubmission?

Thanks very much for your time. --Neilyoung77 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Neilyoung77, most of the references in that draft were falsified. If that was your own, human work, we have a much bigger problem than AI use. If you'd like to try again, please start from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

They were not falsified at all - all of the articles cited are genuine. If there was a mistake in some of the links, that is my fault but certainly not a result of made-up attributions! 82.132.228.87 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, there were mistakes in most of the links. Furthermore, the draft bears other obvious hallmarks of AI creation. Please start from scratch, without AI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That simply isn't the case. I will certainly make sure to triple-check all links in future to ensure they are pointing to the correct location.

Many thanks for taking the time to review and reply in any case. Neilyoung77 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft was not AI

Hi! I am a little confused about why my draft was deleted-- I did ask AI to help me figure out if certain words could be considered not "NPV" but it was a handwritten article... I've spent way too long sifting through articles and was working through making sure only the best, most relevant & factually correct were incorporated. I had some trouble with sources and was working on revising the draft and my article was deleted... I've been editing for a while and I hadn't resubmitted it, it was just a draft work in progress. Janya Arts (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janya Arts, this was very evidently not a handwritten article. You left in the comment, "Let me know if you'd like a separate section for interviews/media appearances (based on the “Interviews” column in your screenshot) or if you want to begin compiling a References section with inline <ref> tags for Wikipedia formatting." -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm very confused, I wrote my article by hand and only bounced a few things like whether a phrase was neutral or making sure I was formatting things correctly for Wiki (like which tags may be useful etc). I am worried that you may have looked at someone else's draft article? I know someone tried to write this page in 2023 and did a terrible job & used AI, but I am an academic and wrote this page myself! I didn't have "interviews" as a column in my article at all... I specifically left those out since they may be flagged for non-neutrality. Janya Arts (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a really hard platform to navigate, I've spent so many hours trying to build this article and I'm just so confused... Janya Arts (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not look at someone else's draft article. That is what it said on the article you submitted. I will restore it so you can see, and so you can keep working on it, if you agree to not use AI for any purpose with regards to wikipedia, including asking whether a phrase is neutral or whether you are formatting things correctly. AI is terrible at these things and its advice isn't worth anything anyway, so I assure you that you won't be missing out by agreeing to this. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

XC

Is there any way I can have XC perms removed until I reach 500 mainspace edits? I just feel like I might have been unintentionally WP:GAMING. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 14:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@CREditzWiki, don't worry about it. That would only matter if you were trying to edit in extended-confirmed required articles, which you haven't been doing as far as I can tell. I do suggest that you cease your gaming-like edits, though. If you need help finding an encyclopedia-building task you'd be interested in, just let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

AE

Hello , I saw your comment on WP:AE and frankly I would like you to reconsider your proposal regarding Pofka. If you are considering to ad a logged warning to me, It should go to them too, after all calling out people by their ethnicity (or what they think that their ethnicity is) and also try to locate my address goes strictly against privacy and Wikipedia rules. If this editor goes without any sanctions then the new WP:AE case regarding their behaviour should be open. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)