Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368

Jaspreetsingh6 unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following is copied from User talk:Jaspreetsingh6#Unbanned on behalf of Jaspreetsingh6:

I am requesting to be unbanned. I was banned for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's guidelines even after receiving warnings from admins, and I will not make any excuses for that because it's entirely my fault. I shouldn't have violated Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and should not have created new accounts again and again to evade blocks, misleads other editors, avoid sanctions, etc. If I get unblocked, I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support unban. The difference between being 16 and 18 is huge. Jaspreetsingh6 said on their talk page when I look back at my past behavior, I feel very embarrassed. I think it's worth giving them a shot at proving that they've changed. Jaspreetsingh6 also seems to have improved their English. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:SO and @Schazjmd. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support after reading their talk page and seeing the evolution in language and maturity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. Seems like a reasonable request . JayCubby 01:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Unblock request is refreshingly honest and to-the-point. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support This sort of situation is what the standard offer was created for, thanks for bringing it here. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, including the self-proposed one account restriction (I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one). Two years seems like a reasonable amount of time for someone to mature. Should we encounter socking issues going forward, we can deal with it then, but let's give this editor another shot. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO. Here's a little bit of rope...be careful... Buffs (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support for successfully meeting WP:SO and agreeing to 1 account use. Nothing more is needed here. Nxcrypto Message 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per standard offer. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO - This user appears to be reformed, which is the whole point of WP:SO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support While I am not sure about their editing capabilities, the block only concerned abuse of multiple accounts and that has been addressed. Shankargb (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User BubbleBabis

I have noted my issues with the edits of a particular user by the name of User:BubbleBabis many times. This editor is a hoaxer, a plagiarizer, and has trouble making competent contributions to articles. They have frequently displayed their inability to provide real citations, added copyrighted content to articles, and do not attribute text they steal from other articles. I have noted a few of the many hoaxes they have added at Talk:Qasem Soleimani and Talk:Mohammad Reza Zahedi. They are often unable to edit in a neutral point of view and overall their work is detrimental to this wonderful website, its editors who always have to clean up after their work, and its readers.

• Contains sentences stolen from Foreign support in the Bosnian War and not attributed [1]
• Adding off-topic information about Al Qaeda to other articles not concerning it [2] [3]
• Adding other off-topic information [4] [5]
• Adding clearly unreliable sources (spongobongo, pdfcoffee, dokumen.pub, etc.) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
• Misrepresentation of sources [11] [12] [13]
• Original research [14] [15] [16]

It is my hope for this not to continue. Aneirinn (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed this in Ahmed al-Sharaa as well. we started talking about the issues on Talk:Ahmed_al-Sharaa#On the "Attacks" section after some further edits today. Looks like like to me some blantant NOR/BLP/synth problems, as well as using unreliable sources. Cononsense (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025

At their request, the CheckUser access of Ferret is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025

Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention

I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Terrainman,

I have a couple of thoughts. First, just chill. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets, I know I was accused of being a sockpuppet when I first started editing. Your talk about a "rogue admin who shares a POV" is assuming bad faith, especially since the first checkuser who commented cleared you of being a sockpuppet.

Yes, filing this SPI was probably unnecessary but Icewhiz has been a prolific sockmaster so some longtime editors working in certain subject areas are often trying to identify potential Icewhiz socks they might have created. I'm sure that this report is unnerving to you but it sounds like this event has sent you down a rabbithole that leads you to believe that there is some conspiracy against you. If I were you, I'd a) stop attacking the editor who filed the report, b) stop commenting on the SPI entirely and c) trust that our checkusers know what they are doing and if they find no evidence (which they haven't), they will freely state that there is no connection between editors.

Also, in case you decide to stay as a regular editor, know that it is important how you "correct" other editors, especially ones that are much more experienced than you. This doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but you called the other editor's edits "vandalism" and implied they had some sort of bias. Other editors criticized your comments to them. When other editors come to the defense of an editor being accused of misconduct, you should question whether or not your perception was correct and, if it wasn't, you should apologize. Consider that maybe you were being "unreasonable" and be more tactful and less accusatory when you bring up another editor's editing on their User talk page. This is just my 2 cents. Make that 25 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. First of all thank-you very much for your reply. I am and have been considerably stressed about this. Being accused so zealously of something which I am totally innocent of is a really nasty feeling. When I was referring to a 'rogue admin', to clarify I mean hypothetically, I am worried about this happening; there is no admin I have in mind. I definitely have not assumed good faith of the editor who initiated the investigation, since it seems so obvious to me that this is a targeted act. I understand how that might sound unreasonable, but it is how they have worded things, being so sure of themselves that I am guilty, and how they have drawn these absurd points of evidence and stated them as if they are damning. I'm sorry but I can't help but be a little emotional about it, my gut tells me that it is targeted so I did not assume good faith. I will stop commenting on the SPI, and take a big step back. I have said all that I wanted to say now anyway. I trust the checkusers, its just the 'new evidence' that really irked me, and I felt that I needed to reach out to someone about it, especially since most of the other editors who have commented on the SPI have the editing history I mentioned - but this is the point which I, as you mention, should in particular hold back on as it is accusative to the editors. Again, I will take a big step back and let the checkusers handle it. Thank-you again for taking the time to reply 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Humans sharing accounts with machines

My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.
If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. TiggerJay (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd put it this way. If someone is just posting content randomly generated by LLMs, I don't think we need to worry about SHAREDACCOUNT to block them. If someone is asking a LLM to generate something and than posting the output, it's silly to claim that the LLM is somehow 'sharing' the account. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't this essentially grant a form of personhood to AI models, something they don't quite deserve yet? I doubt that a dependence on the human to post output is going to be a constraint for much longer. Also, in practice I'm not sure it is going to be possible to distinguish between Editor ABC and augmented-human Editor ABC. I can't even do that with my own stuff where I've noticed that I conveniently forget that it was the GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet copilot that came up with a better solution than me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

an obstacle to translation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was going to translate the article 2022 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Wikipedia were not cited. I contacted the author (user:Ahri Boy)of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM completion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please carry out the moves at Talk:Minsk District. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, Complete.webm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yann, I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now. — Masem (t) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Happy New Year!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Wikipedia! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year to the whole English Wikipedia community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by User:Remsense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was instructed to report this here.

The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Claiming a user "can't read": [17]. Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Calling a user a "scoundrel": [18]. Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: [19]. Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
• Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation [20]. Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD ^talk 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at WP:AN/3 was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.

If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. For pursuing enforcement of Wikipedia's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?

@Phil Bridger: You were not instructed to report this here. Yes I was. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.

@Codename AD: DROPTHESTICK The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.

you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Wikipedia is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.

Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Wikipedia's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at WP:ANEW, I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging Johnuniq: will blocking this /64 do it, John? Bishonen | tålk 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unclear policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.

For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.

I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.

This isn't just my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.

There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request removal of PMR/Rollback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emoji redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Was trying to create 👌 (film) as a redirect to Super (2010 Indian film); the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the Vitarka Mudrā aka the OK gesture. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been working on the article Fender Stratocaster with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. FlightTime took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December and reverted four edits, without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had a conversation about it, and they reverted themselves. At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.

However, today, they reverted 17 edits of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.

2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean without any explanation as his edit summary clearly documents his reason as Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: Talk:Fender Stratocaster or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at User talk:FlightTime and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. TiggerJay (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to Donald Trump due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is here. In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Wikipedia constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at WP:ITNC where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to Alex Shih who implemented the topic ban in the first place [21]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse lifting TBAN per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse removal of topic ban. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse removal of topic ban per Wikipedia:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:

Evidence

1. Diff 1 – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.

2. Diff 2 – In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.

3. Diff 3 – In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Wikipedia's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Wikipedia's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.

4. Diff 4 - After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated Moliere Dimanche for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act. And even if it did, Wikipedia has many candidates for office. Wikipedia even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.

5. Diff 5 - The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to Dimanche v. Brown and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential".[22] The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases.[23] To put that in perspective, Roe v. Wade was cited 2,341 times[24] in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since Dimanche v. Brown was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Wikipedia already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.

Spiralwidget (talk) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.

6. List affected articles: Moliere Dimanche, Dimanche v. Brown, etc.

Context

- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today. - I believe this violates Wikipedia’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Wikipedia.

I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.

NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in WP:Vandalism. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our policies and guidelines before resuming editing. Donald Albury 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.

• I was reviewing articles on WP:AFC back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon Draft: Moe Dimanche, which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with WP:ARTIST, which was the main claim of notability).
• Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
• I then commented on User talk:NovembersHeartbeat because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark Draft:Moe Dimanche on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
• On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that Draft:Moe Dimanche had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have WP:COI concerns and I don't think he passes WP:GNG) and also nominate Dimanche v. Brown, which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
• In addition, I would like to question whether there is WP:COI going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in WP:SOCK... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? Spiralwidget (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Wikipedia had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The exact text from the source is

"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."

The source says exactly what you just quoted. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. 74.254.224.67 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of WP:OUCH going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. WaggersTALK 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like "[This user] is vandalizing my pages" (emphasis added). @NovembersHeartbeat:, I would strongly advise that you read WP:OWN, WP:BRD, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:ANYONE. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to strike such remarks as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but may be to your own detriment. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Testifier" report

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Cannot draftify page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove PCR flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with creating user talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RFU backlog doin' great

I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.

That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.

As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Wikipedia, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Wikipedia, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech [?] (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.

I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.

Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.

Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.

And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Naomi Seibt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleted contributions request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJP_Master (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJP_Master (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: The import and merge are  Done. Please delete the page now. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

• Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong [25]. I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. [26] The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 [27] and April 15 2020. [28] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Call for mentors

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.

I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different... Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one, it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), it's quite possibly a waste of time.

That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.

I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):

• Mu Online (lv) jaunākās ziņas, tendences un pamācības
• Mu Online ziņas un pamācības

Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StoneX Group Inc.

I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.

There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Permissions Removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

96.230.143.43

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hide this racist edit.

WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) That's on the Romani Wikipedia, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel [29] [30]) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren^C 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren^C 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren^C 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren^C 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

43.249.196.179 (again)

See their previous thread here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.

I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

@Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.

But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.

WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.

The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

• Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
• Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
• Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
• Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
• Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:

I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.

While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.

My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles,[31][32][33][34] creation of SPIs of future LTAs,[35][36][37] and multiple DYKs.[38][39] That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.".[40] However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.

Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You need to re-check. Here, AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean now but I did not from the original posting. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Wikipedia editing, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:

  Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Wikipedia. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Wikipedia:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.[41]Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing."[42] I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles[43][44] and so have many others I can count on my fingers.[45][46] Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.

  I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans,[47][48] including one more editor who was banned per 3x[49]. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and [56] (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to. I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:

After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

- Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase Moxy🍁 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review of SPI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently filed an SPI for Xselant; any admin/checkuser eyes would be appreciated. Thank you! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

CUs and SPI clerks are very aware of which SPIs need attention. Please trust that we will get to the one you posted. Asking for input at AN isn't very helpful unless your SPI is much more urgent than usual. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPBE for AWB account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I'm performing a task using CanonNiAWB (talk · contribs), but the edits aren't editing since I'm using a VPN. I already have IP block exemptions on this account, so could it also be granted to that? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: [57] [58] [59] I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.

  I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.

  I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: [60]

  This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to participate in move and deletion discussions. I contributed a lot to List of renamed places in South Africa and I would like to update some place names through move requests. I haven't had issues in that area since 2022. DesertInfo (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andra Febrian report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: - caused many edit wars
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
I request that the user is warned. HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Wikipedia since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Mr.Choppers warning request

This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war [61]
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that [62]
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. [63]

I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)

Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content removal, POV pushing, edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Taha Danesh removing content and POV pushing here[64] and is currently edit warring[65][66] Montblamc1 (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like the same complaint as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report on Disputed Edits and Insults. Let's centralise discussion there. I note that Talk:Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani is also empty. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Import request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Wikipedia. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, they did create the page. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

repost from archive:

The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Wikipedia (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.

I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 [probably])

• 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
• 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
• 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
• 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. [note that 14:08 25/12 UTC is 00:08 26/12 AEST ]
• 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
• 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
• 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
• 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
• 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
  • (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
• 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".

• 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa

• 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
• 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
• 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
• 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
• 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.

---

• 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
• 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.

As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700

JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:

You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.

I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.

Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you read Wikipedia:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.

user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.

• To who would this be a threat?
• Which law?
• In which country?

Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I am glad you asked.

• to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
• It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
• The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.

Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Wikipedia unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?

  • Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
  • Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
  • Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
  • Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
  • Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
  • Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?

  Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

  An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

  .
• Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.

• Uwappa (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.

In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • And another doubling down on the legal threat. I've revoked TPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Abner Louima

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't believe this article's AfD is still up and not closed as a WP:SNOW keep. The nominator has acknowledged his mistake out of ignorance. He was in middle school when the subject first became notable, and never heard of him. If the media, or God forbid, Social Media, discovers this nomination, it will do great harm to the reputation of the Wikipedia community as being collectively ignorant or much, much worse. I used to be an administrator, and would have closed this as keep. Please do something! Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Anybody can close an AfD as SNOW keep. That's the whole point of SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Snowed by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ftools is back!

I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJP_Master (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

So, will ftools be renamed or not? Congratulations. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, Draft:Ario Nahavandi, which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.

This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Wikipedia that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.

I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.

I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning.

To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:

• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com

• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com

Thank you for your time and consideration xx

Lanak20 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset cannot be used to force content decisions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.

It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.

I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.

I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?

Thank you for your time. Lanak20 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:TEA. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the WP:NPEOPLE and WP:BLP carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lanak20: I actually just went over your sources. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:

(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Wikipedia community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Wikipedia without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

References

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Response from KC:

  Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.

  I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of suburban on Wikipedia and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.

  I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Wikipedia. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is righting great wrongs, instead they assumed bad faith and things went downhill from there. I think their concerns of Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area (which Wikipedia deems urban) when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties (which Wikipedia deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with urban area page which provides the definition that An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000. An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the suburban article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio Problem

Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.

1 2 3

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think that @YatesTucker00090 is really at any fault here.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsmasher678 please see {{copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi (unblock request)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tulsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by Rosguill during an AN thread (archived thread) for undisclosed paid editing
• Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (archived thread)

Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:

Dear Sysops,

I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361 § DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.

The issues in question occurred in 2020 or 2021, prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article Talk:Ghero.

While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created over 80 articles, all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the Twinkle and Draftify logs, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.

I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Wikipedia's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.

I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.

Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Tulsi 24x7 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.

Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (first thread, second thread), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.

They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. arcticocean ■ 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". killer bee  15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: m:Requests for comment/Tulsi advanced permissions and UPE. arcticocean ■ 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question: We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Make the most of the second chance Buffs (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.[67] Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.

I translated Transgender history in Brazil (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons[68] I improved LGBTQ rights in New York and wrote articles for famous trans activists Cecilia Gentili and Carol Riddell. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at Aimee Knight and rewrote the article. I also helped expand Trans Kids Deserve Better and wrote Bayswater Support Group. I improved Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and conversion therapy. I improved gender dysphoria in children. I rewrote and considerably expanded WPATH as well as Gender Identity Development Service. I expanded the article on the Cass Review. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report Evaluation of Transsexual Surgery. I expanded the articles on Stephen B. Levine and Kenneth Zucker. I rewrote Detransition to follow WP:MEDRS and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. Most proudly, I wrote Transgender health care misinformation and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Wikipedia was a case of either WP:RGW or following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.

I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Query Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is a convincing and sincere appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, Welcome. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as they have convincingly demonstrated change. TarnishedPath^talk 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.

I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting Administrator Abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Acalamari is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

So there's two things here.

• First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
• Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".

If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm newer to Wikipedia, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Wikipedia is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they initially reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear biting the newbies. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had no right to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said Do not edit the page TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" with the bright red "Please do not modify it" at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• without the presence of diffs. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. Now.... where is the trout? TiggerJay (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open [69]. Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal [70], which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again [71], which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted [72], and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lardlegwarmers block appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement from Lardlegwarmers

I have only been very active editing Wikipedia for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself [73] and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Wikipedia's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment[74] on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason [75] and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Wikipedia's approach to Covid-19 [76], which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Wikipedia as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.

References

Statement from Tamzin

Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:

Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Wikipedia as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors

• This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Wikipedia merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic ban block to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the ban block expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Wikipedia. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Wikipedia guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Wikipedia's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Wikipedia as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Wikipedia as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock this specific response Wikipedia's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that a block for this stuff seems harsh. TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion[77], and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Wikipedia; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Wikipedia at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Wikipedia. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Wikipedia, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Wikipedia. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page.

  If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Wikipedia they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

• Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that apparently two wrongs make a right, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting info

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Wikipedia editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:

1. File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
2. File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
3. File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
4. File:AppalachianTN.jpg
5. File:Acplate.jpg

Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Wikipedia image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Wikipedia licensing would be.

I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/2020 signups through Wikipedia:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Wikipedia:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that [t]here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BAG nomination

Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I need help from an admin - Urgent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a wikipedia admin can contact me to help.

Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant article:

• An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

OP possibly using multiple accounts:

• Mohamugha1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MohammedAlmughanni (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French wikipedia page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to contact the French Wikipedia. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:

I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.

Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Wikipedia (where I misused the same accounts). At this Wikipedia I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Wikipedia by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.

However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

  I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.

  That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, [78], is way too close paraphrasing of the source[79]. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  See [80]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Wikipedia. And I would just want to add that Wikipedia needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
  Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EncycloDeterminate unblocked

The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked

Please Help Me!

Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Wikipedia, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ([81] [82]). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact cawikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Wikipedia. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Wikipedia... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Permission request

WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Looks like we’ve got another @CFA impersonator here. If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try… TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @Liz here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I indeffed CFA (AWB) (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TWC DC1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G7 request by a blocked account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sapo.pt

• Sapo.pt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion + XML export request

Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done; b:Special:Redirect/logid/5236509. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proxy question

I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO

Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Perhaps someone could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed community ban of Marginataen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.

They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Wikipedia does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but... Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a competence problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note of caution on attacks on Wikipedia's neutrality.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Wikipedia's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren^C 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive bots

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger. Maybe you are thinking of meta:InternetArchiveBot#Using the bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently my legal team can expect a letter, as announced on User talk:Jack at BTCGPU. I'm obviously involved, haha, so perhaps someone else can assess and do what they think is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Green Star Collector has been removing any reference to the term 'insurrection' in articles connected with the January 6 capitol attack. FactsheetPete (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg

Can an admin take a look at File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg? The most recent version of the file uploaded appears to be a WP:G7 request based on the last post added by the uploader to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 22#File:A Redrawing of the 5K Y.O. Graffito by NewAccount333.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've done this, but this isn't really something that needs to go to AN. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Move page Lien Khuong Airport

Please help me move page Lien Khuong Airport to Lien Khuong International Airport (currently is a redirect page), because of this airport was changed name (and upgraded) to an international airport since June 2024. Pk.over (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, if you're prevented from moving a page only for technical reasons, you can make a request at WP:RMTR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPN closures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.

I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL [83]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've made clear at BLPN my issue with your approach here, but I do see your point that you followed the normal instructions only to have two talkpage threads removed. I don't really see why they were removed. @Adam Bishop can you explain? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Seemed like an obvious troll to me, being disruptive and making ridiculous claims just to annoy everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz this just seems to be par for the course. While Legend make some really good minor positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit per WP:BIT. As soon as there is some sort of conflict, they have demonstrated that they cannot manage consensus building . Many editors have tried to engage with Legend in good-faith to guide and correct them, but they are very easily offended, resort to novel wiki-lawyering arguments, and thing escalate from there. In good faith I believe they are trying to navigate the system, but keep hitting a wall for various reasons, and thing escalate quickly because of how they choose to handle the confrontation. I believe a mentor for them would be a great route for them, otherwise I am very concerned we're going to continue to see far more heat than light from this contributor. TiggerJay (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my experience. I thought that I was trying to guide and correct this editor, but the response was to accuse me of calling them names. If someone with more patience than I have wants to mentor Legend of 14 then that could be the approach to take, but it would depend on them being willing to listen to advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's talk about your approach to handling disputes and consensus building.

• Leaving condescending and other disrespectful comments on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270086734 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468.
• Ignoring my requests to not post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270362323 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270370468
• Linking an essay section about routinely banning other editors from my talk page, when I haven't done that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiggerjay&diff=prev&oldid=1270500629
• Shaming me for challenging your AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022

Legend of 14 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

To me, characterizing this statement as "shaming me for challenging your AfD" supports Tiggerjay's summary above. The other diffs show civil attempts to help you understand the culture on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is disappointing that the culture is talking down to editors for not being on Wikipedia for over a decade and daring to share an opinion, posting repetitive talk page notices for literally no reason, and replying to a request to stop posting on a talk page with a snarky comment. Thank you for clarifying that editors do not deserve equal treatment, and that merit of arguments can be dismissed based on the age of the editor making them. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point I'm just going to leave, because has been made clear by this discussion and other thread, I am not going to be treated with respect. I'm not wanted here, so I'm leaving. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So you're aware, per Wikipedia:Retiring § Pending sanctions, just because you claim to retire does not mean this discussion will necessarily close. Also since you have claimed to have retired previously, please be aware that if you return you will still need to edit in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially as it related to handling disputes. TiggerJay (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been treated with respect, but you have shown very little in return. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Earl_Andrew Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus? The closing statement sums up consensus, and it certainly doesn't disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As a relatively new editor for 1 year with only 5400+ edits compared to the other fellows here, I have not once been blocked or had a significant conflict with a more experienced editor than me. At some point, if the community comes to scrutinize the editing and mistakes that you've made, you'll have to recognize that the problem is with you, not the culture. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You have a conflict with me and I've been editing since 2021. Your statement is inaccurate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that I said "experienced", not "older". Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What purposes does this have other than to be inflammatory? I'm not going to kowtow to you and other editors just because you've decided they're more experienced. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Given this response, I'd say the consensus is correct that the problem here is you, Legend. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As has been offered to you multiple times Legend, please consider reviewing WP:1AM. You might find it helpful. TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Too much to read. Is this about the wording of the closing statement? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And about Legend and I over that. Looks like Legend's had enough, anyway (I wish them well elsewhere). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

They tried that stunt 5 days ago. If they're going to engage in a pattern of making disruptive edits and then retiring when anyone (read: everyone) criticizes them, someone should probably just indef. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This user has an established habit of walking away from a conversation, only to come back a day or two later and continue the same sort of disruption. Shall we extend another inch of rope? I wouldn't be against giving a second third n-th time chance, but perhaps the next controversy should be a swift block? Or has the community already had enough? TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin -- I know this will astonish you, but... surprise, surprise, they could only retire for almost exactly 24 hours. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree with blocking this editor when they actually haven't violated any policy that I'm aware of. I actually don't want them to leave and think they could be a constructive editor if they would spend less time policing other editors and spend more time improving articles, and avoid the drama boards.

We can enforce guidelines about civility, Legend of 14, but I don't think the "respect" you expect to receive can be found anywhere on the Internet. People are blunt and sometimes grumpy. And those of us who have been here a long time have been called all sorts of names, disputes can bring out some nasty behavior, this is not personal to you. I just think that expecting to be respected here, on Wikipedia, just comes over time with proving that you are a consistently productive contributor. It can take years to earn other editors' trust and respect and, if you make a colossal mistake, it can also disappear. I just think that you have an overly sensitive gauge of other people's respect for you and if you want to contribute to this project, it has to be because you like to edit, whether or not other people respect you in the way you seem to understand "respect". Remember, this is not utopia, it's just a website on the internet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I check back and I'm facing sanctions. I wasn't planning on making any more edits, but I guess I should. The allegations are too vague for me to defend myself. There's no policy being cited or diffs, so I have no idea what's being alleged.

My decision to stop editing is rooted in the fact that I cannot avoid challenges to my edits, and I cannot avoid being dismissed based on either unrelated grievances when I stand up for myself and my edits.

Timeline of how this ended up here:

• Jan 15 I make edits to 5 articles related to content about living people
• Jan 16 I get reverted 5 times by Adam Bishop. I go to 2 article talk pages to discuss the reverts and Bishop's talk page.
• Jan 17 I get reverted on the 2 article talk pages by Bishop. I go to BLPN as Bishop is stopping me from using talk pages. 2 of my discussions get closed by 2601AC47.
• Jan 21 I ask 2601AC47 to change the summaries. My request is denied.

I've been reverted 9 times by 2601AC47. They did not explain why for 3 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=prev&oldid=1270067565 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601AC47&diff=next&oldid=1270067565. My thread got closed because of "Not helpful of the editor in question". User talk:2601AC47

An article I made got nominated for deletion. My reasons for why the article should stay gets dismissed because the user has a list of grievances against me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deb_Hutton_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1270475022.

I got criticized on my talk page for daring to challenge a more "experienced editor". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270062605

I face repeated complaints for trying uphold a civil environment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legend_of_14&diff=prev&oldid=1270076126 User talk:Legend of 14#Preferred Pronouns User talk:Tiggerjay#January 2025

I get challenged, and then when I defend myself I get dismissed for uncivil reasons or ignored, over and over again. This is not an environment where I can edit, where I face endless criticism for valid decisions (like those on my talk pages), can get randomly reverted for no given reason at any time, and get threatened with sanctions if I keep standing up in the face of the uncivil comments. But, there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behaviour. My work can just be undone, I can't defend myself or my edits, and the message of shut up or get sanctioned has been very prevalent. That's why I said I'm not wanted here and why I'm done editing. It has become clear to me that no outcome here leads to this being an environment which isn't having a negative impact on me. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You may have overlooked what I wrote yesterday to you. Either way, I'm sure that we've tried hard not to be uncivil.

But really: With all due respect to you (what little you've left me with), I hope one day you can let this go and begin the path to becoming a better person. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Who's we? I wasn't aware that you were authorized to speak on behalf of other editors. Please share who you are representing. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

2601AC47 simply read the discussion and said what he thinks about it. It's clear that "we" simply means all of the editors with whom you are arguing, rather than anyone they are representing. Anyway, it seems you were not telling the truth when you said "I'm done editing". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I only came back because sanctions were proposed against me. As soon as the threat of sanctions is gone, I'll leave again. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

At this rate, unless you have something to prove yourself here or you actually take into consideration what we've told you for the last 8 days and get working in peace, those sanctions may include a block from Wikipedia, which is possible given the circumstances and, as that policy states as of now, can be enforced to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style. If you believe that block that may come will be unjustified (and I doubt that), you can usually request an unblock and explain your perspective as you should. Otherwise, again, I wish you well and hope you'll understand that you're not being targeted (although you should be aware that we're serious about it); (struggles to think of a closing sentence) farewell, Legend. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

But nobody on Wikipedia can take away your life, liberty or money; the most severe sanction they can impose is to stop you editing one web site, which you want to do anyway. What is the point of continuing to post to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding there's always a reason why nothing should be done about the uncivil behavior is almost always because nobody else sees how you're being treated as uncivil, even after you've presented your best evidence of such claims. TYour perceptions of other people is causing you undue stress that is of your own doing. However, if this is truly causing a negative impact on you, I have to ask WHY are you still coming back here? If anyone feels stressed by contributing to a volunteer project, they should simply take a Wikibreak, and not just say it, but literally turn off all notifications, logout, and set some sort of calendar reminder for some point in the future before you even look at a Wikipedia page. This should be your happy place, not a stress inducer. TiggerJay (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean I agree people were being rude at BLPN and people on wiki are often needlessly antagonistic. The issue is that because that's the case, what would get someone fired in a professional environment is treated as not a big deal here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Legend of 14: recommend you walk away from the topic area-in-question, if you're not retiring. From what I'm seeing, rightly or wrongly the other editors are growing frustrated with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:CIR block for Legend of 14

Competence in working on a collaborative project includes being able to listen and take in what other people are telling you. Legend of 14 does not seem to be able to do that. Since they have already expressed an intention to retire, it should not be a hardship to them if they are unable to edit due to a community ban. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement is false and unsubstantiated. I have listened. People didn't want me removing uncited election results, I stopped removing election results. People didn't want me removing uncited WP:BLP content from Ministry of Education (Ontario) I listened. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support a short-term block to prevent further disruption and to further assist them with their claimed retirement. They continue to be disruptive to the project, and their tenacious argumentative approach here demonstrates this extremely clearly. While I previously supported giving a second chance (see above), their complete inability to drop the stick and cannot even make up their mind about retirement, other than a veiled threat about leaving. They have shown a failure of CIR when it comes to consensus building, largely because they presume bad faith and assume people are being uncivil. Without the ability to demonstrate the ability to build consensus and presume good faith, they should not be permitted to continue to disrupt the project. And of course, I am tired of their aspirations being cast against me, and others, without merit. They assert that those who disagree with their accusations are also in collusion against them. The number of experienced editors who are speaking against this editor seems to be a clear WP:1AM situation. TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• If this is still going on support I remember the Ministry of Education (Ontario) discussion - which I was pretty involved in - and the whole thing was quite silly. Lo14 was insistent on uncited start and end dates for education ministers in Ontario being an urgent BLP issue but, rather than finding sources for those start and end dates for four ministers under the current government, kept deleting the content and getting into long arguments about the urgency. I think, at one point, I mentioned that they'd spent longer arguing about the problem than it would have taken to properly fix it. I'll be honest that I kind of tuned out after that. But it's been long enough that if Lo14 is still insisting on their course of action then, yeah, it's time for a short block. Not an indef. Just something to give them perspective that not everything is a life or death emergency - even for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I have read this entire discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard ones referenced and previously at least one other AN or ANI discussion; i believe Legend is teetering close to a block, but i do not support it nor, most definitely, a ban. But, Legend of 14, i do urge you to take a few hours away, overnight or a day, and then reread what has been written by way of advice and try to see it that way. I'm not sure if you have had (or have) a mentor, but finding an experienced editor who is willing to answer a few questions and give a little advice on your plans and potential actions would probably be a very good thing to consider and do ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  You might want to also have a look at their un-redacted talk page [84] and also their constant bad faith and casting aspirations of other editors, as recently as today. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yup, thanks; i'd already read the talk page and taken a good look at some of the contributions. I may well tend toward the naïve, but i am not seeing someone who is not competent so much as a new (under 1k edits) and possibly younger editor who is enthusiastic and yet has not worked out some of the the way we work here; that's why i suggest a mentor above ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was simply pointing out the pre-redacted state if you happened to only read the current talk page, they removed over 8k bytes from their talk page, which further adds context and shows conflict skills. I agree that they sound "younger" especially by their approach and rejection to experience, but their actual age has little to do with their ability to contribute, however, emotional maturity is something that does weigh into the ability to manage conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a huge overreaction. Can an involved admin please close this thread so everyone can get on with editing instead of fanning the flames of this inconsequential dispute? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban appeal from User:Dronebogus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to appeal my two separate but associated topic bans related to XfD, as can be found at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. My reasons are as follows:

1. The bans are both over a year old.
2. I am simply not sufficiently interested in this field anymore to engage in the sort of impassioned hostility and unsolicited clerking that got me sanctioned in the first place.
3. The ambiguous nature of the scope of what XfD “boradly construe[s]” has prevented me from doing useful work that no-one had objected to, including discussing redirects/categories and nominating unfree images for deletion.
4. I do not want the negative stigma of an editing restriction on me for something petty I no longer care about.

For these reasons I believe it is acceptable that my two topic bans be lifted. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note Links to discussions [85] [86]. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus, please provide specific examples of constructive contributions you would have made but could not because of the ban. Please also explain in your own words the reasons for your ban and how, if unbanned, you would change your editing so as not to give rise to the same concerns. Sandstein 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose pending answer to Sandstein’s question. If there’s no interest in editing in the area, there’s no need to lift the ban as a “stigma” does not strike me as a reason nor does an amount of time having passed. However should DB make the case of good edits they’re prevented from making, that might be a reason. Star Mississippi 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I !voted in this discussion so I’m an involved weak oppose. I’m not going to continue tpo break formatting to add that, but noting it here. The discussion about how limited the ban should be in that discussion is timely as, as per noted here, the disruption just shifted. Star Mississippi 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Involved oppose. While topic-banned from XfD here, Dronebogus has merely gone a level up, making a number of nonsensical wiki closure requests and wiki creation oppositions on Meta, persisting even after they were made aware that their idiosyncratic standard for closure was not the standard established by policy. [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] (The last of these is in response to a proposal of mine, which is why I'm calling myself involved. To be clear, the issue isn't that they opposed, but that they knowingly opposed based on a reason disconnected from the actual community-established standard.) I'll grant that they seem to have mostly stopped after an RfC unanimously went against them, but there was a lot of disruption to get to that point, disruption that slowed or discouraged actual useful crosswiki work. And look what they're still doing? Removing comments critical of them in discussions, which was a major issue here in the past. If this is the kind of behavior we have to look forward to in the event of an unban, then we're definitely better off leaving the ban in place. If anything, Dronebogus has made the case that they should not be editing any Wikimedia wikis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandstein's observation that if Dronebogus doesn't intend to work in XfD then the ban doesn't need to be lifted, and Tamzin's observations about Dronebogus' contribs on other wikis. I'm not convinced by their third bullet, considering that redirects and categories are discussed in an XfD forum, and their original sanction that was limited to MfD had to be expanded four months later to a full XfD ban because they just became disruptive in the broader area. And not wanting to have a sanction on their record is something they ought to have thought of before being sanctioned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not convinced the pattern of behavior here has changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I have concerns that while this appeal is ongoing, there is an open thread at AN/I reagrding Dronebogus where there is evidence of a "my interpreation is the only possible interpretation" mindset as evidenced here and here. I feel the EL issue tends towards the same combativeness (or, "impassioned hostitilty" as they call it in the appeal above) demonstrated with their participation in XFD, so I don't believe now is the right time to remove the topic bans.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, in general I don't buy the "Ban isn't needed because I no longer want to edit those topic areas anyways" argument... And in this specific contexts a year doesn't seem like near enough time to figure that out. I also don't buy the negative stigma argument, I've got an IBAN with the sock of a long term abuser which I don't consider to carry any stigma... Because blocks and bans are all about their context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• As regards point 4, I think the stigma is often overplayed on Wikipedia. I didn't even realise, despite coming into contact with Dronebogus quite a bit, that they were subject to any editing restrictions, and I'm sure the same goes for many others. As far as point 2 goes, if it doesn't apply any more then I don't see how it matters whether they are banned or not. I haven't thought about points 1 and 3 yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on my just seeing this post, on the talk page of someone else who is thinking about a ban appeal: [92]. My recollection is that Dronebogus supported that other editor's ban, so this wasn't a friendly joke intended to lighten the mood. That Dronebogus would do such a thing while this appeal is in progress says a lot, none of it good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  It was a joke, and I’ve apologized sincerely. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Involved oppose as the editor who proposed the XfD tban. I don't see anything in the OP's request to justify lifting either ban. While the stigma of a tban may be inconvenient, Dronebogus should have taken this inconvenience into consideration before engaging in the behavior that earned these sanctions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest you to continue building the articles and participate in article talk pages. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:CHILDPROTECT

I came across a user page that includes their birthdate, which indicates they are very much a minor. I could have sworn that I've seen this information removed in the past (and maybe even oversighted?), but I don't see anything regarding this under WP:CHILDPROTECT. Am I looking in the wrong spot or am I just mistaken altogether? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Might WP:RFO #1-2 be what you're looking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I sent an email rather than performing any actions myself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I might be worth putting a link on the CHILDPROTECT page as that is not an illogical place to look. I can't immediately think of how to word it without confusing people who should be contacting WMF-legal though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I added a link to the very top of the page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblocked from File

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request to be unblocked from the file, as I already understand the rules. I will never engage in WP:EDITWAR over the file again. I'm acknowledging my mistake and will not let it happen again in the future. I will ask someone first for help or discuss it on the file's talk page if there's any problem. I know what I'm doing is childish, but I will try to be better in the future and will not engage in WP:EDITWAR. Aidillia^(talk) 11:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This was a community consensus-based restriction that was literally finalised yesterday. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry, Disruptive editings, Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please have a look on Sharma386, he seems to be a sockpuppet of ParvatPrakash who has been blocked. He is also involved in disruptive edits and engaging in edit wars. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's some blatant vandalism going on at Caesarea Maritima, most of which is related to names and historical detail, but with enough overlap with my topic ban that I can't touch it. I assume I am allowed to report clear vandalism, even if it overlaps with my topic ban, although if I'm not, please treat this as an enquiry on this issue, and just answer me in the negative and nothing else. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Writing to note that someone else has already handled this. At a quick look, "obvious" vandalism is an exception at WP:BANEX, but the example given is a bit further even than vandalising reference titles. CMD (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?

Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. If it was (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles should be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2, Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, it should probably be nuked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that that article is OK, it doesn't seem notable and uses several peacock terms. I would support deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete ASAP and don't look back. Re: "does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine" An article about a leader of Hezzbolah? Seriously? Yes. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and block BasselHarfouch site-wide for continued violations. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleted. And I also deleted Unit 900 for the same reason. I'll let another admin block if it is warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery Would Unit 900 and Hussein al-Khalil be undeleted upon request as an ECP editor? I am knowledgeable in these areas and I can amend any issues. Or do I have to recreate them from scratch? Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete it myself, since this wasn't just my decision so I don't feel I have the authority to do so. Any other admin watching this page has my permission to do so without worrying about the rules for reverting AE actions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prodrummer619: I've undeleted the pages and moved them to your userspace to let you work on them, when you think they're ready feel free to move them back to articlespace: User:Prodrummer619/Hussein al-Khalil and User:Prodrummer619/Unit 900. Good luck! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP User:222.152.193.83 has recently been involved in editing a number of articles and received 3 vandalism warnings. But his rather crude response to one of them makes me suspect he's WP:NOTHERE and would warrant some admin action. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing vandalism of NHL team articles' infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's gotta be going on 2 or 3 years now & to date, there's either been refusal or inability to permanently semi-protect the 32 NHL team articles. The latest vandalism is by @2001:569:fd84:900:8497:81c3:bde:e24:. If there's still refusal or inability to semi-protect? Is there a way to have a range block? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

A range block? Not on the basis of one IP address with no contributions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I found 2001:569:75a3:8000:b9ad:c1a8:50ba:98b7 (talk · contribs) and 2001:569:fd84:c900:8497:81c3:bde5:e24 (talk · contribs). A range block not possible here; there's too much collateral damage. Also, the level of disruption I was able to find does not warrant protecting 32 articles.

Sorted 2 IPv6 addresses:

2001:569:75a3:8000:b9ad:c1a8:50ba:98b7

2001:569:fd84:c900:8497:81c3:bde5:e24

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
4G /64	4G /64	2	2001:569::/32	contribs
2 /64	1 /64	1	2001:569:75a3:8000::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2001:569:fd84:c900::/64	contribs

Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, we are refused help in this area. Very frustrating & disappointing. It appears I'm not getting any support here from WP:HOCKEY either, so I'll be removing the 32 articles-in-question from my watchlist. Someone else can deal with the non-stop vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the one article, Edmonton Oilers. There was vandalism on 24 January and the previous one before that was 27 December. That's nowhere near enough to warrant indefinite semi-protection. Can you provide some indication where there is major ongoing vandalism on teams articles? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think GoodDay needs to provide much more information - much more than one IP address with no contributions - before we can fully assess their concerns. We shouldn’t have to go fishing. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I did spot-check the most recent 50 edits of the Oilers, Vancouver, Toronto, Anaheim, Vegas, and Calgary, and did not see anything that warranted protection in my opinion. Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The small number of hockey-related edits from the range I did find leads me to believe your ongoing concern is likely caused by more than one person. This was a jokester thinking it's clever to say that Corey Perry owns the Vancouver Canucks after the events of the Thursday game. A range block won't help you, because there are any number of people who think jokes like that are funny and will edit Wikipedia for a laugh. Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You may close the request. Unless others from WP:HOCKEY happen to chime in? GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will add the 32 articles to my watch-list. Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Republican Party (United States) 1RR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is Republican Party (United States) still under WP:1RR per WP:AC/CT? The talk page still has that banner, but Template:Editnotices/Page/Republican Party (United States) has expired. If it is still enforced, the edit notice should be set to permanent. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm looking and I don't see anything that says US politics are perpetually 1RR - just that any uninvolved admin can impose discretionary sanctions on them. If looks like, in May 2024, El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) chose to impose a 6-month 1RR on that page. If any uninvolved admin feels that the current behavior on that page warrants re-imposing 1RR, they are free to do so. But it's an as-needed remedy - this is different from the Israel/Palestine editing restrictions, which are perpetually under 1RR until the end of time. --B (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  So can someone remove the template from the talk page? Animal lover |666| 06:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  @El C can you do the honours of either deleting the template and editnotice, or extend the notice? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done. El_C 07:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban appeal from Rathfelder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
• Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
• Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB

Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:

I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Wikipedia as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Wikipedia in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Wikipedia, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Wikipedia as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist", in wikivoice with a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Wikipedia, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English wikipedia which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using wikipedia to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Wikipedia because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Wikipedia to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Wikipedia's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  If I’m not unmistaken User:Jytdog was banned by ArbCom, not by the community, and was also a self-admitted serial offender. And yes their apology does come across as “whoopsie, my bad”. And they haven’t edited constructively anywhere else as a counterpoint to their destructive editing here. I personally would never support letting them return, but that’s because their situation (at least to me) seemed like it was a case of a charismatic unblockable actually getting a well-earned block. This current situation seems like someone making a single terrible decision and realizing how terrible it was. Just compare their block logs— Jyt was blocked multiple times indefinitely by arbcom; this user only had a single 48 hour block before getting banned despite being here longer. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Justice on WP is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Once years, plural, have passed I think it’s reasonable to assume genuine remorse. There’s no such thing as a permanent lifetime ban on Wikipedia, even if some bad actors who have well and truly exhausted the community’s patience have received a de facto one. This is a feature, not a bug. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support per RoySmith. It's a short rope, don't abuse it. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Per Liz, RoySmith, Dronebug. I think that we should give Rathfelder the standard offer. I’m assuming that they now understand the consequences of their actions (not withstanding what might have led to it) and would continue to act in good faith. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community assuming the block on Crouch, Swale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crouch, Swale was blocked for multiple accounts in 2011 and this was later upgraded to a site ban. In 2017 they were unblocked by ArbCom with a whole string of conditions. They then become an annual appellant to ArbCom to reduce or eliminate those conditions. In December, Crouch, Swale went to ArbCom asking for a site ban. ArbCom declined. Multiple admins, including me, tried to convince him that a site ban was not a good idea. Admins, including me, told him if he wanted a break we would block him . Ultimately he asked me to block him for a few days, which I did. Yesterday, he was back at ArbCom and after questioning on his talk page basically said he was willing to harass and otherwise violate policies in order to achieve his ends of getting a site ban. ToBeFree correctly indeffed him for this. It is with no pleasure that I come here asking the community to essentially assume this block and turn it into a site ban. For reasons I don't understand, and am sad to see, this user clearly wanted to be given a forced break from Wikipedia. Given the long history with this user, and since there has been no mention of ArbCom choosing to assume the block themselves, I think it would be better for the community to decide if/how/when Couch Swale returns to English Wikipedia, rather than individual admins through the normal appeals process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are too many missing dots here. Crouch, Swale's editing conditions from the 2017 unblock are listed as:

one account restriction

topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions

prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)

prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).

That list does not on the face of it suggest a tremendously disruptive editor; and has Crouch, Swale been adhering to these rules? If so, what's the big issue with relaxing the restrictions; has the editor made very deficient appeals? He came to my attention talking kindly and constructively with a problem editor. How did we come to the point where a week or so later, he's demanding a 10-year block? I can't help suspecting a bureaucratic glitch in handling his appeals. What am I missing prior to the threat to be maximally disruptive that makes this editor a candidate for a permaban? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've taken a look myself and they had restrictions lessened in 2022.

They then went to appeal with an ultimatum: remove the restrictions or block me for a decade - if you don't, I'll disrupt the site (forgive me for saying this, but it feels like blackmail).

Since the appeal didn't include any evidence (or appeal) it was rejected as insufficient.

I get their frustration, but I'm very concerned that they dialled things straight up to 11 and are willing to cause significant problems for others (including doxxing, see the link) just to get their own way.

Then again, looking at the December appeal, they very clearly want to be banned and have refused every other alternative offered. I don't know what's going on in the background but I'm thinking this is something they should probably have since they're very clear and consistent in their request for a full-on ban - if they don't want to explain why, then should we be pressing for one, especially after so many people have already asked? It could be an addiction (as suggested in the December diff above) in which case they're asking for help and refusing could be causing them harm. I have personal experience in this area and this feels awfully familiar - if they're asking for help then we should give it if we can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• I am not enthusiastic about this, can we not just let them go? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise. I'm not convinced that the threats were something they had any intention of carrying through with, so I'm not convinced that anything more than the current block is necessary to protect the project nor that there would be any other benefits.

  @Blue-Sonnet Crouch, Swale has made many appeals over the years to get their restrictions loosened and/or removed (look at pretty much every recent ARCA archive covering a January). The basic reason they have not been successful is that they haven't demonstrated an understanding of why the restrictions were imposed in the first place, which multiple people feel is a necessary precursor to being confident the problems won't reoccur - the only problems being a fundamental disconnect between them and basically everybody else about how Wikipedia should cover low-level UK administrative geography. Outside of that topic area they are a very good editor who is (normally) a very clear net benefit to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support the site ban that they themself seem to request. The editor appears to be a net negative to the project on account of the volunteer time absorbed by their antics. Sandstein 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Something seems really off here. What could Crouch, Swale gain from demanding a site ban and deciding to be a pain in the arse until he gets his way? I wonder if he's going thru some sort of crisis in his normal life and he sees Wikipedia as a distraction that exacerbates it, and doesn't realise just how difficult it would be to come back from a full siteban as opposed to an indefinite block. Blocks on request is one thing - you can at least quickly request a return with a convincing unblock request. If he wants to come back from an unban, then he'll have to go thru a community discussion that will very likely reopen old wounds and end with him being told "no" in very clear terms. I would rather give him the option to come back as painlessly as possible as opposed to being sent off on a train to nowhere while workers rip up the tracks behind it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• This seems like a bad idea. ToBeFree solved the problem, no need to escalate this further unless C,S escalates. Let's not back someone who is apparently hurting into an unnecessary corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - If he wants a site-ban, then give'em what he wants. It's that or put up with his wasting the community's time. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as solution in search of a problem. The block that TBF implemented prevents the threatened disruption. Crouch ‘’can’’ be a productive editor when they choose. Let’s not make it harder for them to come back when they’re ready. Star Mississippi 17:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I refused to block him as an Arb because I felt he was seeking "suicide by ArbCom." His latest post was somewhere between manipulative and cry for help. If he had put forth a good request to remove his restrictions, I'd have said yes. He seems like someone in crisis, making bad decisions. Perhaps a reason to block them for their own good until they stabilize, but not a reason to community ban them. Crouch is an excellent editor otherwise and has contributed very extensively to niche UK topics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm torn because I do think that Sandstein and GoodDay have a point; the amount of time and energy he has consumed with this is already a bit disruptive. But the fact is that he's currently blocked, which has ended this; concerns that he could, I don't know, pretend to be reformed to get an admin to let him back in and then cause disruption seems too theoretical to justify action by the community. A community ban wouldn't give them what they want, anyway; it's hard to appeal, but still quite possible to do so at any time - and honestly the reaction here makes it clear that if this passed, and Crouch later came back to the community saying they've recovered from whatever and now wants to be let back in, we'd probably still grant it, it'd just waste even more community time and effort. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  By "oppose", are you opposing the site ban or the regular block? JJP_Master (she/they) 20:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The site-ban, of course. The regular block isn't even being reviewed here, I think - obviously if someone overtly threatens to do those sorts of things and doesn't back down they have to be blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Oh, I think I misread the title of this section—I thought "assuming" was "assessing". JJP_Master (she/they) 21:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - the entire motivation of this bizarre campaign seems to be no more than to waste editors' time. Requiring them to appeal to the community will waste even more. They should stay blocked, and legal should be notified about the threats of libel and doxxing. We don't owe them anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Those weren't really threats about libel and doxxing; they were just saying whatever they thought necessary to get blocked. Please let's not sic legal on them. Timesink or not, there's still room in this Trumpified world for a little compassion. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, but it's above our pay grade to determine if the threats carry any legitimacy. WP:EMERGENCY covers this. If Legal thinks that they're empty threats then so be it, but they're the ones that get paid to make that sort of call, not us lowly editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not above my pay grade to use common sense. But do what you think you need to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This whole situation is just weird. I was reading WP:AE for an unrelated reason and looked at the Crouch, Swale thread out of curiosity and it was one of the most perplexing things I've ever seen at WP. I haven't the first clue why they didn't just do what was suggested at AE and provide a justification for a lift of their account restrictions rather than setting an unprecedented ultimatum. Regardless I don't think it should be on the community to give assent to this silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was someone who came back to Wikipedia after being blocked for an extensive period of time. If I was in a situation where I didn’t want to edit anymore, requesting a site ban for myself would be the wrong way to do so. There are better ways to handle these things rather than this. Firstly, there’s nothing wrong with taking a break from Wikipedia if you feel it is getting in the way of your life. It can be stressful for editors to tell you things you don’t necessarily want to hear, but there are more important things in life than Wikipedia which are in the physical world. I’ve been one of those people. You can also request a self-block on yourself rather than doing every naughty thing you can do to get yourself blocked. Those blocks are harder to get yourself back into the community if you feel you need to. I’d rather do everything right on Wikipedia rather than do a bunch of wrong things. In a nutshell, that’s basically how I feel. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Meh They can't appeal on their talk page, and I can't imagine the small group of admins that does the heavy lifting at UTRS unblocking them. The only other avenue of appeal is the committee, which seems equally unlikely, so I'm not really seeing much risk here. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I just hope they are okay. I think the site ban was completely justified, but something seems off here, and if they want to return, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the normal procedures. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I have met Crouch at the RFD, and demonstrate that he can be a productive user. They asked for a block (or even ban) was probably due to real-life matter. At this stage, an indefinite block seems enough. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless and unjustified. Just leave the voluntary block. In my interactions with him, there have been no problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. CS's recent contributions portray him as someone feeling frustrated and defeated at being repeatedly refused an appeal of special interest topic ban. An admin has now essentially granted CS a self-block. The community has always recognised the right of self-block, but I have never heard of a self-ban, and granting one would not be remotely appropriate here. While self-blocks can be removed fairly easily, self-bans cannot. CS likely does not know how that community ban appeals frequently fail: clear consensus is required, and not always obtainable, in which event the status quo is upheld. Self-banning an individual who might not understand the self-request would not be appropriate. Neither would a community ban simpliciter (imposed for disruption/not self-requested) be justified. The indef block has stopped all disruption, as many others have also said. (None of this is criticism of Barkeep49 for bringing the proposal: it's a novel situation and needed to be discussed here.) arcticocean ■ 15:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with the perspective of CaptainEek regarding the user's possible cry for help and how this may be an attempt at a metaphorical "suicide" by sanction and Arcticocean in the regard that the disruption has been adequately addressed. At this stage, nothing further needs to be done. Also concur that this filing was entirely reasonable by Barkeep49 given the situation. —Sirdog (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Solomon's Temple in the Israel / Palestine CTOP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Solomon's Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note this is about the biblical temple and not Al Aqsa Mosque - there has been some discussion this topic might be within the CTOP. Considering the several edit controls in the CTOP I think it might be wise to get clarity. Most of my personal involvement surrounds the use of primary vs secondary sources for interpreting temple construction, nothing about the political dimension of the temple as a concept, but I know the topic area is sometimes broad and I'd hate to accidentally run afoul of WP:1RR by accident. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say yes. Articles on historic locations in modern-day Israel/Palestine are often of interest to editors pushing a certain narrative as they can be used to demonstrate/deny one side or the other's historic claims to the area. This is particularly the case with contentious places like Jerusalem. Number 57 15:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 This isn’t a scientific judgement in any way, but given the Temple’s sociopolitical role in the debate over who truly “owns” the Temple Mount, I’d say it counts. “Broadly construed” also provides the idea that if there’s any debate whether an item falls under a CTOP, it probably does. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will comport myself accordingly in the article space then. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lexa the king

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Lexa the king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continues to add unsourced highly dubious information into 2025 Belarusian presidential election - Account was seemingly created solely to edit this article. I have suspicions the account is trying to edit the article to make Lukashenko look better (such as claiming a banned opposition party had "54%" approval for him). When asked to provide a source for these edits, user has ignored and continued to re-add removed information, despite reverts by me and other editors. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 03:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have diffs supporting this accusation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Its basically their entire edit history. At one point they appear to be feigning dumb [93] despite being previously warned on their talk page. Borgenland (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I have partially blocked the user so they are unable to edit the article for a week. Let me know if there are further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revocation of account creator permission (Graham87)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove my account creator permission; I don't need it any more. I was granted it after an RFC so I could work on matching accounts from the August 2001 database dump with modern users. I've since been going through the list of August 2001 account names/hostnames alphabetically and X98A3A3B7.pix.aol.com was the last one that needed this sort of operation. I won't be needing to create accounts like this in the foreseeable future. There's still a lot of Wiki-archaeology work to do though; that'll never end. I received the account-creator permission from a Wikipedia namespace page so I thought it'd be best to ask for it to be removed in a similar manner, rather than somewhere like my user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Graham87 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large volume of nonempty C1-tagged categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, there is a long list of year categories, mostly for crimes, that have the {{db-c1}} tag, even though they are nonempty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will be untagged. This happens fairly regularly that categories are only temporarily empty. They were empty when they were tagged and now they are not. They won't be deleted, they'll just have the tags removed, either by me or another editor who regularly untags categories when this happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Achar Sva editing restriction violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Achar Sva has had a community-imposed editing restriction for just over two years prohibiting their repeated removal of sourced content from articles. With this edit, they have broken their restriction again after being warned about a violation last month and blocked for numerous violations in 2023. I don't believe this editor is capable of upholding the requirements of their restriction nor adhering to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti, can you provide a link to the discussion where this restriction was imposed? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, you buried the notification of this discussion in messages on their talk page from December where they are unlikely to even notice it. Could you post it at the bottom of their user talk page, with its own header? I think this is appropriate for you as the editor who is bringing the complaint. They should be properly notified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Appears to be here: [94] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thank you. I'm trying to encourage editors to post all of the relevant diffs and links to discussions when they post a complaint. But thank you for digging this up for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I provided several links, including this one, where the restriction and ANI permalink were immediately visible. I also fulfilled the AN notice requirement. I've observed editors get criticized for making reports with too many relevant links or for opening new talk page sections, so I kept things brief and concise. If my report precluded editors without the time for a second click, I'm ok with that. Thank you for your interest in the matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I think Pbritti is right, I can't avoid deleting content while editing - but who can? I honestly believe my edits improve the encyclopedia, and although I may be wrong about that, I'd like to keep contributing. In other words, the restriction is impossible - no other editor is asked never to delete anything. Can we have this reviewed? Achar Sva (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't avoid deleting content while editing - but who can? Literally every other editor on the project. It's a simple restriction and one you have deliberately broken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are not directed to never delete anything. It's not to remove content AGAIN after you remove it and it is restored by another editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add, Achar Sva, your comment makes it sound like you inadvertently made some minor content deletion while significantly modifying the article. But at least in the example cited [95] that's not what happened. The sole thing you did with that edit was remove sourced content. Your edit summary makes it clear you're aware that you're removing content. You seem to be disputing if it's properly sourced, but the way to deal with that is to take it to the talk page, if not before you attempted that change, at least after you had attempted it and been reverted. It wasn't to try and edit war your change into the article. If you're so sure your changes are an improvement, why are you afraid or at least unwilling to convince the community of that on the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• I also don't think if this editor is capable of abiding by the editing restriction placed on him. His above messages confirm that. Lorstaking (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• The relevant question at this point, Achar Sva, is: Can you comply with your editing restriction? If the answer is "no", then it may be necessary to block you from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think the answer is obviously "no". Prior to the previous block, I observed them make three violations that were each after a posted notice reminding them of the restriction. After the violations last month, I offered to help Achar Sva with the process to appeal the restriction. In blatant cases of violating active editing restrictions multiple time, remedies should be swift. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly a significant lack of restraint by the editor to comply. After the editing restriction was imposed by the community in January of 2023, he was blocked for violating it in just a few months in August of 2023. Then even after that, in November of 2023, he violated the restriction yet again and he self declared he was not longer under the indefinite block [96], for which he had to be reminded of that he was. A year later in 2024, he has violated the restriction multiple times causing disruptive editing (past few months). With any restrictions, there should have zero violations. This looks like continual disruptive behavior that restrictions and even temporary blocks will not remedy them. desmay (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Due to Achar Sva's repeated failure to comply with their logged editing restriction, I have indefinitely blocked the editor from editing Wikipedia article space. They are free to make well-referenced Edit requests and to participate constructively on article talk pages and other areas of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I just composed a message agreeing with everyone apart from Achar Sva, but edit conflicted with Cullen's imposition of the block, with which I also agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You could have posted your message anyway, Phil Bridger. We all might have learned something from it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caste-based POV pushing user

• Abhimanyu200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User @Abhimanyu200 makes edits to push Rajput POVs and remove references to the Jat caste on articles without sources.

Here are the diffs of Rajput edits:

1) [97]

2) [98]

3) [99]

4) [100]

Here are diffs of Jat edits:

1) [101]

2) [102]

They also make a veiled threat in the following edit summary: [103] , saying "The language used here was unethical are full of propaganda. Avoid using such language or be careful." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Evidently a caste-warrior with a clear pattern to their edits who is not productively contributing to the Wikipedia project. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like these editing patterns happen all of the time. Is there a sockmaster who edits in this style? I'm not adept at keeping identities straight but it seems like we've seen this before on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz - There are a few sockmasters who disrupt pages with caste-related POV pushing. I've noticed that usually a sockmaster will promote a particular caste, such as by claiming historical/religious figures belonged to that caste, certain dynasties/kingdoms were ruled by a particular caste, etc (almost always whilst not using any sources or unreliable ones and often removing pre-existing reliable sources/content in the process of doing so). It tends to happen a lot on South Asian-related articles. I have had experience dealing with a few sockmasters related to the above the past few years. You can usually identify their socks pretty easily though as they edit the same kind of articles, have their own style of writing, or make articles promoting narratives or making claims in-regards to a single, particular caste. For example, for the reported account above this is related to Rajputs, whilst other sockmasters I know of make edits about Jats, Brahmins, [insert caste here], respectively. The account I reported might be a sock. Perhaps someone can chime-in if they know of any sockmasters who make Rajput-related POV edits. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, MaplesyrupSushi. I was hoping that you might recognize them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz - Unfortunately I don’t recognize any sockmasters that might be connected to the above account. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who has the patience may search the sockpuppet archive. For example, the last twenty reports containing the word 'Rajput' go back to August 2024. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - Would the best course of action to be to submit a SPI there? Thank you. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If you believe that User:Abhimanyu200 is engaged in caste POV-pushing, you could open a complaint on his talk page and give some examples. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Interference with attempts to rfc to fix a problem

Traumnovelle and Johnuniq have been repeatedly deleting rfc requests on the Sinfest talk page, thus preventing requests from being made to help solve problems with the article. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Blue Dude:: First you must notify those editors of this discussion (see the instructions at the top). After that, please provide a link to the specific talk page, and ideally the diff's showing the deleting of rfcs. TiggerJay (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are two permalinks showing each of the RfCs that I closed: The Absurdity of This Article's Situation and Request for comment. An easy way to see my comments would to be search Talk:Sinfest for "Johnuniq". Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If I were you, I would listen to Johnuniq's advice. Your attempted RfCs were malformed and would have been procedurally closed by another editor had Johnuniq not done it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I never edited the RFC request. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So I can sympathize with your perspective and you're trying to get something changes because you appear to passionately believe that there are some critical errors that must be fixed (righting great wrongs), and every place you turn you're running into problems. Let me suggest that in my brief overview of the article talk page there is a lot of good faith and well intentioned people who are more familiar with the various policies and guidelines (ie they're not trying to be jerks, and it is not personal). If you spent twice as much time trying to understand what other people are writing, instead of trying to find a way to do what you know to be WP:TRUE, you'd be in a far better place with understanding the problem and how to go about correcting it. For example, if you took the time to read the policy about WP:CENSORED or the essay over at WP:PROFANE, instead of just presuming what it means, you'll understand why regardless of the forum you opt for, they're all going to shut you down because you're asking (even though it seems reasonable) for the community to take action or a position that is in direct contradiction to policy. That doesn't mean all is lost, but rather you need to listen more, and ask questions of the people who you're already engaged with, and learn how you can positively contribute. Don't get hung up simply on the antisemitic issue, but consider how you can improve the article as a whole. TiggerJay (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

IPs reverting each other at ECR page

See page history. Presumably merits EC page protection, which leads me onto a further point: am I (as a TBAN'd individual) allowed to flag the need for page protections at WP:RPP in my TBAN'd CTOP if I notice ECR-flouting activity of this type? It's not an example given at WP:BANEX, but it involves flagging an unambiguous rule breach, which is somewhat akin to reporting or addressing vandalism. Or should I just let the IP times roll? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BANEX says, "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons" are covered. This involves policy violation, but is limited to one policy. It seems to imply that policy violations have been considered, but rejected as exceptions apart from one policy, so the answer to your first question is "no". It also says, "when in doubt, do not make the edit." Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've protected that page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The idea behind the BLP exception for bans is that, due to the potential of such violations to harm real people, the community has excepted that removing such violations is above just about any policy, and partial bans are simply on a lower level. Note that removing blatant BLP violations is also an exception to 3RR, as is the removal of obvious vandalism. Animal lover |666| 20:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WMF research on admins

There's a 70 page final report over at c:File:(Final Report) Administrator recruitment, retention, & attrition (SDS1.2.2).pdf. Apparently it will be part of something called the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase in February. I recommend people read the report and possibly contribute to the upcoming office hours if they're interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Clovermoss, I am interested but busy. Is there a summary to this 70 page paper you could link to? Is this report a result of the questionnaire they sent out last autumn? Thanks for informing us about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read the 70 pages yet either. It's on my ever growing to-do list. I don't think there's a summary that's been released yet (if there ends up being one, it'll probably be at m:Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Results). This is indeed about the mass questionnaire/interviews that were going on last year. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The first 18 pages are a summary of the rest of the document. The good news is that apparently our admin corps is demographically reflective of the wider editor pool in all measured aspects except age. CMD (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we lean older or younger? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Admins average older than editors and readers. CMD (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

An addendum: it's not in the summary but there is also a geographic bias (pages 52 and 53), with en.wiki admins more likely to be in North America than editors. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages 1 through 18 are the summary? That report needs a summary of the summary. Lol. Anyway, if you open it in a PDF viewer and you open the navigation sidebar that shows all the bookmarks/headings, the heading names are a pretty decent summary of the key findings. For future reports, a table of contents might be a good way to summarize things as well. Will try to get some time to review this in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, hope you don't mind my jumping in! Yes, this report is based partially on the survey we sent out in late autumn of 2024, as well as an interview-based study largely focused on former administrators as well as the collection of new metrics around administrators on Wikipedia. The first two sections (Key Results and Recommendations) of the report are our attempt to create a summary of the report as a whole. These two sections are also available on Meta-Wiki if you would prefer not to download the (chunky) PDF just for that bit.

On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see the reception of the study! CLo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• I like this line 1.2.3 The RFA process is routinely characterized by administrators as stressful, opaque, and something to be endured. That was my experience! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, you may want to read pages 47 onwards then. In particular, I found page 50 an interesting elucidation of some factors affecting RfAs. CMD (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• There's lots of interesting tidbits in there and I do think it's worth a read. For example, some depressing figures on abuse and harassment (pp. 62, 66–68), and the information (pg. 45) that en.wiki has relatively low enthusiasm from non-admins towards becoming admins (although this result may be skewed by en.wiki's relatively lax formal requirements, which would widen the pool of surveyed editors of lower experience considerably compared to projects with more stringent formal requirements). However, for those short of time (and perhaps already familiar with the situation on en.wiki), I would encourage a look at comparisons of the unbundling of core admin actions across different projects (pp. 36–38) and the comparison of admin tenures across different projects (pp. 39–40). CMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• It's good to see recommendations 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and I hope the WMF takes the recommendations seriously. I tried to be clear when I took the survey that I don't think the Foundation takes harassment seriously. They say all the right words, but when it comes down to it, in situations such as the current incessant MAB harassment, I don't see much support at all.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• I was intrigued by the decision of the Portuguese Wikipedia to allow rollbackers to block vandals for up to 24 hours.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalisms on Dennis Stojković

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dennis Stojković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users @Esdrongo1, @Esdrongo t and now @Cripollo008 are vandalising the page, with stuff that potentially might need to be revdeleted (blasphemies, racial slurs and insults). Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the accounts, protected the page, and revdelled some. Some more might have to be revdelled; I was relying on Google Translate. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It seemed like nonsensical writings, aside from what was revdel'd. Conyo14 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this a real WMF account?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Office_Actions. Just saw it pop up while doing countervandlism, and, want to make sure its real. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image placement at Influencer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Infuencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page at Influencer suggested that it was inappropriate to have a single image as the main image at Influencer. I changed it to a collage of images, but it is clearing after the images and I don't know why.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Not too sure what you mean by "clearing after the images" but I have placed the collage on the right. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lakestan incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Admin Lakestan incident it was kurdish rebels victory not Azeri persian and Assyrian it was changed by IP i have sources it was kurdish rebels victory:https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C9%99kistan_hadis%C9%99si it was Azerbaijan wikipedia it was said ti kurdish victory and successful invasion and massacre not failed MASSACRE already exists :https://books.google.iq/books?id=N28WEQAAQBAJ&dq=lakestan+incident&pg=PT86&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lakestan%20incident&f=false pls check this page Shawakam07 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Shawakam07 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:Content dispute which should be addressed at Talk:Lakestan incident, not here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original author of Lauren Handy refusing to allow new edits without their approval

• Lauren Handy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, User:Slugger O'Toole was the original author of the Lauren Handy article. Handy is an anti-abortion activist so this is a contentious topic. Slugger wrote this article in a very biased manner, clearly in agreement with Handy's cause. Much of what Slugger has included is cited from a Catholic media organization, which is clearly a biased and low quality source for this topic. Slugger has written the article with terms specifically discouraged by MOS:NEO such as 'abortionist' and has presented libelous claims made by the activist as though they are a statement of fact, despite these claims being disputed by other parties. WP:BLP makes it clear that we must not include potentially libelous and/or unverifiable statements and that we must use high quality unbiased sources. Handy was recently in the news, and when I went to her page, I noticed that the article was highly biased, and so I put a tag on the most problematic section inviting users to join in the discussion on the talk page, before I made any edits. Because of the news, the pageviews spiked, and so the article was getting a lot of attention. Multiple users chimed in an concurred that the article was poorly written. Slugger then casted WP:ASPERSIONS, accusing the other users of being my sockpuppets and attempted to weaponize the reporting system against me, opening a sockpuppet investigation. The investigation was completed in my favor and I was cleared of these accusations. I have made multiple attempts, as has another user, to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, heavily citing policy and rationale as to the reason for my edits. Slugger has been very possessive and continually reverted all changes anyone makes to the article, claiming that consensus must be obtained, despite consensus already being against them. Slugger also largely does not engage on the talk page and provide reasoning/ WP:ONUS for their edits after reverts and calls for consensus building, i.e., WP:STONEWALL. FactsheetPete (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to notify them of the existence of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Added it to their talk page FactsheetPete (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It'd be great if you can link some diffs so we can easily see each edit you've talked about. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The recent history of the article has largely just been Slugger and I, but here is the article's state after a few consecutive edits from the original author (Slugger): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&oldid=1186423354

Here is my first edit to the article, showing that I added only a tag and what the state of the article was when I found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1271406634

There was quite the series of edits after this, but here was the final state I left it in after my efforts to bring it in line with policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&oldid=1272082860

Here is Slugger undoing all of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1272223301 FactsheetPete (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, a whole bunch of brand-new completely independent accounts found that talk page at the exact same time! That seems perfectly innocent. Can I just go ahead and block FactsheetPete for insulting our intelligence (or, more policy-based, sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry and edit warring)? Or do I need to wait for other comments? p.s. no opinion on the article itself, it could very well need more attention. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This is unfair to accuse me of sockpuppeting. The pageviews clearly show the article gained a lot of increased traffic recently. Handy was pardoned by the president of the US and all over the news last week. I also recently linked to her page from List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1271404292

Additionally I had added a tag on the Activism section inviting others to come discuss WP:NPOV issues on the talk page, so naturally the talk page would get more traffic too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1271406634

I was proven innocent of sockpuppeting after Slugger opened an investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FactsheetPete

Please review the actual substance of the edits and you will see that I have gone to great lengths to try to make this article compliant while Slugger's version clearly is not. FactsheetPete (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI: The Checkuser investigation found that the accounts weren't connected to each other technically, as in they're not the exact same person using the same IP. Now the question is, are you violating WP:MEAT? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No, why would I do that! I'm not that invested in this. I just saw a bad article and tried to fix it. I didn't coordinate with anyone FactsheetPete (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You were not proven innocent. The SPI notes (and common sense agrees) that this could be meatpuppetry. I'm certain it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no basis for you to be certain on that. I didn't coordinate with anyone. Dang, I didn't expect such hostility! I normally don't ever participate in editing Wikipedia, just got interested in editing and saw a bad article and tried my best to make it right. If you don't care about neutrality and keeping Wikipedia high quality then so be it! I was just trying to make things right. This whole experience has soured me on Wikipedia anyways and I think I will go back to Britannica, so I am completely detached from the outcome at this point. Do what you may. FactsheetPete (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

👌 Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I am actually astonished at your overall hostility on the matter, including going from one talk page warning to an ANI report. But furthermore it also raises eyebrows when you exhibit such extremely versed knowledge of Wikipedia WP:PG and mastery of editing tools. Those are things most people stumble over greatly their first year or more of editing. TiggerJay (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a background in software and web design, so the editing tools stuff comes naturally. I spent many hours looking through policy to justify my edits as I was being met with a lot of resistance and wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing and being a good contributor. Maybe I could have been more cool headed, you're right. Maybe there were alternative resolution pathways I could have taken that I am not familiar with. I love(d) Wikipedia as a long time reader and just wanted to help where I saw something that was not right. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just say that creating things like Eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly and List of proclamations by Donald Trump (2025) for a brand new user seems simply bizarre for me. Especially when they created with the precision that you simply don't see in new users. Along with your other editing behavior quacks like a duck. TiggerJay (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

When you do software design this stuff is a cakewalk. And I mostly just copied and pasted those from similar articles and make a few small tweaks. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You copied and pasted them? I don't see attribution in the edit history, so there is a bit of a snag here. Do you recall which pages you copied content from and what dates? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactsheetPete: See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details about how to copy within Wikipedia. (We don't expect everybody to know all the rules.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V @Hawkeye7 You're both beating a dead horse. FactsheetPete has already been chased away for good. Whether you think that's a good thing is up to you. guninvalid (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought I had responded to them four minutes after they had posted, but I guess that I was a day late.

Not necessarily a dead horse as we need to fix those pages attribution. Was hopefully they would be willing to help out, but you are right that they sadly got chased away.

Honestly the whole thing is a shame when they were at least partly correct about the other user, but hopefully they come back sometime down the road in better circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FactsheetPete they came to the same conclusion, although as stated there, "technically unrelated to one another". But there might be some other coordination going on. Haven't looked at the edits specifically, but wanted the SPI results to be known. TiggerJay (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

To complicate matters, it appears to me that most of FactsheetPete's edits are actually improvements (not all, but most). Which makes the obvious meatpuppetry all the more discouraging, as it makes it less likely that the edits will stick. I'm still deciding what to do, but I suspect I'm going to block all the meatpuppets, and if Slugger (or someone else) reverts, leave it to others to discuss content on the talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

These other people are innocent. Please leave them be. Just block me if you are going to punish anyone. I don't really want to contribute to Wikipedia ever again anyways. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is complicated. I was just digging through FSP the edits and most of them were quite decent, and not a single one that I've found that should be reverted. But the early and extensive use of the specific term consensus in edit summaries and talk pages, more advanced wiki formatting (pipping, manual reference citiations, etc), is just astonishing to see all this from a self-proclaimed brand new editor. Perhaps as they stated the are simply well researched before they created an account, and they got overly emotionally invested in one article that things escalated faster than it ought to have. Perhaps this is warning enough to FSP, with the knowledge that now even more eyes are watching. TiggerJay (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I learned the term 'consensus' FWIW from mistakenly adding something to 2025 prior to this and being told it was not consensus. I don't know what pipping is, and for the citations I just used the little wizard tool that's available in the editor window. I assure you that I am done participating as an editor, and probably as a reader too. If anything I have learned that editing in factually incorrect info and making it stick is a lot easier than I thought it was simply as a reader, and that there are fewer guardrails and monitoring than I perceived there to be. FactsheetPete (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

When a highly controversial person, Lauren Handy, was pardoned by Donald Trump and released from prison a few days ago, it is not surprising that many new editors will be drawn to the article. When the article is semi-protected, it is not surprising that new editors will comment on the talk page. And when the article is written in a somewhat hagiographic style, describing her in an obscurantist fashion as an American consistent life ethic activist instead of something straightforward like "pro-life" or "anti-abortion", then it is not surprising that some new editors will notice that non-neutral tone and object to it. I am not a sockpuppet detective, but I certainly hope that these obvious facts will be taken into account. She is getting a lot of attention. I found out about the recent developments on social media not on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(ec) A new editor who knows what he's doing? BAN HIM!!!!! We only want incompetent newbies here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - she is an American anti-abortionist, how in the world is a the short description "American Consistent life ethic activist" justified? See Consistent life ethic - nothing in her article backs this. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I am not in the habit of looking at short descriptions unless someone mentions one. I guess that you will have to ask Slugger O'Toole that question, or whoever added it. Cullen328 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source that I have seen refers to her as a CLE. It's been reverted anyway, and if @Slugger O'Toole chooses to litigate this, it's probably going to the Talk page before going to RfC if Slugger chooses to play nice and ANI if not. guninvalid (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, Wikipedia editing isn't that hard if you have the right skill set, and it's not too difficult to pick up terms like consensus. This is blatant casting of aspersions, please stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam With a pageview chart looking like this plus obvious content issues, the great-minds-think-alike explanation doesn't seem all too implausible to me. That's not to say I'm fully sold; I wouldn't bet money on there being zero meatpuppetry. But absent additional evidence, I'd say that explanation gives a reasonable doubt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I 100% guarantee there is meatpuppetry going on. Several sleeper accounts, if nothing else. And people don’t create a new account because they saw the discussion, but then edit a neutral article first. And I’ve seen how talk pages of suddenly popular pages develop, and it isn’t like this. The problem is like ‘’one’ of them might not be a part of it, and it’s hard to know which one. So apparently legit editors will have to pretend there’s a new “consensus” developed by 5 redlinked accounts. The good news is that the meat puppets want a better version, so the fact we’re being cheated isn’t the crisis it usually is. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh come on now @Floquenbeam, it’s more like 99.7%. But otherwise it checks out. Otherwise, I’d love to borrow your crystal ball for a few other users while we’re at it.. lol TiggerJay (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, can you 100% guarantee that FactsheetPete is coordinating the meatpuppets? Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

He's by far the least likely to be collateral damage, yes. Not sure what you consider the difference between 98% and 100%, but in my mind there is no significant difference. Don't worry, I'm not going to block someone who's got several admins saying not to. But no, I'm not going to buy the idea that the other four are just his bad luck. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, unsurprisingly, I consider the difference between 98% and 100% to be 2%, but a pretty significant 2% because it is the difference between a modicum of doubt and absolute certainty. I am not saying "don't block". I am just asking "how can you be so sure except that you are self-confident in your meatpuppet expertise?" What's being lost in this discussion is that Slugger O'Toole, not for the first time, wrote non-neutral, activist, pro-Catholic, anti-abortion content, and it only got noticed when the BLP subject suddenly got heavy media attention. Hey, I readily acknowledge that you have more expertise with sock/meat issues than I do, but is it unreasonable to expect something more persuasive than bald assertions? Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of the puppet show currently on display, can someone confirm whether Slugger's editing restrictions have been lifted. I don't see them on WP:Editing restrictions but that search can be wonky. It looks like cleanup is in process, and the situation otherwise in hand. Star Mississippi 02:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • If you mean the topic ban re: Knights of Columbus, it was lifted in 2022. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oh yes, I participated. I will abstain here, but I feel as if some of my comments there remain true. That said, consensus was against me and SO'T is fine to edit in this area, so no TB issue in play. Thanks @The Bushranger Star Mississippi 03:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I wish we could focus on whether or not we have an article that lacks a NPOV that is getting a lot of visits rather than doing detective work on the messenger. They are already saying that they will stop editing this project because of the reception they received. I also wish we could hear from User:Slugger O'Toole. I don't see them reverting all edits and this article is seeing a lot of editing attention right now. Of course, this probably should be moved to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, I have still been lurking here out of curiosity, but it should be made clear that Slugger does revert all edits, but never directly, preferring to do so somewhat furtively so that no 'reverted' tag appears. This is precisely what this edit was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Handy&diff=prev&oldid=1272223301

  This edit restored the status of the page to what it was before any other editors came in and tried to improve it. Basically, WP:OWN as I called Slugger out for in my subsequent revert. There seems to be a general attitude of, if I did not personally sign off on this, I'm not letting it go in the article. I find it interesting clicking through the history of the topic ban that User:The_Bushranger pointed out above that this appears to be a long pattern of behavior, and others have complained of this WP:OWN behavior in the past, with one editor saying "He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article". I have poked around in Slugger's history and I see this possessive behavior in other articles, particularly when it is Catholicism related. I have already said you all can do what you may, as I am eliminating Wikipedia from my media diet and I no longer have a dog in this fight, but if it were me running the show, I would think that a permanent topic ban for Slugger for all things tangentially related to religion is in order, but that's just my two cents. Anyways, best of luck to you all. FactsheetPete (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Just my opinion but I was trying to shift the attention away from you to the status of the article. Going after Slugger O'Toole in such an aggressive manner before we have even had a chance to hear from them is a mistake that brings the attention back to you. If I were you, I think you have made your point here regarding this article and it's time to step back from the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am currently doubtful that Slugger is going to respond soon given their edit history shows they have not edited since the 24th with the exception of the mass revert of FactsheetPete, Isaidnoway, JooneBug37, Mwiqdoh, MusikBot II, TulsaPoliticsFan, and two IPs on the 27th. Might have to wait a couple more days. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

At least from my reading of the situation, this looks a lot like @Slugger O'Toole and @FactsheetPete just can't get along. I definitely don't appreciate Slugger O'Toole's condescension and preemptive "please don't start an edit war" summaries; but that is the heart of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. At least from my read of the page history, the most suspect edit of "reverting to most recent stable version" looks more like cleaning up the residual of an edit war. I don't see that anything is warranted beyond a trout or a reminder of WP:OWN. guninvalid (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have been away from editing for a few days and have only reviewed the first few lines ofthis discussion. Since I prefer to focus on constructive article-building rather than prolonged disputes, I’ll provide my perspective here and defer to the community’s consensus on how best to proceed. This will be my only comment on the matter.

FactsheetPete made several edits to the Lauren Handy article. That was great. I'm thrilled. Some were clear improvements, while others I did not think were so. In line with the normal dispute resolution process, I reverted the contested edits and encouraged discussion on the talk page. However, rather than engaging there, Pete repeatedly reinstated their preferred wording—escalating the dispute rather than seeking consensus.

I also noticed that the talk page discussion included several brand-new accounts that appeared solely for this issue. While it’s possible that this is a coincidence, it’s certainly unusual for multiple first-time editors to weigh in on such a specific topic and then not contribute elsewhere ever again. I trust that uninvolved administrators will review this aspect as they see fit.

To prevent further back-and-forth, I reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. My intent was to create a neutral starting point for discussion rather than allowing ongoing reverts to dictate content. However, instead of engaging in that discussion, Pete escalated the matter here.

I want to emphasize that I do not WP:OWN. I am always happy when people improve articles I create—it's why I create them in the first place. My concern in this case was not about change itself, but about the way it was being implemented—through repeated reverts rather than discussion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole's name

A reasonable question, a clear answer, and then a lot of pointless wikilawyering without even the saving grace of being technically right. @Horse Eye's Back, please find something better to do with your time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe I'm missing something key but given Slugger O'Toole don't we have an WP:ORGNAME/WP:ISU problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC) As far as I know from their history, @Slugger O'Toole has no ties to the Irish organization and has not posted about them nor otherwise indicated any connection. Star Mississippi 16:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Why does any of that matter? They're not permitted regardless Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Slugger O'Toole was a name in an Irish folk song long before it was the name of a blog. Has the user in question demonstrated any affiliation with an organisation, promotional content relating to it, or shared use as you imply? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC) There are no exceptions enumerated in the policy, it simply says they are not permitted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC) There was no such policy when the account was created. -- Ponyobons mots 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Also, it's a bit tricky to verify, but Slugger O'Toole suggests that for the first few years of existence (i.e. when Slugger created their account) it was known as Letters to Slugger O'Toole. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC) There is no grandfathering clause to the policy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC) There literally is: Wikipedia:Username_policy#Exceptions. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Even just citing the text at WP:ORGNAME makes it clear that the policy applies to unambiguously promotional names, which this is not. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Now cite the text from ISU... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Hmm I guess you're right Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I am the name of a song and a city. Are you going to request I change my name @Horse Eye's Back? I think you're off the mark here. Star Mississippi 16:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I haven't requested that anyone change their name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I think we have far better things to do with our time (how does building an encyclopaedia sound?) than trying to punish a user for a unproblematic username they've had for nineteen years. Moving on? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC) What punishment? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User Thalapathy2400 engaging in personal attacks, disruptive editing, edit warring

User:Thalapathy2400 (contribs) has engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks against other users and has amassed six warnings. Their only area of interest is films starring Ajith Kumar. In this edit, the user personally attacks another editor in Tamil by calling them an a**hole, adding no constructive message to the article. The user takes reverts personally and addresses the people reverting as haters, calls reverts to their edits vandalism, continues to add unreliable sources after warnings. A majority of their edits have been reverted, yet they continue disrupting articles and reducing Wikipedia's quality. The user also allegedly inflates box office earnings of movies starring actor Ajith Kumar through unreliable sources. These people are getting their fans wars into Wikipedia now.

In this diff, they've managed to stoop even lower, directing ugly insults in Tamil at an IP. The IP responded in an even more ugly manner.

This was already posted by a different user at WP:ANI last month, but no action was taken.

@Bbb23 @Daniel Case @Deepfriedokra

(101.119.183.246 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC))

Please provide recent diffs of misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean you only take action against WP:PA if it is recent ? I'd translate those comments from Tamil to English, although I'm not sure if it is appropriate to post those here. 101.119.186.122 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We will take past misconduct into account as evidence of a pattern, but we are not going going to take action solely based on old diffs. In the future, please make sure to notify editors when you start discussions about them. This time, I have done it for you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Bullying on edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:IndianBio used a bullying words, [104]. Also, he reverted my warning on his talk page. Please check this user. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible WP:BOOMERANG here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand, what do you mean? Is that possible to curse someone in edit summary? Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, @Camilasdandelions, it's not acceptable, and the edit comment has been removed and IndianBio has been admonished; they really should know better.

However, you also need to be more careful in hurling the v-word around, it has a very specific meaning here (see WP:VANDAL). And you should have notified IndianBio of this ANI, which I don't believe you did. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry and thank you. I'm first time to report some user in Wikipedia, I'll try to notify him if i report someone. Thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've sent the alert to IndianBio already btw. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :)!! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and PS: if you post a warning on a user's talk page, and they remove it, you do not need to post it again, and arguably shouldn't. When a warning is removed, that denotes that the user has seen it. They are within their rights to remove most messages from their own talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I thought we can't delete most messages from our own talk page. Thank you for telling me! Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: there are indeed some messages one is not allowed to remove, but they are very much the exception; see WP:REMOVED for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the "bullying words" were in the edit summary revdel'd by RoySmith.[105] IndianBio has been blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

IndianBio's been blocked by @RoySmith. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I realized that this complaint has been archived but wanted to note that Camilasdandelions has now been blocked twice. Maybe we are archiving these cases too quickly before they are completely resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for temporary account block due to exams

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request a block on my account until February 14th, inclusive, due to upcoming professional exams. I find Wikipedia a bit distracting at the moment, so I kindly ask for a block that prevents me from editing anything during this time. Thank you for considering my request. Paradygmaty (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for the requested duration. —Ingenuity (t • c) 19:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just a note that prior to this request, this editor received a final warning from User:Deb that a block might be coming their way for disruptive editing and a proposed indefinite block is being discussed at WP:ANI. Maybe prior to fulfilling these requests, we should look into the circumstances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a somewhat longer block than the one requested would help to clear this user's head. Deb (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to commingle the two. If the ANI thread (I haven't looked at it) leads to a community block, that will supersede their self-requested block, just like an admin resigning under a cloud. I don't think we should open the door to scrutinizing self-block requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOT

Might be worth keeping an eye out for any non-policy compliant/non-consensus-based changes to this policy page. FYI. Serial (speculates here) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this about just the one soapboxing editor that you didn't notify about this discussion, or is it a more widespread problem? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

When I start a discussion about an editor, I will certainly notify them. If I thought sanctions were due, I'd have posted at Incidents. If it were an ongoing bevahioral issue, I'd have posted at Incidents. In the interests of keeping things low key, I post here with a request for eyes. And the system works. Not forgotten, I see. Serial (speculates here) 14:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You started a discussion about disruptive edits on a specific page on which only one editor has made disruptive edits. It's a stunning bit of wikilawyering to say that that's not starting a discussion about that editor. And I really don't know what that other discussion you linked to has to do with this at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You did, indeed, start a discussion about an editor. You did not notify them. You are required to notify them. Don't WP:WIKILAWYER and instead go notify them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Would you be willing to explain what exactly you mean to say about Ivanvector with that aside, "Not forgotten, I see"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Just before anyone else pries that Pandora's box open any further, I'd like to point out that I have long subscribed to the philosophy of not giving a fuck, and if Serial thinks that I commented here because of a vendetta over an utterly inconsequential comment about whether or not I was involved in an unban discussion from two months ago, and not because I'm an administrator and have the administrators' noticeboard on my watchlist, then they are simply wrong. Serial, if this is about something more serious that I've completely forgotten about, feel free to remind me on my talk page.

As for Stevenmitchell, who ToBeFree notified a little while ago: they seem to have been on a crusade about what they perceive as administrative overreach, but they were the only editor disrupting WP:NOT and were reverted pretty quickly. This isn't out of character for them: they've had a list of "Some Articles That I Have Started & Were Deleted by the Heavy Hand of Wikipedian Deletionists" front-and-centre on their user page since 2017. That POV doesn't seem to leak out of their userspace often, but every once in a while they drop a comment like this BLP violation, or this one, or this. Actually a lot of their talk contributions are posts like this, asking leading questions like "why don't we write about this awful thing that this awful person did?" without providing any citations to support what they're suggesting at all, and complaining about other editors removing their comments although I didn't actually see any examples of that. Also, of the six articles they list as heavy-handed deletion: three never existed, one was PRODded, one was draftified and then expired (PROds and G13s are both eligible for WP:REFUND), and one is currently an article which Stevenmitchell added an external link to in 2010 (7 years before creating their list) and hasn't otherwise edited, and that article has never been deleted. I think we may have a WP:RGW WP:NOTHERE case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-unselfdebasing and autoflagellating comment) Serial (speculates here) 16:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Keeping things low key doesn't work at this noticeboard, which is why requests for revision deletion are prohibited here for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Admin dashboard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just noticed that "Administrator instructions" at the top right of Template:Admin dashboard is a redlink. Could someone with template editing experience please fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we perhaps just remove the link as there's not really much dashboard-specific to explain while each of the noticeboards has its own instructions? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it has to do with part of the Admin dashboard/rfarfp section. Not sure how to fix it though. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

What's its purpose? GiantSnowman 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks to be coming from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Header. Perhaps someone more skilled in the art of template-fu can help. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's the source @Jake Wartenberg. If you remove the portion for perms and hit preview then the red link disappears, but the same doesn't have when removing the AIV bits. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. So, it has to be one of the pages transcluded by Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

looks like the {{Floating link}} at in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav needs an <onlyinclude> to ensure it's only displayed on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and not anywhere else that page gets transcluded to. Nthep (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Cross-posted to VPT. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Somebody may have edited something since this discussion started because I cannot see what this is about. I see no "Administrator instructions", red or blue, at Template:Admin dashboard. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav was suggested as the cause but it's not currently transcluded there. It does make an "Administrator instructions" link but it's blue on every page [106] where it's currently transcluded. It's only red on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav itself but that page does not appear to be meant for direct viewing. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is resolved; thanks for pointing that out. Not sure who fixed it or how, though. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, it was broken 24 January by removing <noinclude> in [107] and fixed 26 January in [108] by restoring it – unless Template:Admin dashboard was transcluding another page which passed on a transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Nav. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

The Arbitration Committee thanks HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) and SilverLocust (talk · contribs) for their excellent management and clerking of Palestine–Israel articles 5. After consultation with the clerks team, the Committee is pleased to announce that HouseBlaster and SilverLocust have completed their traineeships and are promoted to full clerks, effective immediately.

The clerks team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the team is welcome to apply by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § HouseBlaster and SilverLocust promoted to full clerks

Closure request for ITN RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments has been sitting there for 3 and a half months, dead and unclosed. Due to its incredible impact, it'd be wise if some admin would finally close this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A quick skim of it makes it seem like it may be better closed by a panel. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there some sort of dedicated venue to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu - Wikipedia:Closure requests ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but a request to close that RfC has been sitting there for 3 months. Is there a special page to request panel closes? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... with panel, if they'd like to announce themselves here they can :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank youse! Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relentless POV-pushing and ignoring Administrators's instructions, reverting their edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Taha Danesh has been taking part in relentless POV-pushing by ignoring administrators' instructions and reverting their edits and making disingenuous edits to pages with the intent to "Iranify" historical personalities. Examples of reverting administrators' edits here [109][110], also he removes content that describes a historical personality as Arab and instead Iranifies him with no source provided here[111] other examples of reverting administrators edits here[112][113][114][115][116] he also removes the part about a statement being a warning to Iran I presume because it doesn't fit his political agenda, in the same vein he downplays the number of political prisoners executed in Iran here a number of times [117][118][119] Montblamc1 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1: you are required to notify this editor of any threads that you start here, per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Everything I have added is based on highly reliable academic references, including works from many top-ranking universities worldwide. You did not mention anything except claiming that I added information, but in reality, I have provided more than 20 references combined across these pages, all of which are highly reliable and among the best sources available. The number of references is so extensive that listing them here would be frustrating; instead, you can see them in the links our friend has mentioned, which are very clear.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Taha Danesh (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And I haven’t ignored any administrator’s instructions or reverted their edits as far as I know. I believe this claim is false, I haven’t received any warnings about this matter from any user—not from them, nor from any administrators. Taha Danesh (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michaelshea04 (formerly Michaelshea2004) unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm bringing forth an unblock request on behalf of Michaelshea04. Relevant context:

• UTRS appeal #99181, the current appeal
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive
• User talk:Michaelshea2004, the original account, to which this editor no longer has access
• [120], the previous AN unblock request
• Yamla has found no technical evidence of VPN use or ban evasion

Unblock request, as submitted to UTRS:

As I have been instructed, I have stayed away for 1 year and now I'll try my best to not make a mess of it like I did my previous one and try to keep it fairly straightforward. I am still globally locked. As you know, I am guilty of my extremely inappropiate and vulgar edit summaries as Michaelshea2004, as well as my non constructive edits where I only changed one or two words, mostly past tense to present tense. Whether or not it was for either reason, I do understand why I was blocked for "not here to build an encyclopedia" because overtime I understood that when I have a user account, I am expected to contribute and actually improve the encyclopedia, not just perform minor edits, because even if I didn't understand that there was anything wrong with that at the time, I do now, and I was indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia" I was only here to act immature and as I said in my previous appeal, I absolutely deserved everything that came to me. Of course, like everyone else, I did not take this well and I had numerous accounts and IP addresses blocked after the same behaviours occurred. In my previous appeal, I did not understand that if I wanted to be unbanned, I had to convince you that I want to actually improve parts of the encyclopedia, and not just that I will not repeat the same behaviours again. By saying that I wanted to just be on Meta and not your project, or by proposing the edits I wanted to make, which was much of the same as before, I believe that is the reason why the decision was unanimously opposing. I do wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, but not to the same articles as before, and certainly not the same disruptive edits as before. I want to contribute to vintage computer magazine articles, any associated software printed in it, as well as any computer music software as well. I promise that I will not just change 1 or 2 words. I will not change past tense to present tense, and I will use the edit summaries properly.

Asked to comment directly about vanishing (see previous AN request for relevance):

[...] I already understood that vanishing just isn't an option. It's as simple as that, I was not intending to game the system, nor am I now, but I can understand why you believed it came across as that, because if I want to be unblocked just to be vanished, what's the point of unblocking me anyway if I am not going to contribute and improve the encyclopedia?. I have no idea if I will get 500 edits, constructive or not, I will absolutely do my best, even it it takes a year like you said, or over that. Like I said, I want to start over with a different and much better editing style and much better choice of articles. [...] No vanishing. It's not an option. It's as simple as that.

With thanks in advance to the community for their consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The original block was, in my view, pretty small potatoes. As for the socking and related disruption that happened afterwards and resulted in the lock, well, that was two years ago, and they've expressed their embarrassment for being a dumbass and pledged to avoid edit-warring. Time for everyone to move on. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. per Asilvering above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Looked over prior appeal and user page and contributions, glanced at sockpuppet investigations. Original issue seems to be immaturity. Appeal sounds earnest. This looks like a low-risk (to Wikipedia), so appropriate to give them another chance. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral as prior closer, which was purely about consensus vs. any personal opinion on MS' conduct. I do not have any time to look into their behavior, but have no reason to oppose this request either. Star Mississippi 03:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, user now has clue, user wishes to edit constructively. I say let said user edit constructively and unblock them. JayCubby 00:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. There's no reason to doubt the appeal. Welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinite protection of Square

• Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I saw a post on Reddit ([121]) about the article square (the geometric shape, not the payment processor or the pejorative) being indefinitely semiprotected. The article was protected in 2015 by Anthony Appleyard, who I have not pinged since he died a few years ago. Anthony mentioned frequently reverted IPA edits, which I assume is a typo for IP edits. I went a bit back through the history before protection and it does seem like every IP edit was reverted over a long period of time; I didn't review each one but a few I looked at seemed like typical high school vandalism, which makes sense given the subject. I don't think that any article should be protected forever, so I thought of trying pending changes or removing protection entirely and seeing how it goes, but what do others think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine it would have got a lot of rubbish, but please unprotect and we'll see. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

My controversial opinion is that pending changes is best for very low-visibility articles, and has been kind of tragically misused for the exact opposite of that. I'd say if you want to trial-unprotect it, just go for it. Can always reprotect if needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. I use pending changes for the kind of articles that get vandalism once a year, but take 3 months to be reverted. Semiprotection is overkill but pending changes is perfect for those situations. On popular pages though pending changes kind of just gets in the way. Galobtter (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If each admin watchlisted a couple (or at least one) random article that's likely to get vandalized or spammed, I think it'd help a lot. Just pick a word that's really common, like "square" or "pencil" or "casino". I already got casino because that's an obvious spam magnet. But why not think of a commonplace word and watchlist that article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis on "a couple (or at least one)" (or try to have other outlets). And odd watchlist entries beget more odd watchlisst entries in the medium/long-term, in my experience. Keeping a relatively crazy watchlist of pages I had no real interest in going for many years was a major factor in how I lost my adminship, because I found so much weirdness over the years. Maybe it's just me, but reading about a disruptive user (speaking in general terms here, and I'm talking about both good- and bad-faith disruption) on a noticeboard, etc. is a far different experience from finding them on your watchlist and seemingly being the only user around to clean up their edits. But "seemingly " might be an illusion; there are lots of other admins and editors here, whose attention is often fragmented by their own aims on this project and real life, and who may or may not be as willing to investigate/monitor a user as you are. But we do have way too many articles that aren't properly watched by experienced users, a state of affairs that compromises our integrity as an encyclopedia. But it's worth trying to keep a sense of balance and perspective regarding your watchlist; it's one of the few aspects of Wikipedia editing that's completely private. I don't know where I want to go with this, or even if this is the right place for this mini-rant, but I had to put it out there. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Having said all that, I've added a note at that article's talk page in case any watchers of that article want to comment. Graham87 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I looked at my Watchlist but I think it was a few years ago. I think there are around 200K pages on it. I don't know of a quick way to whittle it down. My advice? Don't click the button that adds every article you edit to your Watchlist or it will grow unmanageable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Special:EditWatchlist/raw; ctrl+a; ← Backspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Special:EditWatchlist/clear also works, and it's two-click! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin and theleekycauldron, thanks for the suggestions. I tried using the tool listed on the Watchlist page when it was only 30,000 pages and it didn't work at all. I'll try out these ideas. I'm sure there are a lot of pages for entire namespaces that I can easily remove. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Pending changes seems to work fine for Timeline of the far future and Iodine, which receive 2+1⁄2 times the pageviews. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Looking back at the Reddit post just now I'm a little concerned that I've put together a tasty bean salad, so I'm going to lower the protection to PC with an expiry date and throw the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Added to my watchlist. In fact, as I have edited this article and it's in an area central to my Wikipedia-editing interests, it surprises me a little that I did not already have it watchlisted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that Anthony had died. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Editing behaviour!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Request withdrawn because everything looks good! Sorry for the unnecessary discussion. Kindly close this discussion.

User @Garvitpandey1522 has done around 600 edits in the last 10 days, which is good, but their editing behavior seems suspicious. They are directly targeting pages for speedy deletion[122],[123] and the articles he created seem to be AI generated please also check timestamp.[124],[125][126] I feel they doing all these activities from a chatbot without following Wikipedia's guidelines. They seem to just be trying to increase their edit count. He is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia maybe for abusing by multiple accounts.[127] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:S-Aura, why didn't you notify the editor about this discussion? This is mandatory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have just added it to their talk page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why @S-Aura is doing this. I haven't made any wrong edits or created non-notable pages. When I pointed out S-Aura Page mistake on Kuldeep Sandhu's page—where he manipulated references by using news sources about different people—I corrected all the references and removed those that didn’t represent Kuldeep Sandhu. I also raised this issue with senior editors. After that, he started targeting me.

Is it my mistake to raise concerns about using incorrect references to make a page seem notable? Or is it my mistake that I am actively contributing to Wikipedia by creating notable pages?

Moreover, the Kuldeep Sandhu page, created by User:S-Aura, is different, but the article he wrote is actually about Kuldeep Sandhu. When I pointed this out in a constructive manner, he started targeting me.

You can check my edits—if I have done anything wrong, please point it out. Most of my articles have already been reviewed by senior editors. If I have made any mistakes, please guide me, and I will ensure I follow the guidelines properly in the future. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am contributing to Wikipedia with good intentions, adhering to guidelines, and welcoming feedback. While I do use AI to help me with grammatical corrections, I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Garvitpandey1522,

It’s not about the Kuldeep Sandhu page it’s about your overall behaviour note it WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I have already explained that the issue happened due to confusion between Sandhu and Singh, so you shouldn’t exaggerate my mistake. I am completely agree with your action on that page. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yea! But fully depends on AI generated content without proper verification or editing may lead to inaccurate or biased information. It should not be used to bypass the responsibility Read it carefully. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have properly cited references for every line and even every word in my articles. If you are pointing this out, you are also questioning the editors who have reviewed and approved my articles. If I were doing anything wrong, the reviewers would have highlighted it during the review process.Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Brother, I am not questioning the editors who reviewed it, because they can also make mistakes. If it only about a review, Kuldeep Sandhu was also reviewed, but there is an error on that page so please. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it should be left to the experienced editor to decide. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing permenantly protected pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm VidunOriginalezLK, I have permission to edit semi-protected Wikipedia pages now, but I can't seem to figure out the requirements to edit permenantly protected pages.Can anyone help me by sending me the needes requirements? VidunOriginalezLK (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to extended confirmed pages, you can see the requirement here: WP:XC. The requirement is that account has existed for at 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report on Moderator Misconduct: Rusalkii

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Description:

I am reporting user Rusalkii for unjustified removal of my edits on the Peer Gynt article, specifically regarding the “Peer Gynt Disco” project. I believe their actions are not in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, as the contribution was written objectively, referenced independent sources, and focused on a contemporary artistic interpretation of Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt and Edvard Grieg’s music.

The moderator’s feedback cited promotional content as the reason for the removal, but the edits were clearly framed in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, emphasizing cultural and artistic context rather than personal promotion. This deletion appears to be an overreach of authority and potentially a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

I am requesting a review of the moderator’s actions and an evaluation of whether the edits can be restored after further refinement, if necessary. Attached are screenshots of the removed contributions and all relevant discussions for context.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kirieolay (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang you are only here to promote your project. That's not what wikipedia is for and you are edit warring for which I've blocked you. When the block is lifted you may resume editing but not about your project. Star Mississippi 02:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• The Bushranger, I am, for now--look at their talk page. I don't know, maybe they thought we're all the same person. You know how this is going to end: editor wants to put their own work on here, editor has no interest whatsoever in learning what we do and how we do it, editor persists and gets upset, editor gets blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SunloungerFrog is making promotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@SunloungerFrog this user is making promotion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Ghulam_Shah_Badshah_University. I've just removed some sort of promoiton, but it was reverted back so I need your attentinon. Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

See too my entry for Jazzbanditto on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for harassment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks

Бардюк Олег Юрійович (talk · contribs) was blocked by me on UkWiki for vandalism. He started and continues to attack me here. Please take some action against him. ❄️Mykola❄️ 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it just the post to your talk page? Or is it the stuff in Ukrainian on User talk:Andriy.v too? For some reason Google translate won't work on that text, at least for me. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Google translate is working for me now. I'll have a word with them. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. ❄️Mykola❄️ 18:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know if it continues. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake and didn't check if they'd been notified of this thread. Mykola7, you need to do that if you report someone at AN or ANI. I've done it for you. However, hopefully I've nipped things in the bud. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The {{User}} does not send a ping on EnWiki? Or you mean that notification must be made on the talk page regardless of the ping here? Fortunately, I am not a frequent visitor here with such requests, but I will remember this for the future. Thank you. ❄️Mykola❄️ 22:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mykola7, it does ping, but a ping is insufficient notification. Please see the notice at the top of this page, which says: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not just at the top of the page... Creating a new section without notification also requires ignoring a big warning message with similar text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Change to the functionaries team, February 2025

At her request, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of AmandaNP are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks her for her service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the functionaries team, February 2025

Please help with the page Crescent Enterprises

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I started a discussion on the talk page about the content I added to the Crescent Enterprises page, I disclosed my relation to the company per WP guidelines. However, the editor Thenightaway keeps rejecting my edits by calling them "state propaganda." I used good sources like Arab News, Saudi Gazette and The National (Abu Dhabi) as well Gulf News. The editor claims these sources are state propaganda, which seems to show bias against Arab media and the Arab world.

Please review this issue with pushing POV and accusations in propaganda. I do understand that I'm not the ideal editor and I'm interested in the page, but the problems are that the sourced material is constantly being removed. Hangi Dowui (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hangi Dowui I see you have started a dialogue at the article's talk page. That is the right thing to do. If this fails please see if WP:DRN is the right venue for discussion. I suggest it because you are in some form of content dispute. This board here is not a place to bring content disputes, I'm afraid, so will I close the discussion. I wish you the very best with your conversation with the other editor, and hope you reach a suitable mutual understanding. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been some lengthy back-and-forth at the List of presidents of the United States, especially since the election, and on the talk page as well, where one particular issue has led to multiple edit requests, due to many of the users being first timers, and this has also led to multiple, fragmented discussions. I directed all the threads to a new, single thread to try and determine a consensus, and seven days later, I posted a close request at WP:ANRFC. User SkullyWasHere closed the thread, and posted their opinion, regarding a consensus. I have since posted a request to their talk page, asking they undo their close to allow a more experienced editor to do it. There has been no response, but it doesn't appear that they've edited since then either. They only have about 40 edits total since joining in July 2023, so they're an infrequent user and who knows if/when they'll edit again. My issues were several; they only had ≈35 edits at the time, (Redacted) their youth and inexperience, but they also injected their own opinion/preference into their closing remarks, and made a error with the template, (a minor one, but add it to the other items cited).

At this point, I would ask that an experienced editor review the close at Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Seeking consensus for Cleveland & Trump presidental photos, and if you agree with it, then perhaps add your remarks as supplimental, then we could just leave it be for now. I'd then post a note to SkullyWasHere's tp to tell them to disregard (unless you feel anything should be done.) If you don't agree with the close, then perhaps you can privide direction regarding next steps. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel, I've just found that this page seems to draw a significant number of fly-by ip users for some issues, and having a clear consensus on those issues, that can be pointed out on the tp, is helpful in keeping disruption down. Thanks - \\'cLf 07:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, the RFC-in-question was closed too early. GoodDay (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The closer undid their closure, and it doesn't look like a formal RfC to me, but I avoid these things.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block User:Aidillia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block me from this Wikipedia. As I've made the greatest mistake. Aidillia^(talk) 01:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aidillia_violating_interaction_ban for an ongoing discussion involving this user. --Yamla (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UTRS hit 100,000 requests

As of a few minutes ago, WP:UTRS hit 100,000 requests. See UTRS appeal #100000. Thanks so much to everyone who works hard to handle these requests, dealing with both private data and regular threats to kill us. It's a thankless task, but we do often get to point people to WP:ACC so they can be set up with an account and do occasionally get to unblock users. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Does the 100,000th customer get a prize? j/k 331dot (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They get a chance to walk back their claim that their account was compromised. :) No points for guessing which way it'll go, though. --Yamla (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I keep meaning to help out there more. It is indeed a fairly thankless task, so thanks to those who are doing it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you (Yamla, DFO, Pppery, Star Mississippi, 331dot, and many others), who deal with the jumbled mess that is unblock requests, death threats, wheedling, and of course aiding the users who genuinely wish to be unblocked! As a side note, thank you also for draining the cesspool of RfU and UTRS down to a reasonable level some time ago, and keeping the backlog low! At one point the oldest UTRS appeal (which if I recall correctly was a seemingly open-and-shut spam case) had been open for nearly six months. JayCubby 15:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there could be a more fitting unblock request for big number 100,000. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

LOL. I thought maybe a toaster oven . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, damn. We should have had a blinking banner ad ready to go. -- asilvering (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I would have offered as prizes a printout of Mr. Treason's hyperbolic legal threats, the sources Primetime plagiarised from, and a plaque reading "UNBLOCK REQUEST" on a set of wheels. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @JayCubby. @Deepfriedokra deserves all the Flying toasters for teaching me and so many others how to navigate UTRS. Star Mississippi 02:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

2409:4063:2301:1020:E9B6:5C0D:7B3A:E8A2 Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As above, this IP has vandalized multiple articles continuously and have been warned 3 times. 2405:4803:FE1E:13F0:B62B:7CB0:258A:5818 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

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

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request a revision to my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear All. I apologize for placing too many tag templates on articles, and have made every attempt to refrain from doing so. Now that we are approaching six months of my topic ban, I would like to ask for the following amendment to my topic ban. The reason, that I am recommending this amendment, is because the topic ban recommended, that I refrain from adding templates such as {{initiated}}, {{requested move}}, {{stub}}, {{split}} and {{histmerge}} that were not an issue for me.

I would like to have the topic ban lifted, but I would be agreeable to refraining for at least 6-12 more months from adding {{2p}}, {{ic}}, {{+Li}}, {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} tags (if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else), or even making statements on talk pages to either get references added or information updated. I also hope, that I will still be permitted to remove obvious vandalism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: AN/I thread leading to the following topic ban:
  

  Jax 0677 is indefinitely topic banned from applying any maintenance tags or templates, broadly construed, to articles, drafts or other applicable project spaces.

  Discussion following imposition of topic ban. Jax has not been blocked since the topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Jax has not shown that he understands why the topic ban was necessary to avoid disruption and has not explained why the topic ban is no longer necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban was needed so that I would add citations to articles instead of adding tags. My plan is to add references instead of adding tags. This is why I listed the close to one dozen templates above that I do not plan to use. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've struck my oppose for now. I'll review your edits further. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  The request contains a statement of willingness not to use these templates for several months. Sounds like a decent explanation of why-topic-ban-is-unnecessary to me. No opinion on the whole request, since I don't have time to look into the situation properly. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning modified oppose with slight support, although I do commend Jax for their efforts in this topic ban. Part of the issue with their template usage was they'd continue to ask editors to do something. This I raised when they occasionally ping me for "can I do X?" which I think is much better than doing it and ending up accidentally blocked. I do think Jax means well. Some of this just not need doing or if it does, there's no reason it has to be Jax doing it since they're not aware of when it becomes a nuiscance. I don't think there's an issue with stub and history merge does need action by someone else, but initiated, split and requested move are too much of the same clerking that got them here. So while I have no issue with the ability for some tagging, I don't think opening to all of these is good idea.

Star Mississippi 02:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Leaning more strongly oppose per @Cullen328 but also per Jax's reply to @Caeciliusinhorto-public. Jax, you still seem to be missing the piece that you don't need to do these. Someone else can list for closure, etc. I don't think you yet fully get the issue with your tagging so it may be too soon. Star Mississippi 14:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Good evening. I have had some time to think about things. I realize that I need not use {{initiated}}, {{split}} nor {{requested move}}. For {{requested move}}, the titles of the articles will be what they are, and redirects can allow readers to find the article in question. For {{stub}}, I need not use it, because people know that the article is short whether the template is there or not.

However, there are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons".

Perhaps I need to request exemptions for specific templates based on need only. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The topic ban was imposed exactly six months ago, indicating that this editor had the six month mark on their calendar, ready for an instant appeal. The discussion six months ago showed that this editor did not understand why other editors disagreed with their radical overtagging. The editor repeatedly engaged in I did not hear that behavior to the point that some other editors thought they were trolling and several supported an indefinite block. The editor displayed a complete inability to "read the room" and rapidly re-adjust to the legitimate observations of other editors. The extreme length of that discussion indicates that the editor was willing to act as a wilfull and defiant timesink, who seemed to lack the competence to realize why their overtagging sprees were disruptive, and a willingness to force several other editors to waste time studying their disruptive editing pattern. I believe that the volunteer time of our productive collaborative editors is our most precious commodity, and that we ought to have little patience for overt time wasters. Their talk page requests for clarification of the topic ban shortly thereafter are additional evidence of a lack of understanding. Now, after six months and a handful of minutes, we have this brief and overly succinct appeal of the topic ban which amounts to "I don't really want to tag articles but I want to be allowed to do so anyway". Their listing here of many tags/templates that they want to discuss and either use or not use indicates to me that they still maintain an unhealthy over-interest in tagging. No remorse for the massive time wasting of six months ago and zero explanation of how lifting this topic ban would benefit the encyclopedia. Perhaps I am wrong and could be convinced of that by reason, self-reflection and an actual persuasive argument. Cullen328 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding just the this editor had the six month mark on their calendar, ready for an instant appeal part, that seems like a petty objection. I assume this request was made per WP:SO which requires that you Wait at least six months. They waited six months. If we wanted them to wait "six months plus some random amount of time which makes us think you're not really eager to get this over with", we would have said that. If you have some other objection, that's fine, but let's not beat them up for following the instructions. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's the issue with time-guided sanctions @RoySmith. Editors are not wrong to think "six months (in this case) is over, I can go back to doing what I was doing" whereas we intend it more as "six months should help you learn more about how to better edit here". It's my POV from the discussions on their Talk that while Jax absolutely means well, they don't yet understand that the tagging is unnecessary/unwanted. The project has not fallen apart due to their inability to tag and I think allowing them free to tag will bring us all right back here. They're within their right to request the SO, but in this case so case is made for changed behavior. Star Mississippi 02:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: a ban from using eleven (possibly more, given Jax's comment that "if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else") different tags seems unnecessarily complicated and convoluted to me. The issue was not with these specific tags, it was with Jax's excessive and inappropriate use of tags in general. Twice in the original ANI discussion, Jax promised to refrain from adding specific types of tags and then immediately started adding a different type of tag ([128], [129]). I don't see any reason to believe that the problem was or is those specific tags. If Jax now understands why their tagging was disruptive everyone would be better off if they just appealed the TBan in its entirety: they would not have to remember which tags they are or are not permitted to use, any nobody else would have to concern themselves with remembering which arbitrary set of tags Jax is or isn't allowed to use. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am OK with lifting the entire topic ban in its entirety. With the topic ban the way that it is, I cannot add stub tags, request a proper new article title (case in point, Emily Armstrong), nor request a histmerge of an article that underwent a cut and paste move. If I add a closure request, I have to add the closure request without the {{initiated}} template, and wait for someone else to do so. I offered the suggestion as a compromise. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: rechecking tags is time-consuming, and any appeal needs evaluating in that context. This restriction was applied 6 months ago when an AN/I complaint rebounded on him. In that discussion, and others leading up to it, Jax 0677 leaves a strong impression of WP:IDHT together with misunderstanding how to appropriately use mainspace tags. For an experienced editor, both problems are considerable and not easy to overcome. I simply do not have confidence that giving back 'tagging rights' will end well. The proposed trial period doesn't help: if the previously problematic tags are excluded, the trial period is not trialling much at all. Trials should not be used to paper over the cracks of a fundamental doubt, of the sort which exists here. arcticocean ■ 21:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very mild ban. Not being able to tag pages is a minor impediment to an editor, and I think the risk of recurrent problems outweighs the benefit of allowing this particular user to tag pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm hesitant to change what appears to be working well, especially when I tend to get so much push back from Jax virtually every time I ever warn them of misconduct or ask them for clarity on the confusing things they do. It took a rather harsh and extensive reaction from the community to actually get Jax to even seem to listen to the concerns. I think where it's at, is where it should stay. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3X standard offer appeal for WikiManUser21

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WikiManUser21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is appealing their block, as they were repeatedly caught socking, WP:3X requires a community review before unblocking. They appealed six months ago, but had made a single block-evading edit shortly before that so it was declined. They appealed again yesterday, a CU has not detected any recent socking, and the blocking admin has stated that they are ok with an unblock if the community approves one. Here is the text of their appeal:

It’s been six months since I’ve tried to appeal my block. It wasn’t accepted due to me socking a week prior. I wanted to comply with Wikipedia’s standard offer. Therefore, I have decided to take a long break from Wikipedia. However, as we have passed the deadline, I want to appeal my block, which in my opinion, was 100% justified. Again, I want to remind you that I’ve been blocked for numerous reasons, including disruption, ignoring warnings from other Wikipedians, using sock puppets to bypass my block and making up false allegations against administrators, accusing them of mistreating newer users. I take full responsibility for my wrongdoings and I apologize for being such a nuisance in the Wikipedian community. If I get unblocked, I promise not to disrupt Wikipedia’s policies anymore. My plan is to collaborate with other Wikipedians and to prove myself as a trustworthy Wikipedia user. Thank you. WikiManUser21 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question: I'd like to see a proposed edit from WikiManUser21, but support in principle. JayCubby 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a rough indication of this user's age. I know there is a prejudice against anything that could be taken as revealing personal information online, especially when it involves minors, but there is an enormous difference in the likelihood to learn between a seventeen-year-old and a nearly-seventy-year-old like me. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's .... a bit of an odd ask. I've also found that the best path to good judgement is facing the consequences of your poor judgement, which is what this looks like to me. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this would be beneficial. Knowing a user's age group doesn't sound like a good thing to base an unblock on. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support standard offer, because we definitely shouldn't ask them to disclose their age as an unblock condition.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator abuse in Portuguese Wikipedia (Chronus)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report an issue regarding administrator abuse in the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt.wikipedia). The administrator Chronus has been removing my discussion topics and blocking my attempts to seek mediation regarding bias in the article "Espiritismo" (Spiritism).

Main Issues:

Censorship of Discussions: Chronus deleted my mediation requests when I raised concerns about neutrality issues in the article.

Double Standards in Religious Articles: The Spiritism article uses terms like "purported" and "claims to explain," while other religious articles (e.g., Catholicism) are not subjected to the same skeptical language.

Imposition of External Labels: The term "Kardecism" appears in the introduction, despite the fact that Spiritist organizations reject this designation. Per Wikipedia policy WP:IMPARTIAL, groups should be referred to by their own designation.

Blocking Attempts to Seek External Help: When I tried to escalate the issue to a wider community, my discussions were deleted by Chronus, preventing me from addressing editorial concerns fairly.

Evidence of Censorship & Abuse:https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Esplanada/geral#Pedido_de_Revis%C3%A3o_e_Interven%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Administrativa_no_Artigo_Espiritismo - https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=69506993 - https://imgur.com/a/g46bGa3

I kindly request that neutral administrators review Chronus' actions and investigate whether he is violating Wikipedia’s neutrality and fairness policies (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL). If necessary, I ask for intervention from global stewards to ensure fair editing practices in pt.wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

~~~~ Sócrates-Platão (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Portuguese Wikipedia. If you are not able to address issues on pt.wiki, you can bring it to Meta-wiki _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but please, if you do take this to meta, make your post legible by not bolding half the words. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paid editing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I strongly suspect paid editing is involved in the articles of Phoenix Ancient Art and Hassa bint Salman Al Saud

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.254.143.32 is registered to Charter Communications Inc, is that a PR company? Huldra (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it's an internet provider. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks User:Schazjmd. This ip removes the criminal history of the people involved in Phoenix Ancient Art and of Hassa bint Salman Al Saud, that is why I am asking,Huldra (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That this IP is registered to an Internet service provider is not evidence either way, that this is a paid editor or not. It just means that you will have to look for other evidence, maybe behavioural. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed discussions which was not on Closure requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On this talk page, many discussions were closed by some people. All of them were not on Closure requests, and they were on progress. The summaries seem to be unappropriate. A discussion I started were closed by the summary of "Waste of time" (in fact, it had not passed even 1 week after creation). Could you remove the closures? Or, can I remove them by myself? NakajKak (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LgShai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

personal attack? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Diff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I posted them a warning on their User talk page. Let's see if it changes their behavior. Could just be someone having a bad day. Admins differ but I need to see more than one nasty comment to block for incivility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I really hope they don't make any more nasty comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What Liz said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki!

Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—reverse partial blocks—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions. I think it's important for developers to communicate with the community (in this case Admins) effected by new changes or features so we can work together to find out the best way to implement them.

What is it?

Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a wish from Barkeep49 and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on Special:Block)

The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code here on Gerrit. Once approved, it will go live on English Wikipedia the following Thursday.

Try it out

I’ve set up a Patch Demo instance where you can preview the new features, including the updated Special:BlockList and Special:Block interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out).

To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (without TPA or account creation, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password.

Your feedback

If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!)

If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not?

I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts!

Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting feature. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

When I look at the message at [130], unless I'm missing something, it seems to be saying he (she?) is ONLY prevented from editing the Arbcom page, as opposed to being blocked sitewide except for the ArbCom page. "blocking the page ArbCom/Cases/Mallory with an expiration time of indefinite". Doesn't that sound like they can't edit their ArbCom page but can edit anything else? --B (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for trying it and providing this feedback! Yeah, I totally agree and am fixing the log message now :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I feel like this feature could be very useful. However, the block log message seems kind of counter-intuitive and inaccurate because it is still the standard P-block message, only a "reverse" label added to it. This could create confusion because it is still literally worded "blocked (user) from editing the page (page title)... (reverse)". This still implies that the user is blocked from editing those specific pages, when in reality the user is blocked from editing every other page except those pages, so this message isn't really that much accurate. I think something along the lines of "with the exception of pages (pages)" could work. User3749 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mallory" is an autogenerated account by PatchDemo, I'm not quite sure about their gender lol, but yeah, the log message does need improvement, thank you for your time in trying it out and bringing that up (with a perfect suggestion for the new message). I'm fixing the code now. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Update on feedback: I've successfully improved log messages as requested (thanks for the feedback!), they look like the below:

Log message
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:36, 25 January 2025 Admin (talk|contribs|block) changed block settings for MolecularPilot (talk|contribs) blocking them sitewide except for the page ArbCom/Cases/MolecularPilot with an expiration time of 1 week (autoblock disabled) (Blocking with this summary) (unblock|change block)

Additionally, someone noted on the Patch Demo wiki that there was a bug with revoking TPA but using a reverse partial block. This has now been resolved, it is possible to revoke TPA but use the new feature to still allow them to edit some pages.

This isn't avaliable on the Patch Demo or gerrit yet, but will be soon. Thank you to everyone for their feedback! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL, that was me testing the feature, I needed it because I run a bunch of other MediaWiki wikis (mostly Miraheze). Should I also note, that once I tried reverse partial blocking for a specific page while also blocking account creation, and while logged in as Mallory I don't think I was actually prevented from creating accounts (I didn't actually try to create one but I was able to access Special:CreateAccount which normally should not happen) which might be an issue caused by this. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for helping to find bugs! Yesterday I submitted the new code (with better log messages, fixed TPA, rpbs via the API) to gerrit and today I updated the patch demo instance. I tested it (locally and on patch demo) and it seems the behaviour is that you can go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out all the fields etc. but actually pressing submit will tell you "you are blocked from doing this", and it's the same with regular old partial blocks w/o account creation. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

On a terminology note: rather than calling it reverse partial blocks, which to me feels like I have to mentally invert the set of affected pages a couple of times, perhaps the feature could be called something like block exceptions? isaacl (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I like that name, thank you for suggesting it! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I second this, seems less confusing compared to reverse partial blocking. In this case there would still be a separate option on the Special:Block interface, but labeled "Sitewide with exceptions". User3749 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's perfect! I'll update the (currently pending WMF review) gerrit patch. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious talk page message

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I got a weird talk page message from an anonymous editor. It is not in English nor Turkish (two languages that I know) so I used Google Translate and the output text was pretty suspicious in both English and Turkish. I want to know if this user talks about some real things, or if he/she is just trolling. Thanks. I didn't want to report it to WP:ANI or the emergency e-mail because they are for very serious problems which may not be the case here, and I don't know anywhere other to report this, so excuse me if I'm in the wrong place. RuzDD (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like spam in Persian to me. As to why it was posted to your talk-page, I have no idea. It says something like: "contact me and be hidden from safety (?). Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for lifting my topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello everyone.

I would like to request my topic ban, that has been imposed on me since 2022 (see here), be lifted.

I believe I have demonstrated good behaviour to the WP community during these about 3 years.

I am requesting the lift of this ban mainly because it greatly reduces my ability to work on Eastern Orthodox and Christian topics. Veverve (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If your main reason for wanting it lifted is to edit those articles, perhaps a narrowing of the tban should be considered. "Russia" is certainly a very broad topic. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Veverve, please tell us about the problems with your editing that led to your topic ban, how your approach to editing has changed since then, and why other editors can feel confident that removing or modifying your topic ban would not result in new problems. Are you expecting a complete removal of your topic ban or are you willing to accept a modification? Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A question: Given that the topic ban was instituted by WP:AE, wouldn't any appeals need to be addressed there? TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You will find the answer to this question at the collapsed section “Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions” and its neighbor over there; the venue is fine. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this governed by the CTOP procedures not the non CTOP ones? I just assumed it was CTOP since it's EE but in any case, it seems to be CTOP since it's logged here Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Eastern Europe. If it's CTOP while the venue is valid, as I noted below the appeal doesn't seem to be since it doesn't use the required template (which is also noted in the appeals procedure for CTOP in the collapsed section). Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments, CTOP (as with DS before then) restrictions can be appealed by 'request review ..... at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN")' and can be lifted or modified if 'a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN'. However per the CTOP page, 'Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.' so this does seem to be in invalid appeal. So User:Veverve I suggest you withdraw this and resubmit it via the correct template. I think the main reason for the template requirement is because it makes it easier to assess if it's a consensus of uninvolved editors. Also administrators are encouraged to be more vigilant in enforcing decorum requirements than might be the case for more normal AN discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I would add that I wasn't aware that there was such a requirement, and initially posted as such. I'm fairly sure I've seen successful appeals which did not use the template which per WP:NOTBURO etc I'm sure we won't overturn but still illustrates the situation is a little confusing. While the template does have the advantages I noted, not everyone likes it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw this application as advised by Nil Einne, as it does not meet formal requirements. Veverve (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyes needed at Talk:Natalie Portman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's quite the brouhaha at Talk:Natalie Portman. When I blocked NetanelWorthy, they threatened a call to arms noting they would "flood this site away". The article has had to be extended protected due to the subsequent disruption and the talk page is now being overwhelmed with edits based on posts on X by a couple of advocacy accounts. The talk page now has a CTOP notice, but the non-EC edits continue. Any help in keeping an eye on the talk page would be appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I've ECP'd for a few days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed several messages from NetanelWorthy's User talk page that I thought were threatening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin needed at Denali

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It needs either protection again or some blocks for edit warring. I'm too involved to make the call. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess I could protect it. Normally, listening to heavy metal puts me in the mood to block people, but I guess I've built up a tolerance to having angry people scream nihilistic lyrics in my ears. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Full protection on this article. Some editors could probably get edit-warring blocks but I'm nearly done for the day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming that at some point the outrage machine will move on to other topics and it won't seem like something important enough to get blocked over, but I've been wrong before. I miss the days when it was just a page about a mountain and not a political hot-button. Thanks for the protection NRP. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection ended this morning and then the edit-warring started back up. Now protected for a month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and threats on an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

173.245.254.67 (talk · contribs) and 173.245.254.78 (talk · contribs)
I'm reporting both of these IPs (most likely used by the same person) as their behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash, which has since stopped, has been, to put it short, quite atrocious. Barring the non-constructive comments made on the AfD, these two IPs have made comments that are quite simply unacceptable, threatening the lives of users. [131] [132] [133] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Those IP addresses have rightly been blocked. Please close this, someone that knows how. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Non-administrator comment) Don't we usually report death threats to WMF? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I reported it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

My restrictions.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi I have made the decision to quit editing further. The restrictions and mass exodus of editing has killed my interests to continue further editing. If a community ban is needed. I accept. Im not improving and others are getting sick of it. So just do what is best. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @DragonofBatley, I totally get why you feel this way. Seeing such a huge list of things to do will overwhelm anyone, let alone anyone with neurodiversity.

I was a bit worried this might happen when the list was created, which is why it's important to tackle big tasks in small stages and - most importantly - step away if things get overwhelming.

It sounds like you should do that now. Other editors are working on the list, but you shouldn't if it's upsetting or stressing you out in any way. That'll only make you hate editing.

You don't need a community ban, you need space. Step back for a while. Don't edit, ideally don't even look at Wikipedia. Don't give yourself any sort of timeframe for coming back.

If or when you feel up to it, you can come back and see how things are going, or not come back at all. This is a voluntary project, you don't have to do anything if you don't want to.

Sign out, close any Wikipedia pages or bookmarks, and go do something fun. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query to admins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am hoping to get some feedback on an action I took. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Voluntary IBAN, DoctorWhoFan91 adopted a one-sided IBAN between themselves and Alex 21 and added themselves to the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary list see here. They later reverted themselves, saying, in part, in their edit summary, Some admin can take the action. Since this seemed to be what they wanted, I reverted their revert and added them back to the voluntary editing restrictions list. I'll admit that I could be seen as having a COI as DoctorWhoFan91 complained about me several times in the ANI report for not taking action against the other editor although they refrained from identifying me by name.

So, should this voluntary editing restriction be removed even though the editor suggested it and adopted it or was I incorrect? I'll accept whatever opinion the admin community says is appropriate. Thank you for offering me your thoughts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Maintain IBAN. An editor can't just rescind their voluntary editing restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Query as the second side of the IBAN. I'll have no arguments however this turns out, whether it's maintained or extended to a two-way, but I'd like clarification on how an IBAN works. Per this comment of mine, are any of the latter three diffs listed there in contrary to an IBAN? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At first glance temporary two way iban may be effective. It seems as if a temporary two-way IBAN may be in order. I cannot look in too much detail at this time so take this bolded !vote with very little weight. The restrictions that are the most effective are the ones that are the least restrictive, being narrowly tailored to just the particular areas of disruption. If there is a need to extend it can be done further down the road. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

On second note, maybe an indef 2way iban appealable after six months. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is not about expanding the IBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Aasim, no one, admins or participants, proposed a 2-way IBAN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, striking out. Had a long day. I can say a voluntary ban is a contract between the editor and the enforcers of the ban. If the community decides a ban is unwarranted, making it voluntary doesn't change that. I see voluntary restrictions as a way to avoid wasting the community's time on disputes that have resolved themselves. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Or matters which petered out bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically. (Just a factual statement) And only the original statement could propose anything here, unless participants means in the ani thread-where in fact a propasal to make it 2 way if any admins wants was made, so no one proposing anything more than a 1way iban is not really factual. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically Who is this factual statement referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, who request a speedy deletion at 8:42 utc on 6 feb(she had been tagging csd, and checking prod and afd for hours), and at 8:46 utc on 6 feb, replies to my original msg at ani. Given that that includes time for typing, and time for reading the words without reading any of the links, I would say it was a 2 min thought. Generic bcs it is generic- have you tried talking it out- 5 arguments in a week and that is what is replied.

And I do not believe even that 2 min read was carried out properly - on my talk page she writes that no one has time to "review the entire history of interactions" when it was one week out of like 6-8 weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your beef with Liz is and I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I only asked to make sure you weren't referring to Alex 21. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't, I'm not gonna break my iban. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are tracking my contributions or timing my actions on the project. I try to help where I can. I'm sorry if you found my comments "generic". I thought some response was better than silence. But I definitely will stay away from any problems you might have in the future since you dislike what I can offer. Let's all move on and go back to when we didn't know each other existed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Not tracking your contributions, just the one contribution and the ones around it. Some response is better than silence, responses that are basically "here is a summary of how disputes are resolved on wikipedia" when I already wrote why I tried ani, is not. Just for an analogy, if one sees someone stabbed with a knife, responses of "maybe you should apply a bandage to it because that's what usually done for injuries" would probably not be taken well. Yes, pls stay away from any ani posts I might have the misfortune to make in the future, maybe I'll get someone competent rather than lighting mcqueen. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I won't take action but you should really read WP:ASPERSIONS if you are going down that road of insulting other editors. It's likely to be a short road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have read WP:Aspersions, but it says "where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence", and I started out by laying the evidence. I can change "competent" to "who actually reads what they are replying to", if you believe the former word is insulting? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Maintain IBAN: iban was not the issue, I just needed clarifications before I started the iban. What are the restrictions- like i understand I can't reply to the other editor or mention him directly or indirectly and the all the stuff at WP:Editing restrictions- but can I perform actions inspired by them- "namely, asking if uncivility and uncollaborativeness is allowed on wikipedia" without mentioning them, or in case something comes up here or some other noticeboard-provide diffs. And other similar stuff.

There wouldn't need to be a "query to admins though" if somone took more than 2 mins to read atleast something of what was put before them before replying a with generic reply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

An IBAN means stay away from the editor. If you see them editing a page, don't edit it unless you want to risk someone considering it being a reversion. If you see them do something you think is uncivil or incorrect, let another editor deal with it. To answer your question about asking a question about them without mentioning them: you should read WP:IBAN, which states that an IBAN prohibits an editor from mak[ing] reference to or comment on [the other editor] anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I understood that- but if raise a question against uncivility on wikipedia in general(not how did it in the diff, but actually without mention even in the examples), would that be considered indirectly mentioning him, given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies? I'm not supposed to revert him-I can edit the same pages though, iban says nothing wbout that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies That would be "indirectly" referencing the other editor because you've just publicly stated that the other editor is the reason you want to ask questions about the civility policy. If other editors have questions about Alex 21's conduct, they can raise them in an AN/I thread. By voluntarily accepting an IBAN, you've promised to stay out of it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I see, thank you for the clarification, it was the only reason I reverted the voluntary IBAN. You can close this discussion, I'm fine with it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, okay to close? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, voorts, you are the only admin who responded to this general query and it's only been open about 3 hours. But, I guess a resolution among editors is more important than me receiving feedback. I guess if anyone has a comment about this situation they can come to my very busy talk page and either give me a pat on the back or a kick in the shins, depending on what their perspective is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Maintain IBAN. There could be seen as "involvement", but if we went soley by 'admin has been complained about by an editor' we'd quickly run out of admins in some cases. I'd say it's all good here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Maintain IBAN. And for pete's sake someone close this thread before DoctorWhoFan91 gets themselves blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sita Bose globally locked as a sock of WMF-banned user Nrcprm2026

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sita Bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This just happened about a week ago after a Meta CU confirmed the socking and locked the account. This is probably the 90-somethingth sockpuppet discovered after they were banned from enwiki, and some other number since they were globally banned.

I notice there is no LTA case page for the user. I am not familiar with their editing styles, which is why I am wondering if an LTA case page might be appropriate. Since they are banned by WMF, I do think it would be helpful to know their modus operandi to try to detect future Nrcprm socks in the future. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Aasim,

Feel free to start an SPI case if you can identify new sockpuppets but don't create an LTA page, we don't do that much any more. And, typically, we leave tagging the User pages of blocked editors, like you did at User:Sita Bose, to Checkusers and SPI clerks.

Many editors receive global blocks due to SPI cases though, you don't need to report them at WP:AN. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The thing is it was already confirmed by a Meta Steward/CheckUser that the user was a sock.

I understand though if there may be a problem with non-CUs using the {{sock}} template. If an enwiki CU wants to add to SPI for the record, sure go ahead. I don't know if there is a need to go through these formalities when it would effectively mean nothing since the account is already globally locked. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The sock templates are generally used for SPI cases, not for tagging random socks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. G7? Or just leave it there? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I would just leave it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll note the above for future reference. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

Moved to WP:VPT § Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

the-sports.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is one of those "I'm not sure where to ask so I'll try here" sort of things. I ran across an article with a link in "External links" to a listing on the-sports.org. (Here's a link to the old version of the article with the link: [link]) So, this "the-sports.org" has advertising and the info on the particular athlete was incomplete. Taking a closer look at the site as a whole, it looks like it was once a partner of Wikipedia, but that may have been a long time ago - there was a page with a message from perhaps the creator, with a copyright on it of 2002-2016. I also think that because the link wasn't a URL, it was a template (if that's the correct terminology.) I'm wondering if the site has been sold and is now a commercial site, selling ads on pages that, in part, get traffic from us. In which case, we may want to bulk remove any remaining links to the site on old articles.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This should go to WP:RSN. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall repost this over there then. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further reading links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) adding "further reading" links earlier and blocked them after seeing that their 170 edits seemed to do nothing other than add links. The IP did not respond to a WP:REFSPAM concern expressed by ianmacm on 8 February 2025, but the IP has responded to my block message. I think an unblock would be reasonable but before that is done, people might like to consider whether the IP should have their edits restored (as they have asked), and how such activity should be regarded. Obviously there should be a good reason to highlight a particular book. What does work is when an editor who has significantly developed an article adds a couple of further readings that they have seen and which they think would benefit readers. My humble opinion is that other people focusing on just adding links is not reasonable. I will be away for a while—if someone wants to unblock, please do so without further consultation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am worried about the low merit of some of these links. As I said at User_talk:79.13.24.38, "The link added at The Shining (film) added very little of value. Wikipedia is not a directory of links and external links should be chosen with care so that they aid a reader's understanding." There may not have been a deliberate attempt at promoting the links, but at the very least 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) should have a good read of WP:EL before adding any more links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting the creation of a redirect. New South 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 redirect to New South Wales Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The AN noticeboard is for issues impacting the project's administrators. I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, Servite et contribuere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz But I do find Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a bit confusing. Do I just type it at the bottom of where I can type? It's not an important redirect anyways. It can be done later Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Servite et contribuere, there is a blue button named Click here to request the creation of a new redirect. Click on it, and it will give you instructions regarding the creation of a new redirect. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste It's after the Blue Buttons I find it tricky Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

For help like this, I recommend going with your questions to the Teahouse. They have editors around to walk you through steps like these. AN? Not so much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC close

Does anyone want to tackle the close here: Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity? Formative days have mostly passed and not enough recent opinions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Page deletion which I have made

So I have written a wikipedia page about Pernia Qureshi and Now I want to permanently delete it. Rohitbisht1985 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The Pernia Qureshi article has existed since 2013. You're also no longer the biggest author of the page. [134] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Note the OP last previously edited in August 2019 before appearing today to try to G7 this article (declined due to not being the only, or even largest, contributor) and then PROD it (removed the PROD as no rationaile was provided at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to be clear for any new editors reading this, that being the largest single contributor to a page confers no special authority. A request to delete a page is sometimes acceptable if there are no other significant editors (meaning roughly, that there may be other editors but they are either performing administrative task like adding categories or maybe fixing a typo but not adding anything of substance to the meat of the article.) There is never a situation in which simply being a substantial contributor to a page gives you the right to request removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

They made four or five attempts to delete it. I’ve pblocked them from the article. I am very interested to find out why @Rohitbisht1985 wants to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I assume it's the "Personal life & Legal Cases" section that could be seen as not very flattering. I just don't know why they didn't remove any negative content and instead sought deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone on an IP did try deleting stuff today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like most of the legal issues are about her father, not her. I’m going to remove some of those. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask User:SierraTangoCharlie1 if Pernia Qureshi or a relative has been in the news as they edited the article today, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw some unknown ip address edits to her wiki page. On further reading I found that the page had a lot of data which was about her father or a relative, and not exactly worth being kept on her wiki article . Hence, I removed those edits and stated reasons for the same. STC1 _talk 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Almost all the negative info came from a single edit last month: Special:Diff/1270596693. That editor Samdan25 only made that one edit. I’ll invite them to the party too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Samdan25 blocked from Pernia Qureshi 31 hours for reinstating some of the stuff about her father. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

why delete the article? If vandalism occurs, we can always correct it. The Last time Pernia was in the news was when she divorced her second husband (early 2024) followed by a Vogue India article about Wedding Gowns (late 2024). STC1 _talk 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick uncontroversial move request of interface page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-xff be moved to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-xff? Apparently some maintenance script (I presume) supposed to update the messages didn't do it so now the message is in the wrong place. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also fix the parameters so they are correct after the move. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, you might get a faster response to your query at WP:VPT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is yet another sock of long-banned Florentino floro, so technically all of these uploads can be speedy deleted. We have an entire article about him at Florentino Floro that may help those unfamiliar understand the issue we are dealing with here.

He's been blocked here for sixteen years, but continues to sock and disrupt both here and at Commons. He takes pictures of everything, completely indiscriminately. There is no reasoning with him, it's been tried and it has never accomplished anything. I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long, I was hoping the office banhammer would come down.

So, to get around to the point, there are hundreds of largely useless uploads from this account [135]. Do we FFD them one at a time or just nuke the entire site from orbit? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Just G5 them all. FFD would be a waste of community resources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What voorts said. (one can grow old waiting for the foundation.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

G5 them all. Not only are they useless, many of the photos include images of private individuals, including children at waterparks etc. No thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm also hoping that posting this will make more admins aware of his pattern so new socks are dealt with quickly. It seems like the reason he's doing this here is that they finally chased him off on Commons, so it is at least within the realm of possibility that if he keeps getting caught he'll move on to... I dunno, mass uploads at Meta or something. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've hit the nuke button, with apologies to the WMF server gods for the extra cargo.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so that was the database error! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Umm, it would appear so. I'll knock it back to 25 at a go, with breaks. I think this is the first time I've actually broken something.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I get an error when I try to delete the images even one at a time now, so I think it's now just a database lag from the massive nuke. I'll wait an hour and check again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Haha, I was trying to do it at the same time, so perhaps we both broke something? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's Spider Man pointing at Spider Man.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If my memory is not failing me, Special:Nuke has a tendency to break under exactly those circumstances. JayCubby 23:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I managed to successfully G5 the water park images of children files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

All images have now been deleted.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Guys, seriously, when they tell you not to cross the steams, you really should listen to them. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two of you? Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not really a nuke button if you can't actually nuke anything without breaking the database. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File deletions are more work on the server than normal deletions because it has to move the entire file (and all versions of it) from the Swift container used to store live files to the Swift container used to store deleted files, whereas for text no content is moved and everything is in the same database. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Just curious about the context for I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long. Is there a feature of a global ban that would get around the "volunteers have to figure out it's a sock of a banned user and then take action" bit? If not, what does global banning do other than providing an easy reason to ban on other projects if/when disruption occurs? Regardless, global bans can be proposed on meta without the foundation, although perhaps there feature of the ban you're alluding to is only part of the meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and not just global bans? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't always work, but sometimes when a person is office banned, they change up from disrupting the projects to pestering trust and safety and/or legal, who get paid a lot more than we do. It was also my hope that as a former judge, maybe if the legal department told him to stop, he would. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

From reading his article (and good lawd have mercy) the legal department telling him to stop would only "encourage" him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cover Images with Albums/Singles

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Cover Images with Albums/Singles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Scammer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user named "Muhammad Shahroz Muhammad Aslam" on LinkedIn is impersonating a Wikipedia administrator and targeting users in the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. He messaged me, claiming he could approve my Wikipedia article if I "fix some issues."

Wikipedia editors should be aware of this scam to prevent others from being tricked into giving up information or paying for fake approvals.

LinkedIn Profile: [INSERT LINK HERE] Screenshot of Message: [INSERT LINK OR COPY TEXT OF MESSAGE] ButtonWarren (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:VP. guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ButtonWarren,

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning, it should have some information for you and where you can report this scam. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that this message appears to be entirely AI-created. Strange? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mellk Has Acted Contrary to Wikipedia Guidelines

Clearly a sock and a WP:RUSUKR violation to boot. Hatting. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:UNCIVIL: The aforementioned user @Mellk has twice referred to the edits and contributions of other Wikipedia users as "bullshit" and told other users "not to write nonsense". WP:EDITWAR: The user has consistently participated in editing warring since his first block on April 1 2020, a block which he has proceeded to delete any record of on his talk page. He is a permanent fixture on the Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard for his involvement in editing warring. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers: A brief glance of his talk page reveals numerous editors he has intimidated and pushed off of the platform for holding competing views. WP:OWN: His self-confessed patrolling of articles concerning the topic of 'Ukraine', in one instance he wrote 'I watch the page Ukrainian language'. In November 2023 he wrote that if "you use your user page to try convince everyone that your POV does not negatively affect your editing, it is not a good sign' however Mellk repeatedly deletes edits to his talk page that question his objectivity. Mellk has been accused by numerous editors of allowing his POV and overt pro-Russian bias to adversely affect Wikipedia and the articles he edits, he has similarly been accused by numerous editors of going after editors rather than content and making personal attacks on editors. A topic ban on the area in which he causes most disruption on Wikipedia (Eastern Europe) is long overdue. Creditcot (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC) You need to formally notify Mellk of the existence of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page, pings are insufficient for this purpose. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC) This looks like a sock. It is definitely strange that a new account that has made about a dozen minor edits all outside of the EE topic area and has never interacted with me before is now proposing an EE topic ban and recalls something I supposedly said in 2023. Mellk (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Mellk has been notified of this discussion, as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account, this is routine behaviour for Mellk, as his editing on Wikipedia speaks for itself (aggressive and intimidatory) he will move directly to attacking my account, as he has done with so many others.Creditcot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Creditcot Whatever, please use your normal account to open AN threads. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Actually socking aside, isn't this complaint a violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War? Creditcot lacks EC under this account. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC) as predicted he will proceed to cast aspersions on the integrity of my account. Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would suspect you of acting anything other than completely aboveboard. Do you really expect everyone to believe that as an account created last month with 12 edits, having never edited an article which Mellk has edited, for your 13th edit you reported them to AN based on ... an edit made more than a year before you created your account, and more than 25,000 edits back in their contributions? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move help needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NeverBuyItForAntony (talk · contribs)

I had to time indef this user but I have to go elsewhere. Would someone please reverse the page moves and otherwise cleanup. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, Johnuniq, with help from User:Yoshi24517. I didn't add a blocking notice on their User talk page as I thought that should come from the blocking admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately my user page was one involved. I think I undid all of my pages correctly, Liz, if you don’t mind doing a quick check for me that would be great. I got email notices for my user and user talk pages and their associated edit notices. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we got everything, Yoshi24517 (mobile). They are targeting some of the same admins as a week ago so I opened an SPI on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

copied from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes

Trainrobber66

New username: OA3g93hi
(understood why I can't put # in username, renamed as a result). I understand that my new username can be random. However, I simply want to remain anonymous on wikipedia now due to security reasons. If username is changed, could you also delete the revisions and entries from here? Trainrobber66 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

 Renamer note: To clarify, user asked the stewards for a rename and was told to come here to see if the partial block raises any concerns about renaming. Generally, we do not rename if "under a cloud." It looks like the blocking admin, @Red-tailed hawk: is not available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Let me take a look at this case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

After re-familiarizing myself with this case, yes, I do think this would be a case of "under a cloud". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the rename, but regardless of whether it goes ahead your not going to get revision deletion for all your edits. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Kinda weird that they are claiming the name change is because they want to be anonymous when their current name is equally anonymous. In any event they currently are not allowed to edit article space at all. I'd say that's a pretty major "cloud" and wanting all their edits deleted isn't exactly encouraging. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to fly. If it weren't for the pblock I'd just suggest WP:CLEANSTART but there's the pblock, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Should I go for it? Create an account under the name OA3g93hi? Trainrobber66 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Worse than obfuscation of your partial block by changing user names , it would be creating a sock puppet to obfuscate your partial block. Successfully appeal your partial block. Then seek renaming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Trainrobber66 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing of editor King Lobclaw by a now-banned user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Krucial Khristian Kru, an editor already banned for a username policy violation, apparently had an email conversation with another user, @King Lobclaw (see here) where Krucial admitted to canvassing. Lobclaw later admitted to having been canvassed as well (see here) and later confirmed this in the discussion thread on the Gulf of Mexico page as well as on their own user talk page when asked about it. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Krucial Khristian Kru is blocked, not banned. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You know the consequences if you fail to do so certainly sounds like a threat. I have suggested to King Lobclaw that if any further efforts are made to compel them to edit on behalf of a blocked user they should contact the trust and safety team. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just an FYI that King Lobclaw just said they plan on deactivating their Wikipedia email link in order to sever that contact method and prevent Krucial Khristian Krew or any of their socks from targeting them further. I think we should likely discount their compelled !vote but take no further action against King Lobclaw. However for the threatening editor I think a community ban against the sock master for canvassing with threats should be logged. They should not be coming back from their block. Ever. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I blocked email access for Krucial Khristian Kru. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm pretty confident that Krucial Khristian Kru and their family of socks are FiveSidedFistagon - so, yes, they are banned. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Their name abbreviates to KKK, so regardless, they're not here to contribute positively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Today "Crucial Christian Crew" (now blocked) appears to have doxxed and alarmingly comprehensively. RFO sent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Review of Closure: RFC on Musk’s Alleged Nazi Salute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Closer: guninvalid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I request a review of the closure of this RFC, as the closer failed to properly weigh arguments and misapplied WP:SNOW.

• Failure to Weigh Arguments – The closure relied too much on vote count rather than policy-based reasoning. Several valid policy arguments were not meaningfully addressed.
• Misuse of WP:SNOW – The discussion was active and contained several perspectives, making SNOW closure inappropriate. The outcome was not so obvious as to justify shutting down debate.

The closer reiterated their belief that this is SNOW close in the follow up discussion. I request an administrator review the closure, as it may have prematurely ended a legitimate discussion that had only been open 12 days. Given this is a WP:BLP more care should be applied to discussions of this nature. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Closer statement

Closer here. I'm not sure whether I count as a participant or not so here I am. I reread through it just now (and probably more closely than I did when closing it) and I support my original close. As @User:Simonm223 pointed out here, most of the non-trivial B arguments boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Multiple A/C voters directly rebutted these arguments on multiple points. From weighing these arguments, I agree with some A/C voters that WP:RECENTISM was being misinterpreted. Looking back at my close, I could consider removing the WP:SNOWCLAUSE assessment, but I'm not convinced I would even do that. The only other option I would seriously consider is closing as no-consensus and reopening with better options and proper question wording. guninvalid (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any editors directly argued against WP:NOTNEWS, but several editors disputed WP:RECENTISM. Next to the WP:RS arguments though, I'd say it still weighs in favor of A/C. guninvalid (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants

• Hard to evaluate the close when the RfC is so badly worded: "So, can we say 'Musk received widespread criticism for what some perceived as a Nazi salute (An accusation he denied)'" -- say where? Instead of what? Based on what sources? Is it asking whether it can be mentioned in the article at all, or is it about the lead? Is it about one sentence about the salute among the full paragraph that's there? At the most basic level, insofar as there's we have an entire article related to something Musk did, it would be contrary to summary style to exclude it -- is that the debate? Or is it some aspect of the wording? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse RfC result Having read through the thread I would have closed it exactly the same way if I'd come across it. There was a massive numerical superiority to including mention of the nazi salute in some form but, beyond that, the stronger argument was for inclusion. Arguments against inclusion boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM but neither of those accounted for either Mr. Musk's now multi-year flirtation with the far right (which kind of undermines the recentism argument) nor did they provide adequate justification for how WP:NOTNEWS applies. Discussion of whether to include Mr. Musk's trolling photo collage of democrats with their arms stuck out or a video of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez making an arm gesture that was clearly not a Nazi salute is completely pointless to an assessment of the RfC question and should honestly be struck as WP:NOTFORUM. Meanwhile those who supported inclusion successfully demonstrated significant reliable coverage of the gesture Mr. Musk made and demonstrated that it was a notable action. This was a good close. There's no need to belabor RfCs that clearly will go a specific way just so that Musk fans can repeat the same forumy asides about perceived opponents of Mr. Musk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• It's kinda odd seeing the closer quote Simon223's analysis/summary of the arguments when the closer should have done that themselves, considering they knew it was a contentious topic. I also think it should have been allowed to run the full thirty days. Should it be overturned, probably not, but in the future, the closer should take note of giving a more detailed closure rationale when closing a contentious topic RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The only reason was because I thought it was WP:SNOW. In hindsight, I probably should've still included a sentence or two, but as I stated in the post-close discussion, I felt that the B arguments had been properly disputed by A/C editors. I just explained it in more detail in my statement above. guninvalid (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close I second Isaidnoway's concerns about process/closure rationale, but overall the close seems like an accurate reading of consensus. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close although I think we need to be aware of proportionality. It doesn't need excessive coverage, and if he does many, many more things it may end up being dropped to keep the article balanced. This shouldn't bind us forever. Secretlondon (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC was malformed, and the specific question was whether to include it at all. That's why I added that the exact wording should be discussed separately. guninvalid (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Relist. Substantial numerical superiority on one side after a couple of weeks != SNOW, considering the arguments before the closer.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Void. This RfC is ineffective, serves no purpose, makes no difference, because the stand-alone article Elon Musk salute controversy exists and it obviously not going to be deleted, and per Wikipedia:Summary style, the language to be used in the Musk article should be language which summarizes the salute controversy article and draws from the language used in that article. Using significantly different language would be impermissible WP:POVFORKing. A mention of this event was already in the article, and there being some edit warring not in itself a reason to start an RfC—this is ultimately just about how to describe Musk's gesture. Starting the RfC actually gave air to the preposterous and concerning idea that the Musk article can not mention the event at all, which is clearly not on the table. The only question is how to word something, and the RfC did not make any progress on that front, and no specific progress is needed to begin with, because the "Elon Musk salute controversy" article answers how to word it.—Alalch E. 09:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn early closure and Relist - When WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are being argued as issues, and when there is a minority viewpoint being argued, even if by a minority, an early closure, whether snow or otherwise, is unwise. This is especially true if the closer is an inexperienced editor closing a contentious topic discussion. I don't like most appeals of bad non-administrative close, but this appears to have been one. The RFC should have been allowed to run for 30 days, and should be allowed to run for the remainder of 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  But to what end? Despite actually thinking the close was, for what it was, appropriate I actually find @Alalch E.'s point quite compelling. As the controversy page exists and is unlikely to be deleted WP policy is pretty clear here. And reopening the RfC won't change that regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Participants

• Well it should not have been snow close but to assume that "Failure to Weigh Arguments" seems like a massive assumption, based on (dare I also say) it a Failure to Weigh Arguments.Just becasue they did not get the result they wanted did not mean their arguments were ignored, just that they may not have been good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Here (by the way) is the RFC [[136]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• It's shouldn't be closed as SNOW and the merits of the arguments, especially in context of this being a BLP need to be part of the closing discussion. This is a case where the declared consensus may be correct but if the RfC is to have meaning the rational should also be correct. Note that I !voted exclude but by going only by the numbers I think this is consensus for include. Springee (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Just as a note, since people are asserting that WP:NOTNEWS wasn't addressed - I view NOTNEWS and RECENTISM as intrinsically connected, at least in this context. My extended comment there rebutting the RECENTISM arguments obviously applies equally to the NOTNEWS ones; I assumed that that went without saying. Beyond that, while the RFC was oddly-worded and should have had more workshopping on a specific wording, it was clear that the real dispute was "should this be included at all", and the discussion was extremely lopsided in favor of inclusion. The arguments for exclusion (as I pointed out when analyzing the hollowness of the RECENTISM argument) were weak because they lacked specific reference to the context at hand - simply repeating NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no context-specific argument, as many of the arguments for exclusion did, isn't a strong argument at all and isn't something people ought to expect would help them in a case where such arguments also clearly failed to convince many people. Note that Namor's own arguments from the RFC fall into this category - a vague handwave towards NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no explanation for why they apply here; those policies obviously do not support the automatic removal of everything in the news or everything recent, so the lack of context made them extremely weak arguments. As, again, I clearly indicated during the RFC, and which nobody adequately rebutted! And many of the other arguments against inclusion relied on editors trying to interpret Musk's gesture themselves or expressing their own personal opinions about it, which a closer obviously had to disregard. Overturning a lopsided majority requires that you have clearly stronger arguments, and while obviously everyone is always going to think their own arguments are the strongest, I'm simply not seeing how anyone could hope to win on the merits of their arguments with arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose RfC result, the rationale was poor. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Unless someone can point to a specific line of NOTNEWS that applies here, it's a weak argument. The only paragraph that could maybe be used is the second one, and even then the gesture and reactions to it definitely exceed "routine news coverage". – MW_(t•c) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse result, but not the close. Per Rhododendrites above, the RfC was malformed, and to provide some context here it also doesn't reflect the current situation with the Musk article nor the Salute article. It arrived when the page was 14,000+ words prior to undergroing summarisation, and a day before the AfD was imitated, with the overwhelming number of votes coming during this period. To relist would be to reassess such consensus prior to a dramatic change in content that has become the status quo. Now that there is consensus for the Salute article as a standalone article, and the Musk article converted to summary style, the argument for exclusion, inclusion, or reduction of content, would be completely different. There are no size issues to consider anymore, nor an issue with where to locate the content, and the summary in question was also been trimmed (without opposition) since the original RfC to align with rest of article, as opposed to an ever expanding liveblog-like commentary. Generally I feel like the previous dispute was resolved given the changes that occurred to the article, the consensus established at AfD, and the content being completely different now. I believe these factor should be strongly considered here, not to mention the lack of any recent editing dispute at the article to reduce or expand the summary. I concur with others it was not a snow clause and the rationale was poor, but I really feel like we could just move on from this and instead continue improving Musk child articles rather than rediscussing an expired issue. Edit: also what Alalch E. said (that I didn't see before my comment), as this is another good way to look at this situation for broader context. CNC (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.